Forbidden Palace - catch 22

[player1]

I agree, that corruption shoudl do the way it is designed, but I think that effect should be toned down, a little.
Like:

-Corruption on Tiny map should be like corruption on Small map
-Corruption on Small map should be like corruption on Medium map
-Corruption on Medium map should be like corruption on Large map
-Corruption on Large map should be like corruption on Gigantic map
-Corruption on Gigantic map shoudl be lower than now.

-just to improve a GAMEPLAY

-I mean it is OK if you can't realy controll (make usefull) a 60% of World, but make it possibile to control a 40%, not a 15%.

[Robert Plomp]

btw, I wouldn't say that the point of the high corruption is "fewer cities are better." It is simply the negative side of having a huge number of cities. Certainly, there are positive things about having that many cities!

In Civ2, more cities was always better, so it failed to qualify as an "interesting decision" (one of Sid's requirements for good gameplay...) In Civ3, we believe that having more cities is better under certain circumstances and having less cities is better under certain circumstances

[Ray K]

Originally posted by Soren Johnson Firaxis


btw, I wouldn't say that the point of the high corruption is "fewer cities are better." It is simply the negative side of having a huge number of cities. Certainly, there are positive things about having that many cities!

In Civ2, more cities was always better, so it failed to qualify as an "interesting decision" (one of Sid's requirements for good gameplay...) In Civ3, we believe that having more cities is better under certain circumstances and having less cities is better under certain circumstances.

Did anyone test the game on a Tiny map?

The map generation for that size has an annoying habit of providing very few rivers or fresh-water areas.

[dennis580]

Well thats one way to stop ICS dead in its tracks. You probaly should just concentrate on building a few big cities instead.

[Hose]

Originally posted by Oerdin


The answer is simple; an inadequate amount of playtesting was done. I hope this issue will be fixed by an upcoming patch and that the game can be balanced to allow a military victory as well. Right now Fraxis has been so anti-military that controlling a colonial empire is virtually impossible.

patch?? ahh, come on! the hole corruption thing is great! it's one of several more realistic facettes of Civ3.
Most of the strategies used in Civ2 don't work anymore and that's just great!
i didn't pay $60 just to play another Civ2 with some enhanced graphics...

[Master Marcus]

to resume the discussion about corruption: this is obviously an anti-ICS move, planned from the start by the team to imprint a more realistic struggle between strong civs til almost the end of a long game. So far Civ III's AI is strong when defending and attacking, and expand at a fast pace. The genocidal and extermination thing is much more hazardous to manage. I agree though the Forbidden Palace isn't as beneficial as it should for the cost. A good candidate for a fix in the first patch. Also, in distant cities the corruption should affect the gold income as it is now , but with a lighter side effect on the shields. This should be fixed, if possible, in a way where some of the good citizens of a distant city can logically work as hard as some nearer the capital, without the exaggerated inefficiency in the actual Civ III version, but the cash flow can still be a problem.

Just need a slight balancing with a FP fix, but so far I like how they did balance the empire thriving in the game.

[Grumbold]

I can understand it as an anti-ICS move in the pre-industrial era but find it very disturbing that more advanced governments with modern communications cannot improve upon a corruption rate of everything bar one shield. I wouldn't accuse any "modern" country, no matter how large, of being that inefficient. Even the backward ones only suffer rates like that when there is civil war going on. Smells like a bug in the government code IMO.

[joey703]

Originally posted by Hose


patch?? ahh, come on! the hole corruption thing is great! it's one of several more realistic facettes of Civ3.
Most of the strategies used in Civ2 don't work anymore and that's just great!
i didn't pay $60 just to play another Civ2 with some enhanced graphics...

I agree. Even though I havent tried out the smaller maps, i m playing on a large map and my civ has about 30 cities. Under democracy, and with the forbidden palace sm. wonder in a pretty central spot. Corruption is manageable.

[Ray K]

Originally posted by joey703


I agree. Even though I havent tried out the smaller maps, i m playing on a large map and my civ has about 30 cities. Under democracy, and with the forbidden palace sm. wonder in a pretty central spot. Corruption is manageable.

The "optimal cities" setting for a large map is 24 cities. With a forbidden palace, this is probably better.

Let us know how you border cities are functioning when you get to 40 cities.

[SuiteSisterMary]

more advanced governments with modern communications

Lord knows that Roman Republic or Greek Democracy had great communications. :-)

Now, a couple of advancements should, in theory, reduce corruption. Computers, for example; better record keeping. That sort of thing.

[dainbramaged13]

I hvae this problem too, rush-bought courthouse (or else it would have taken 58 turns with only one prodcution in a size six city, admittedly, half-way across the normal map because of conquest) did absolut++++NOTHING to raise productions rates.

Corruptions definetly needs to be reduced. I agree, it is a good anti-ics measure, but its basically impossible to play as a warmonger in the ancient and middle ages before communism because of the corruption it makes in conquered cities around the globe. I cant build the forbidden palace because it woudl take 300 turns and i cant rush buy it, and i dont have a leader (never had one, even though i have plenty of elites and elite riders running around conquering cities...

[Kc7mxo]

Well, I for one like this corruption, i just wish i knew more about its causes.

But the problem is that the AI doesn't have a clue. If I don't expand all over the map, then the AI will. Which leads to the same problem.

Not eaxactly sure what should be done . . . .

[player1]

Maybe the bets solution is to decrease WASTE (from prod.)
I mean in far distatnt city you just conquered, you can use local resources to build aditional army, but science & trade will stagnate. That way you will compenzate to Warmongers & make Corthouse & F. city easier to build.

On the other way by keeping corruption (from gold), you wil stop a peacfull player from OVERexpanding.

That way you CAN MAKE A STARTEGIC DECISION:
-will you otp form smaller empire with better science & gold rate, or
-will you otp form bigger empire with better production (if wasted is reduced) & military, but bad science.

So if you overexpand, some smaller empire whould get crucail TECH. & take some of your land by militaristic means.

I think that this is reallistic & fun!

P.S. Anyway in civ2 waste was only problem in Despotism.

[Howling Chip]

Playing for three days solid at Regent Level, large map, 8 civilizations. All my games I have gone gung ho for culture (temples as one of my first three builds). I grab all the luxury resources I can get with roads, and base my city builds on luxury items. I've yet to have more than 15-20 cities so far. And I have not made it to the third age in any game yet. The game I am currently playing was started four hours ago. I am up to 980 AD and am in good shape.

From my experience to date with corruption, it is not a bug. I have never had the extremes some have posted. I am not playing total conquest war mongering either. Not to say I have not had my share of wars. I do not start them (well I did goad the Romans into war more than once, and, uh, in my current game the Aztecs asked me if I wanted to give them gold or blood, "make my day" I replied).

Rules have changed from CIV II on how you play. It has been years since CIV II was a challenge at Prince Level. I get the impression that attention to detail will be required in CIV III until one understands how the relationships between cities, population, luxury, tax allocation, etc. etc. all work. I think its to early to think a "patch" or adjustment is required for corruption. Sure this is a challenge, but I am enjoying it. My successes in technology research, finance management, war, they all get better with each game.

I plan to stay with it, read the posts as others find the way to manage corruption and other aspects of the game, and share what works for me (like the culture and luxury angles in paragraph one).

PS: That strategy guide that many claimed would be useless has been very very helpful on figuring this game out in conjunction with the manual. That and three straight days of play.

[chumly]

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
It seems culture is extremely potent in this game & perhaps the 1 area the AI is lacking. I haven't read of anyone losing cities to an AI because of culture, but I've read plenty of people gaining multiple cities from the enemies by culture. Culture also helps with the happiness (and thus production) of your citizens from what I've read. It almost seems culture power is too powerful... especially given the quantity of cities to be gained & since it is not seen as war-like. Comments?

I've read plenty of people playing on difficulties lower than Monarch as well. Yes, I've had the AI consume my cities via culture, several times (as well as combined military assaults, propaganda, etc)

This isn't a slam on people who like Chieftan, just a statement that drawing some conclusions based on many games at a given difficulty do not hold true in some areas of the game (AI most particularly)

World size and configuration are also a big part of the picture.

[LtChambers]

Originally posted by albiedamned

I actually did this in my game once or twice. I think right after I conquered a city which had massive corruption, a rush built a temple using forced labor. I felt bad though - I had just created an UberKrux "deathcamp". But it does work, and there didn't seem to be any lasting penalty other than the dead citizens!

Best solution for keeping your conquered cities happy is to quickly connect them to your central luxury delivery system (should I copyright that? :P), perhaps even with workers you capture from the enemy empire.

It is not a bug, and therefore should not be patched. Firaxis has geared Civ3 towards being a true Empire building game, not just a world conquest game. The military is certainly one part of your empire, but by no means is it as important as it was in Civ2.

Thing back through history - has anyone ever conquered the world? Even those that conquered large parts of it were always eventually brought down by barbarians, corruption etc. In the modern world, no one controls the whole world or even a whole continent (ok, except Australia). Yet there are still certain civs (like America) that are superpowers and dominate the world, despite controlling only a small portion of the landmass. I believe the same thing can happen in Civ3 if you play well.

Amen! You make good points here - the only problem with Civ1 and Civ2 was indeed that the success of a civilization basically hinged on how big it was, instead of the impact it had over history. I don't want to sound egotistical, but it's really amazing (and interesting) to look at how American culture has both drawn and repelled foreign culture over the past century.

One thing that's great about Civ3 now is that you could be the Roman empire at 100AD (mid Pax period) and control a large portion of the world and the most significant amount of culture, and at that time you would have a huge score on the historigraph. Later though, your empire falls and you struggle to survive over the next 1800 years. Perhaps all the other empires also struggle so you end up having the best average historigraph score because of your earlier success! That idea of the averaged historigraph score makes SOOO many dynamic outcomes possible.

I also have a warlord civilization on my modified standard size earth map (had to add rivers!...no rivers in Europe??!?!) and turned to perfectionism instead of expansionism. Once I had a central base of cities and better technology base than my opponents I could conquer them each in turn. The culture core of cities near my capital acted as beacons of light to the heathen masses and kept the corruption in check until I could build a FP in the center of the new captured area. Democracy has MUCH lower corruption than Republic, but like Civ2, more war weariness - so you have to be careful...

Hope this helps somebody...it's goddamn 5:18AM and I have class later today :/

[MisterMuppet]

Just wasted most of Friday morning at work reading this thread.
It is stuff like this that makes this forum, and site, most agreeable.
Off to the Pub to waste the afternoon,
peace, Muppet

[iNMazer]

The idea of making it more difficult to just have a ton of cities everywhere is great, but the effects of corruption need to be somewhat toned down. It is understandable that a despotism gov. or even monarchy will get into troubble when the civ gets too big, but more modern govs should be able to handle corruption WAY better than this! I play on a normal map and have 25 cities, gov: republic. Over 50% of my cities are knocked out by the corruption and I get 1 shield production while the rest go to waste, same for trade. Building a courthouse does not help one bit. Only 6 cities have less than 50% corruption!
My suggestion: The "modern" governments need to deal with corruption way more efficient than they currently do. It's just no fun not being able to have more than 10 cities on a normal sized map without corruption killing you.

[Flurry-of-fun]

I doubt very much that this is a bug. I suspect it is merely a difference in expectations. Everyone here has a much different style of play than the people at Firaxis. I suppose after a time people here that continue to play will learn to conform to Firaxis expectations. Heck, I felt the same way about many aspects of the earlier Civ games. It takes time to find out the best way to abuse the computer game models. First learn how they expect you to play, then try abusing the system.

[Ray K]

Originally posted by Flurry-of-fun
I doubt very much that this is a bug. I suspect it is merely a difference in expectations. Everyone here has a much different style of play than the people at Firaxis. I suppose after a time people here that continue to play will learn to conform to Firaxis expectations. Heck, I felt the same way about many aspects of the earlier Civ games. It takes time to find out the best way to abuse the computer game models. First learn how they expect you to play, then try abusing the system.

Personally, I don't know why I should have a fix for the ICS crammed down my throat when I never used that strategy in the first place.

Raising the "Optimal # Cities" does not even come close to eliminating corruption. It is always going to be a big problem for your far-flung cities (like Civ2), but at least you can build something now.

I've noticed that the AI is more expansive now. It was just one game, mind you, but it was the first time in about 5-6 games that an AI from another continent dropped a city on mine. Of course, that meant war.

Suggestion: we need an equivalent for the Monroe Doctrine!

[lockstep]

As I don´t have the game yet, I´m not able to comment on the general level of waste and corruption. Nevertheless, after doing some basic math I think that the current 'optimal cities' setting in the editor indeed results in extra hardship when playing on tiny maps.

Civ3´s normal map (100*100) is approximately 2.8 times larger than the tiny map (60*60); the huge map (180*180) is 9 times larger than the tiny map. Other things equal (land coverage etc.), the number of placeable cities is also 2.8 times resp. 9 times higher. The default number of civs is 4 on the tiny map, 8 on the normal map and 16 on the huge map. Therefore, the 'average' civ should be able to found more cities on the 'bigger' maps; the ratios are approximately 1.4 (normal compared to tiny map) and 2.25 (huge compared to tiny map).

In the 'optimal cities' setting that seems to define the number of cities with 'reasonable' waste and corruption for the different maps, one would expect to find the same ratios; however, this is not the case. The setting is 8/12/16/24/32 (the numbers for small and large maps included), i.e. the ratios mentioned above are 2 (instead of 1.4) and 4 (instead of 2.25). Therefore, waste and corruption will be much harder on tiny maps than on normal or huge maps, other things equal. I don´t know if this was done intentionally.

If it is deemed necessary to ease waste and corruption for tiny maps, I´d suggest that we assume the settings for the normal map - including an 'optimal cities' number of 16 - to be reasonably balanced by Firaxis. Adopting the ratios derived from map size and number of civs would then result in a new 'optimal cities' setting of 12/14/16/21/26, making waste and corruption easier on tiny maps and harder on huge maps.

[Ray K]

Originally posted by lockstep
If it is deemed necessary to ease waste and corruption for tiny maps, I´d suggest that we assume the settings for the normal map - including an 'optimal cities' number of 16 - to be reasonably balanced by Firaxis. Adopting the ratios derived from map size and number of civs would then result in a new 'optimal cities' setting of 12/14/16/21/26, making waste and corruption easier on tiny maps and harder on huge maps.

Dude, thanks for the math! That makes a lot of sense.

I know that I am one of the few guys that like to play on the Tiny maps, but the corruption problem was not my imagination. Basically, corruption becomes more manageable as the map size increases if you use the game's default settings.

It's been frustrating listening to guys saying "well, I've got 25 cities on a large map and haven't had any problems - quit whining".

I greatly appreciate you pushing the pencil on this problem and will try the settings you suggest.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Ray K
I greatly appreciate you pushing the pencil on this problem and will try the settings you suggest.

You´re welcome. I would try them myself if I had the game, but I have to wait two more weeks before I can even start reading the manual.

Anyhow, I guess corruption will still be a big problem with the new settings (as Firaxis thought it should be), but hopefully not unmanageable on tiny maps.

[mattcj]

I wonder what kind of corruption England suffered way back when American colonists started refusing to pay taxes, and dumping tea into Boston Harbor, etc. Perhaps CIV3 corruption isn't as far off as people seem to think.

[Dominous]

If you look up corruption in the manual you see that it references the "we love the emperor day."

It also says that corruption is caused by having large empires. Doesn't say much on how to solve the problem except what we have already discussed. One point that I want to make is the reference to "we love the emperor day" reference.

The celebration of loving the emperor occurs when you have built appropriate buildings, terrain improvements, and little war weariness. War weariness is one of the largest contributing factors that I have noticed. Later in the game (around 1900's) under democracy I noticed if I had no troops in forign land and was at peace with every civ 90% of my cities would celebrate and corruption would go down drasticaly to the point where I was able to convert ALL entertainers to sciuentists. But as soon as I was at war again the corruption would sky rocket and I would be converting my scientists to entertainers.

My point is: I think many of you are trying to play a war game when you should be trying to play a diplomatic game. I think once you stop waging war so much your corruption problem will solve itself. I am also having problems with this.

In civ2 I use to be able to conquer the world by like the late 1700's. Now I am bearly winning by 2000 and am totaly unable to attack other civ's because of alliences and civil disorder (war weariness.) It's hard to break old habits

Hey, this is just my opinion!

[Jason Beaudoin]

What's corruption like under communism?

[Jack_www]

I have played Civ3 for about 6 hours. I am playing as the Greeks, there advantages are commerical and scientific. I made sure that I built at least a temple in all my cities and I built the forbined place small wonder as well. I also have a lot of goods to keep my people happy, and I do not have that much a problem with corruption. I think the reason why you guys have so much of an problem with corruption is that you have bad habits form Civ2. Some of the things that worked in Civ2 may not work in Civ3. If you make sure you have a strong culture and have lots of luxuries for your people I think corruption will not be that big of a problem. You guys most likely expanded beyond the influence of you culture and dont have all you cities connected to roads so that those cities can enjoy the luxuries you have.

[Lee Johnson]

Isn't it like it was before; i.e., not great, but spread evenly across your empire?

My game hasn't progressed far enough to experience the effects of Communistic corruption firsthand yet.

[Jack_www]

In short, if you want to minimize corruption make your people happy. Going to war, not having enough luxuries, not have that strong of a culture, not have roads to all of your cities so that they can have access to the luxuries you have all make corruption a really, really big problem. Rush buying courthouses and buildind the forbidden palace small wonder is not going to do it like in Civ2. You need to make sure your people are happy. If you do that corruption will not be that big of a deal.

[Ray K]

Originally posted by Jack_www
In short, if you want to minimize corruption make your people happy. Going to war, not having enough luxuries, not have that strong of a culture, not have roads to all of your cities so that they can have access to the luxuries you have all make corruption a really, really big problem. Rush buying courthouses and buildind the forbidden palace small wonder is not going to do it like in Civ2. You need to make sure your people are happy. If you do that corruption will not be that big of a deal.

Corruption is not as big of a problem on a larger map, because the "Optimal # Cities" is set proportionally higher. It's not scaled properly on the smaller maps (especially Tiny), and that's the cause of the problem.