To Firaxis.. Casual Civ Fan Goes Insane from Corruption!

[dexters]

Ok. I'm really a casual civ fan. I played Civ 2 because a good friend of the family was kind enough to give us his copy. I literally heard about Civ 3 weeks before it was released and after reading www.civ3.com I decided to buy the game.

Since the release, I've been looking for Civilization 3 resources and I found this great site, Apolyton. Anyways, I've been lurking reading all the posts, complaints, and so on, and I know there are several threads complaining about corruption/waste problems. I just want to give a more casual joe smith type of impression to this problem.

First of all, to the people at Firaxis who reads this. I understand that more liberal forms of government such as Democracies needen't be excused from corruption. This is actually something I've always felt should have been included in Civ2. I also understand the problem of ICS (I've read up on it!) yay me.

The problem with the corruption issue is familiar so I'll spare you. But here's a brief run down of my expericence-- The first day I got Civ 3, I played a game on the largest map 180x180 (I prefer isolationist games) Because I was still learning the game, I kept my empire mostly isolated to the large continental island I started with, but by the 1900's I found myself lagging behind in culture and in power. The reason? My AI opponents had gone on a major expansion spree, they have cities everywhere. Sure, those far flung cities for the AI may only give back liyylr tax dollars or shields, but by GOD they still RACK UP CULTURE POINTS and the armies that defend them add to the POWER of the civilization.


This is the major dilema for a player and it is unfair. How can we ever win a culture game, or a points and power game for that matter, if we are to play sensibly by keeping our city count low and our empires compact, when our opponents go ahead and overextend themselves and rack up culture and power points, irregardless of the practicality of having those cities there to begin with.

Civilization is play by many people for many reasons. A lot of players like to play on small/medium size maps where contact is immediate and games are short and bloody. But others prefer to play on large maps, and I believe that in an attempt to dissuade the ICS strategy, the developers have unintentionally crippled the playability of games on large maps.
And yes, in my games on the large maps, I only chose 7 civs, instead of the maximum 16, but that was intentional. Too many civs is still too much clutter even on a large map.

I was happy to know map sizes can now be 256x256 through the use of the scenario editor. But I'm questioning how playable that map can be when in an 180X180 map, creating empires are impossible, and occupation of enemy territory ensures those cities will not give the conquering a return on their investment because those cities pushes a civilization over the optimum city limit and they their distance also adds to the corruption and waste.

Here's a couple of suggestions for the patch

1) like communism, standardize corruption among cities in democracies. It makes sense. In a democracy, power is not concentrated in the capital, but is instead spread with the people. To infer that corruption increases by distance in a Democracy is ridiculous. The City is Washington, is in many ways far more corrupt than many cities in the west coast, like Seattle.

2) eliminate or readjust the optimal city count. to combat ICS, I think you guys can add some code into the game that does simple location comparisons between cities. Cities within a certain distance away from each other are punished by more corruption and waste -- we can rationalize this in the real world by saying cities who are close to each other with overlapping city grids tend to compete against each other and resources are diverted from production into bribing citizers from competing cities and other activities involved in inter-city competition for population.

I notice that the Firaxis team has been silent on most of the corruption posts. But I hope this one gets a read from the developers, and perhaps this gets passed on to the person responsible to writing the code for this portion of the game.

From a casual gamer,
Dexter

[Rasputin]

Ok has anyone actually won a Culture victory ?? IF so at what level? and more importantly what tips can you give ???

[dexters]

Well, my concern isn't so much just culture victory, but culture as a component of the game. I like culture, but culture emphasis also means the AIs treat you differently if you're above or below them culture wise, as well as culture factoring into your overall score, which, in most large map games, will play an important factor by 2050 if there is a stalemate between a few surviving civs who don't have overwhelming superiority over each other.

I also know that we can go in and change the settings in the scenario editor, but It really is kind of like cheating. It doesn't give me the satisfaction, and I think a lot of you out there feel the same. Scenario games are fun to try out custom settings, but playing a good game by the officially sanctioned rules is what gives the most satisfaction (to me at least), and the reason I'm posting is because I feel the official rules are unbalanced and should be remedied.

[Rasputin]

its a bit of a worry to me the number of people who simply state " it cn be fixed using the editor" as the answer to so many problems,, I dont want to use the editor, iwant to play a fuly functional game that after learning how is beatable without tweakign any CHEAT settings using an editor

[dexters]

Rasputin, that's exactly the point I've made. I've read, all 3 or 4 threads on corruption. I KNOW that the people who are worried about the corruption "PROBLEM" all agree with you and me that the editor is not the answer.

I really hope Firaxis doesn't see the scenario editor as an easy way out on fixing gameplay imbalances by telling people to essentially override the game's rules. You have to wonder what use are the rules if they are imbalanced and the solution is to tell people to essentially go cheat themselves into winning. To cheating players who use ICS and exploit bugs, it may not matter. But it matters to those of us who feel we want to play a fair game by the game's rules.

[Ecthy]

well Rasputin, many people still believe in technology being able to solve problems... and since we are all clever people, we should be able to help out with problems by using the editor... whenever I get the chance to modify a game by simply editing soem text files (Col, Civ2), I do so and start experimenting with it.... why shouldn't we do that with Civ3? Don't tell me you still play Civ2 with standard rules....

[dexters]

I'm not sure if there's a spat going on between you posters, but i'm new here. I'm just posting what I think are important things I want the Firaxis team to read as well as for the community to read.

I hope, i beg that this thread not degenerate into a flame war.
for my sake?

[dexters]

bump

[yavoon]

if its better to build a buncha 1 shield cities for the culture then why not do it? unfortunately I don't think thats efficient. but the computer is doing nothing special, or trick here. perhaps ur relative perspective is off, and ur just annoyed by seeing cities w/ 50% corruption? I don't know, I'm too much of a practical player. I tend to do wutever is best w/in the game rules. it gets me in trouble w/ all the ppl who think "it shouldn't be this way."

another interesting observation, we really have two complaints in decent opposition to each other. one is that corruption sux, u can't build an empire of ne size, and th eother is the computer expands too much/fast and it will expand newhere. seems odd now that I think on it. wonder if the two camps are in kahootz.

[Comrade Tribune]

Play a few more games, before you judge things!

Even in a vast empire with insane corruption, you can always squeeze some money out of your cities, thanks to those wonderful people: the tax collectors!

Did you notice at all that tax collectors are incorruptible?

[dexters]

hehe. yavoon, I assure you the two camps are not in kahootz. I'm a new poster, literally walked off the street into this community.

But after reading Comrade Tribune's rebuttal, I'm still uneasy.
The Tax collector solution sounds good, but it implies less entertainers, which could spell doom to a republic or a democracy trying to wage war against annoying AI civs.

I see the point Comrade, and I don't mind corruption. I just think the current formula which takes into account distance and the number of cities in a civilization is an inefficient way of trying to disuade the ICS strategy. I'm sure some people prefer to play on small maps where the problem isn't as pronounced. But for maps 180 and above it gets problematic.

Conquest becomes a handicap, because as your empire extends, you essentially lose your ability to make a return on your investment ascorruption becomes almost unmanagable. Turning citizens into taxmen only amplifies the unhappy citizens in a conquered city.

I agree that there is some element of reality here. --An expanding empire should suffer problems and handicaps because they are expanding their borders. It should not be the costless conquering we saw in Civ 2. I also agree that corruption should be present in all forms of government. But the extent of both these handicaps should, through the player's effort, become more managable. If it is just a massive handicap with no solution, empire building becomes unenjoyable.

One solution offered is to raze capture cities. But in Civ III, growing a Civilization is more than just building a collection of city states but it is also about pushing one's cultural borders forward. And Razing becomes problematic when You just clear a peice of real estate for the AI to come in to build. And the suggestion that we should station troops at every open tile not yet covered by our Civ's borders is a partial solution at best. Good for securing resource spots before our borders catch up to it.

In addition to my suggestion in combating ICS without hurting players who like to run large sprawling civs with 50 cities, here's another alternative solution.

In the patch, Firaxis should make the courthouse more effective at combating corruption. Naturally, we can have it that The corruption algorithm used should be some fixed corruption number (like distance from Capital) plus a product of several variables which can have a distance component multiplied by number of cities in the empire. This will then allow the game to be such that Courhouses only reduce this multiplied second variable, not the base number (distance from Capital). Therefore, a city 5 tiles away from the capital will still suffer some corruption, because the distance of 5 tiles, is not affected by the corruption lowering effect of the courthouse.
This weighted approach ensures that farther out, courthouses will actually be effective in eliminating corruption (because it cuts down on the second variable) while closer to the capital corruption is not eliminated because the base figure is not affected.

Here's a mock example. New York is five tiles from Washington,
so lets say it has a corruption rating of 5 + (5*2) where 2 is the number of cities. This gives us a rating of 5+10 = 15
our empire expands, and we've conquered the city of Kabul from a rival civilization. It is 20 tiles away, and our empire now has 20 cities.
The corruption rating for Kabul = 20+(20*20) = 420
for New York = 5+(5*20) = 105

For the sake of argument, lets say couthouse reduces corruption from the second variable by 100%, we now have corruption for Kabul at 20, and corruption for New York at 5. So yes, courthouses can be 100% effective, but because its weighted to have more effect the farther out a city is, it cannot totally elimnate corruption in a city close to the capital. Obviously, the algorithm used to calculate corruption in Civ 3 is going to be much more complex than this, as it will likely have to take into account optimum city count as a component of the equation. But I think you guys get the idea.

As it stands, even in a democracy, courthouses build in the periphery of a large empire have little to no impact, and it seems to point to a problem in the way the courthouses work to reduce corruption. They shouldn't be that ineffective.

And to punish expansionist players who just go and mow down every city in sight? make the courthouses of conquered cities be destroyed (because courthouses maintain law and order and a conquering army would always want to take it out) this would mean that capturing a large number of cities from a rival civilization would put a massive drain on the conquerer's economy as these cities will not benefit from a courthouse and thus suffer from massive corruption. And rush jobs would bankrupt the conquering civilization. This I think gives it balance. People who think they can get away with just grabbing large amounts of cities get punished, but if players are smart, they can capture distant cities, put resources into them, and in time the cities will be stable enough to actually GIVE BACK to the empire when the courthouse is rebuilt.

My 2 cents.

[ElitePersian]

I really hope patch #1 fixes this damn problem, you can barely expand in this game due to corruption, so what's the point of having maps as big as 180X180?

Someone also said that increasing the value for "corruption after this # of cities" doesnt work properly, the problem comes from distance from capital.

[Comrade Tribune]

Good thinking, Dexters! But I would still let players test the game for a few months *before* any changes are made to game balance. Priority should be given to completing the editor and eliminating known interface bugs. As to game balance, let´s assume they got it right unless definitely proven otherwise.

One more thought: On a large map, it may indeed be harder to conquer the world; but it may be easier to go to AC. Just as Russians have it harder than English on an Archipelago.

[dexters]

Speaking of the editor, will the "completed" version include the ability to place a Civ of our choice on the map to determine their starting point, adding units (to create scenarions already in mid stream) -ie: attack on pearl harbor and will there be a minimap so I can see what the hell i'm doing when im working on a landform? :P


On a related note, I'm playing a new game on a 180x!80 map and i just retired to see where the other 7 civs were. looks like I'm stuck at the bottom of a large continent. The Aztecs have me sealed from expanding further north, so much of the huge continent they have between them and the Iroquis.

The English, Germans, French, Russians and the Egyptians are together an ocean away.

Should be interesting to see how the game explodes into world war... and ironically, i'm hoping to god the corruption is so massive for the Aztecs and the Iroquis the large continent won't help them

[Peoux]

Originally posted by dexters
Rasputin, that's exactly the point I've made. I've read, all 3 or 4 threads on corruption. I KNOW that the people who are worried about the corruption "PROBLEM" all agree with you and me that the editor is not the answer.

I really hope Firaxis doesn't see the scenario editor as an easy way out on fixing gameplay imbalances by telling people to essentially override the game's rules. You have to wonder what use are the rules if they are imbalanced and the solution is to tell people to essentially go cheat themselves into winning. To cheating players who use ICS and exploit bugs, it may not matter. But it matters to those of us who feel we want to play a fair game by the game's rules.

I hear ya, but I don't agree with all that you say. Basically - I do think we who have played Civ or Civ2 need to try and forget what we used to do to win those games - and I believe some of the complaints may stem from being too used to winning Civ2 the old way, by conquering everything the military way. Civ3 doesn't seem to stop you from doing that - but it gives you a more realistic experience of how hard it really would be to take over the world by conquest.

I can't boast with having won the game yet, but I only just got it two days ago anyway - so far I'm having to get used to all the immediate changes in interface, tech tree, resource management and diplomacy/trade, and I'm having a blast Maybe I too will be ticked off when I try a game of world conquest - but in my current game I managed to secure one half of a large continent, got maybe 15 cities with the capital being at the far end of the continent. Corruption is definitely managable - after having built courthouses, the forbidden palace, and having secured three or four sources of luxuries. I pay through my nose for those luxuries, but it gives me We love the king days in half of my cities at least, and like I said a rather managable corruption. I believe I'm out-producing and out-researching everyone else, so in this particular game I think I'll go for a cultural victory, just to see how it works.
I don't think it's impossible to win at all - it's just several different ways to win, and even new ways that you have to think to win.

I'm not saying that I don't believe you are right - just that I think there's so much to this game yet, that I'm hoping you won't give up just yet and conclude that it's unbalanced and unplayable, you know? The AI isn't cheating (much) and it generally seems more realistic - those I have been nice to are now nice to me, and those I've refused to share with dislike me, very naturally.

My only complaint must be: The game seems to be too short, time passes too quickly!

[Wolfgang76]

I'm glad someone brought up the problem without seeming like a "putz". Yeah, corruption is WAY too big a factor in the game now. I know they did it to combat ICS, but it didnt. The AI still spreads out like locusts and even to the point where is makes no sense to do so. Ever notice when you capture a city the AI didnt bother with any improvements?
It seems to me that the new game was setup to prevent larger empires and cause us to focus more on diplomacy, which I am in favor of. However the AI considers land ownership as a basis of power. Notice that even a large empire can attack but get easily wiped out if you take its core cities? Thier outlying cities cant produce anything.
The same happens for us. I had in a recent game a city with almost 95% corruption. It was 15 squares away from my capitol, small map, Democracy, full courthouse and only 10 squares away from my Forbiden City. This became my useless city. I dont consider war a possibility in this game now as its pointless as you cant build defenses at the new city.

2cents...
Wolf