Corruption Blues (Rant, Long)

[Akaoz]

I have played Civ3 like a man possessed for almost a week now. I started at Regent and decided to go for every type of victory before moving on. I have now (after 3 full games) completed military, diplomatic and space race.

I must say, the diplomatic victory was a let down. It happened in 1930 in my first game. I was playing on the large Earth map and was located in India (playing the French). I settled India and most of China, and started to expand over seas to avoid a war with the Germans (Europe/Russia) and England (Mid-East, Africa). That’s when it hit me...

Corruption! And tons of it! My lone colony in Australia was useless. I suddenly realized why Germany had stopped expanding east when there was a lot of land left towards Alaska. I dawned on me like a ton of bricks (pardon the mixed metaphors) why the English had razed every German city they conquered. Corruption! What was the point of taking over/starting a new city if it was going to be useless?

Heh, I remember thinking: Just build a courthouse and it will be all right. When that didn’t work I thought; Okay, maybe a police station will do it. Then I realized there is no organized crime division in CivPD. Finally I thought about building a Forbidden Palace, but that would take 300 turns... I even switched to communism thinking that the distance to my capitol (in India) was the problem. And that didn’t help either. So I switched back to democracy and carried on to win in 1930 in one of the most boring games ever...

Not one to give up on Sid and Civ that easily I started again. This time I went straight for Space. I used the default settings. I started on a medium sized continent all by myself. I got to about 15 cities nicely spaced out and built my infrastructure. The AI tried to settle on my island twice and was eaten up by my culture. The whole thing was over in 1950 without a shot being fired. Corruption was only a problem in two cities.

For my third victory I went for all out offence. I started on the biggest continent with three other civs. I played one against the other while concentrating on taking them out one at the time. The first one was Rome. All his cities where close to my borders, and when I went on the offensive it was a quick march. The roman cities all became productive members in my empire.

As I thought about consolidating (I wasn’t sure if I had just been lucky or not), the Indians attacked me with a HUGE army of elephants. Only a lucky alliance with the Egyptians to the north of the Indians (I was in the south) saved me. As the Indians turned to face the Egyptians I went on to discover gunpowder and the only source of saltpeter on the continent. I built up a large army of infantry and cannon an marched on India.

This is when it hit me again: Corruption!

From here on in my game became pointless. I conquered the Indians, then moved north and took out the Egyptians. The last 5-7 cities would never (not even by 1970, 200 years later) become use full. As I conquered the Germans on the neighboring continent I started razing all but the best cities. I moved my capitol and invested in culture and education.

FYI, I used democracy through the whole game, and I built culture, wonders and educational improvements in all my cities. The first thing I did with all the captured cities was to buy a temple, courthouse and a library. Then they would usually just idle until I could afford a cathedral or a coliseum.

Most of my Empire was in a constant state of ‘We love the...’-day and I was the cultural leader by a huge margin. But corruption was still at 99.9% in all off-continent cities and about half the on-continent ones.

What’s my point? Conquering under the current rules is just dumb. It’s not that being a builder and going for Space is a valid option (as well it should be), it is the only option. I don’t even want to think about a domination victory.

I’m not complaining that the game is too hard. Corruption affects the AI too. I just don’t like being forced to play a certain way. Right now the game is forcing me to play peacefully, or at least in a non-expansionistic manner.

The argument could be made about reality, the intent of the designers and such. Now, while I am perfectly aware that in real life no one civilization rules the planet, reality is also boring. At least it can be. And Sid said his intent was to make a more peaceful game then Civ1-2 was. Well, why is domination/military an option for victory then?

As it stands now, unless you control a strategic resource the AI is hard coded to kill for, you might as well be alone. It used to be that 3 civs on a huge map would trigger an enormous late game battle, now it just means you wont see the enemy, ever...

One thing this game has made clear though is this: A war of conquest is evil and bad. It gains no one. That and setting up a colony to claim some strategic resources is just dumb. You’re just shooting yourself in the leg by building cities that will never amount to anything.

Bah... Still a cool game though...

In closing: I understand the need to control ICS, but there must be a better way. If only one could combat the corruption in the end game. Then I could consider the cities a long-term investment instead of just razing them (which feels like mass murder).

Oh well, all comments welcome.

-Alech

PS: I did actually build the Forbidden Palace in all the games I played. It cost me a great leader in two of them and a lot of patience in the other one. In my experience it helped a little less then moving your capitol to the same location.

The biggest problem with it is that it is virtually impossible to build where you need it the most.

[Auslander]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It used to be that 3 civs on a huge map would trigger an enormous late game battle, now it just means you wont see the enemy, ever...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You played 3 civs on a huge map? Is that counting your civ?

You're wondering why this is easy? Since there is no scarcity of resources why would anyone be at war?

Put 16 civs on a huge map for some fun. I think you may have missed the point of the game.

[Akaoz]

Originally posted by Auslander
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It used to be that 3 civs on a huge map would trigger an enormous late game battle, now it just means you wont see the enemy, ever...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You played 3 civs on a huge map? Is that counting your civ?

You're wondering why this is easy? Since there is no scarcity of resources why would anyone be at war?

Put 16 civs on a huge map for some fun. I think you may have missed the point of the game.

I was talking about 3 civs on a huge map in Civ2.

I’ve been playing Civ3 on Normal with 8 civs. And one game on Huge Earth with 16.

-Alech

[Akaoz]

The problem with the corruption rates, as I have tried to point out, is that the incentive for conflict is gone. You gain nothing by taking land and cities.

-Alech

[Auslander]

My apologies. I thought you were referring to your current game.

[Akaoz]

No problem.

Anybody else have any views on this?

-Alech

[goosekirk]

MAN, I agree 100%. I really hope this corruption issue is a bug that'll get fixed, and not a feature. This is the only bug or glitch I've seen yet on my Win2K box.

I just build a civilization where I could see my capital at the top of the screen (default screen size), and I had a couple of cities at the bottom of the screen that could only ever produce 1 shield/turn due to corruption. You could have 10 or 15 shields being produced, but only 1 would ever be usable! These were cities that I founded and built, in a democracy, even with courthouses, and there was nothing I could do to get more than one shield per turn out of them. I noticed that communism is definitely broken in regards to corruption, too.

Finally I ended up building the Forbidden City in a city halfway between the capital and these cities, and blammo, all of those cities changed to a normal level of corruption. OK, that might be fine, but the problem is, if you tried to do this on a new or separate continent where you only get 1 shield/turn, it'd take 300 years to build the thing and start getting productive cities. Plus, you can't pay to accelerate construction, and once it's built you're done - you can't build any more, and you can't tear it down and move it as your civ expands. It's just not a viable solution.

I love Civ at least as much as the next geek, and I'm still just as compelled to play it, but this corruption problem is really, really pissing me off. I can't fathom how something so obviously broken just slipped by the playtesters. I'm surprised these boards aren't more up in arms about it... it makes me wonder if others are more or less affected somehow?!?

[CygnusZ]

Are you expanding slowly, building courthouses and keeping cities in perpetual WLTK? Even if you aren't, there is a trick to building the forbidden palace (more) quickly.

Rebuild your palace closer to the spot where you want your forbidden city, then finish it up and build the palace back at the site of your true center. It's a long process but it's shorter than the 300 turns of corruption.

Note that playing on a normal sized map I have *NEVER* had problems with corruption taking up more than 60% of my resources.

Remember, this isn't Civ2, you can't just run down an entire enemy civilization and expect to run cities as if they were yours all along. It's a good thing that they don't like you. It would be seriously messed up if civs were thrilled with idea of producing military units to use against their own people!

[Akaoz]

Building it in the middle doesn’t work if that is in the ocean.

But seriously, I don’t mind resistance. That is realistic and cool. But when the other Civ is dead and gone and I have breed out all of the locals... Then they should get in line.

-Alech

[Pyrodrew]

I strongly agree. In Civ2 I agree Corruption was a little too weak, but in Civ3 it is FAR too excessive & powerful. As the many other multiple posts others have stated here as well in the "First Impressions" thread - Corruption is EXTREMELY out of hand & there are NO effective solutions for it.

I think it hasn't been mentioned as much lately simply because not much more can be said about it.

[Stromprophet]

I think it may be possible to edit this in thie editor. So I heard from some fireaxians.

[Sarxis]

Until there is an official fix/change for corruption, you can always check out my mod- I have made the Police Station able to quench curruption like the courthouse, with only mild cost increases for the improvement.

Click my sig to get the mod:

[Akaoz]

Originally posted by Stromprophet
I think it may be possible to edit this in thie editor. So I heard from some fireaxians.

Not really. You can edit the optimal number of cities under each map size, but it is the distance to capitol that is the real killer.

-Alech

[CygnusZ]

Then how come i have a civilization with more 25 cities which suffers 50% corruption in its most corruption cities at most?

The corruption issues can be worked out, but slow expansion, WTLC and culture most all be considered.

[Akaoz]

Hmmmm... I have seen a lot of ppl refer to culture impacting corruption, but that is not what Firaxis has been quoted as saying...?

And I have had cities that are well within my Empire and have been there from 1750-1950 with _no_ improvement in corruption. That is with courthouse, temple, cathedral, library and all luxuries... Oh, and they were always in WLTK mode. With only an aqueduct and enough luxuries that's easy.

-Alech

[Gaius Marius]

16 Civs on a huge map? Fantastic idea. Until turns take 3-5 minutes each. Poor overclocked Celeron can't keep up with my grandiose ambitions.

I really don't see (on topic now) how conquering swathes of territory is viable - other than to deny it to anyone else. It seems that a productive core is the only way to get value (money, resources, production, whatever brings you closer to victory)...

However, a military approach is still effective, with the right (limited) objectives - disrupt, destroy, distract, displace your enemy by taking key cities and resources, conducting raids, pillaging, bombarding, leveling cities, blockading (rules, but most civs have too many harbors for it to work). If you really want to take someone over but don't want to leave the territory open or administer crappy cities, raze half of them and give the rest, starving and in disorder, to the crappiest civ. They'll love you and do all the rebuilding work.

[Akaoz]

Gaius Marius: Which still does not address the Domination (2/3 of total landmass) or Conquest.

-Alech

[Tauklon]

I would have no problem with the corruption as it is on the difficult settings. But to have it that troublesome at the easy levels is very discouraging. I was hoping to recommend Civ3 to folks at Christmas. But there is no way I can recommend it to a beginner or casual gamer. It looks like the game was built strictly for the hardcore Civ fan. At the chieftain level the game should be in sandbox mode so a rookie can having fun while learning the game.
Adding a corruption setting would help but its absence shows lack of foresight in attracting new Civ players.

[Akaoz]

I'm not sure the game itself is harder because of corruption. It's just not very intuitive.

Conquest and Domination victory is a lot harder than it used to be. But peaceful competition is a lot easier...

My GF is playing an enjoying the game immensely, but she plays the game much more as a diplomat and perfectionist then I do. And when she finally goes to war she loves razing the enemy to the ground...

-Alech

[Lord Maxwell]

Combating corruption made easy.

You have an empire shaped like an 8, with your capital in the intersection between the two "o" parts of the 8. Build a Forbidden City in the middle of the lower o. Close enough to combat some corruption when you have Courthouse + WLTK. When it is completed (you should get up to 40% production atleast with court + WLTK) you move your palace up to the middle of the upper "o".

Keep your empire in WLTK. (You will probably tech faster, even with the entertainment spending.) Don't let cities drop out of WLTK.

If at all possible try not to use either of your Golden Ages before you have taken the basic steps to combat corruption. Use democracy unless you fall into a war, if at war switch to a more proper government type and mobilize.

It will probably be even easier to manage once all factors are known, but it's already _not_ a problem if you know the game.

You need to be alot more careful about where you put your Forbidden City than about where you put your palace, because you can keep on moving your palace to suit your needs if you start conquering territory for real. So put your Forbidden City where you want your long term production centers to be.

Keep cities in WLTK.

Expand in circles when at all possible. Minimize distance. (Build in "Z" forms out, not straight lines.) Citites do fine with three steps between them, leaving you with a final average of 12 tiles worked per city and no unworked tile anywhere.

[Akaoz]

How does this help colonies on other continents?

Are you not reading the posts? I am talking about Domination (and to a certain degree Conquest) victories. If you have to control 2/3 of the total land mass you will have extreme problems with corruption, regardless of palace and forbidden city.

-Alech

[smellymummy]

Originally posted by Akaoz
No problem.

Anybody else have any views on this?

-Alech

If I may, I find corruption to be simply a challenge, not a bug. The trick is intelligent empire building. Start by expanding, but do it with some brains and stay near your capital. If that's out of the question, then plan ahead where your new capital will be located at. Surround your capital with cities, to create rings or layers of cities. Corruption will be minimal.

When conquering on the other hand, the only solution is the forbiden palace. You need a great leader, that's for sure - else you will be waiting most of the game to get cities up and running.

No great leader? Then make one! Go to war, send out your elite troops. Then sue for peace The same applies to the forbidden palace, as to what I wrote above about the capital.

Conquest is hard, but achievable. It's just that you're going to have a whole lot of deadweight cities if you conquer at the wrong spot. I guess you have to crush your neighboors, and not the natives at the other end of the world...

The easy way to domination though, simply EXTERMINATE and commit MASS GENOCIDE a la MoO2

[smellymummy]

Originally posted by Akaoz
How does this help colonies on other continents?...

a dose of realism....: just how many colonies actually remained under the control of one state entity for a indefinite period of time in the history of human civilization?

The concept of colonizing the new world with civ games is great fun, and in civ2 was real easy to do. At this point you'd have to save your forbidden palace for your new colonies that's all.

Anyway chances are any "new world" you will find has already been settled (by natives or colonists ) therefore it won't be a mission of colonization, rather of conquest/invasion. much like all colonial movements made in human history.

[Akaoz]

Realism does not always make for good gameplay.

And under the current corruption levels there is no incentive to mimic the real colonial conquests you speak of. There is simply no point in attacking other Civs. Unless you just want to be evil, cruel and petty.

And BTW I never said Corruption was a bug. I just feel they over did it. And so do a lot of other people. I know it is supposed to be a ‘challenge’. Not a problem for me. I can beat the game on Deity regardless. I just think it is a stupid challenge. See the difference?

AFAIK having more then your ‘optimal’ number of cities will increase corruption in all of them. The cities you need to hold on to in order to complete a domination victory will not just be useless, they will cripple you.

And razing everything on the way to a conquest victory will quickly turn the whole game into a ‘hunt the last pop 1 city’-game. Which IMHO is just booooring...

-Alech

[Mike4879]

Originally posted by Akaoz
Realism does not always make for good gameplay.

And under the current corruption levels there is no incentive to mimic the real colonial conquests you speak of. There is simply no point in attacking other Civs. Unless you just want to be evil, cruel and petty.

And BTW I never said Corruption was a bug. I just feel they over did it.

I am playing on the huge planet earth map with 16 civs. I started off as the Romans in South America. My two neighbors were the Americans to the north of the continent and the Babylonians in the south. In this game I developed a new conquering strategy, build warrior, worker, settler, in every city and repeat. This allowed me to expand and amass a massive army. I eventually expanded this strategy to incorporate all of the latest military units. So anyway, I crush the Babylonians.

The corruption problem has already started, to the point where 1/2 of my civilization is now corrupt/useless, even with all of the Babylonian citizens assimilated. I even razed most of their cities and rebuilt them.

Later in the game I conquer the Americans, I now control all of South America, making me the largest of the 15 other civilizations. I begin to disperse some of my armies, and switch from Despotism to Republic, to Democracy. I have an average army comparitive to the rest of the civs, which are half my size.

I am focusing on corruption reducing and culture enhancement, but nothing I do will reduce my corruption levels in the conquered cities... something has to give. 2/3 of my civ is 90% corruption. Yes, its realistic, but what about modern-day China. Corruption is not THAT bad with proper governing and a strong culture -in real life

I think the major issue is democracy and communism should reduce corruption in a way. Something tells me my civilization's luxury rate should somehow reduce corruption when it doesn't. Police stations should lower corruption, there should be ways for a civilization to unite the entire world at a low corruption level (albeit a difficult task).

[Grumbold]

When the tools become available I fully intend to reduce distance corruption to 75% of maximum when a city is connected by road/harbour to the capital, 50% when connected by rail/harbour and an airport will be very expensive but count as a forbidden city (which would expire at this point). Corruption on the extreme scale reported in the forums should only occur in captured cities before absorbtion takes place, and should be more a facet of government style than distance.

[Grunthex]

While I can't give you hard numbers, connecting your city in some way to the capital does decrease corruption somewhat. Just not (seemingly) when you're at that magic 99% mark. For example my last game, My continent was mine, and I found a small baby continent to the south. The first city was about 80% corruption, and the harbor dropped it to about ... 65%? Numbers are approximates, or WAGs, because it was a long time ago, but I know it had an effect.

Here's a little touch that caused me to just start laughing earlier. I have changed the rules (It's my game, I'll play MY way) so that number of cities corruption is basically gone. Changed from 16 cities to 100 cities on standard map. (Side note: AI has become more willing to keep cities late game rather than raze them)... I went to build the Forbidden Palace on my third continent, and noticed I was ineligible. It appears you can't build the palace until you have (Optimal#Cities/2). I should hit 50 soon, will post to confirm that's how it works.

[Seaman]

Even though the corruption level in Civ 3 is annoying, you have to admit it does a very good job in fighting the BAB (Bigger Always Better) problem - which has been a big issue with civ games, as far as i understand.

[Grumbold]

It's a case of striking the right balance between BAB measures, reality and playability. I can't point to any modern country where corruption is related to distance rather than the inherent instability of the governing regime. Thats why I want to tie most of the anti-distance measures into technical atvancements like good road, rail and air networks. It will prevent runaway ancient empires (if such things are even possible an more without playing huge maps with few players) but allow industrialised nations to control efficiently.

The whole thing as it stands currently reminds me of nothing so much as the CtP2 limit on #cities by government type, except it does not increase much for modern day govts. Because CtP had many more govts the progression into later era civs made a noticable difference.

[Akaoz]

Hmmm... Has anyone actually won a Domination victory?

-Alech