Screenshots: No cultural problems in my game (emperor)

Robert Plomp · November 15, 2001, 06:20

EDIT: I mean CORRUPTION and not Culture, mistake in the subject line

There are 3 lines in this screenshot,
the blue one shows my capital. (moved, first it was near the purple line)

the purple line shows the city with the forbidden palace

the red line shows the position of the city of the 2nd screenshot.

Robert Plomp · November 15, 2001, 06:21

And this is a screenshot of the city located at the 'red' line in the above screenshots.

about 50% corruption and waste, not bad for a colony that's just there to collect oil and coal, is it ?

Zanzin · November 15, 2001, 06:45

and what?

you're culture can't take it over?

soz, maybe its cause I'm an aussie, but I don't follow!

Robert Plomp · November 15, 2001, 06:52

No, I have no problems with corruption,
eventhough I'm away from my capital and all that, and I'm playing on a HUGE world on Emperor level with more then 30 cities.

still no corruption problems.
I just try to show that you can manage corruption.
at least I can.

Grumbold · November 15, 2001, 06:56

Cyber, I'm guessing we're talking corruption, not culture. If so, can I make some more assumptions which I can't tell for sure from your cut down screenshot:

1- You are a democracy, normally the least corrupt society.
2- You are playing a Commercial Civ, so have reduced corruption effects (that looks like it says Carlisle)
3- You are playing on a huge map, and reputedly the effects are most dramatically seen on small/tiny maps.
4- In global terms, those cities are really really close together. It is not going to stop at 50% but only going to get worse if you go further overseas. In a modern age 80%+ corruption under a democracy is just nonsense no matter what the distance. Instant global communications have solved the old problems of managing colonies that used to be months of sea travel away.

(Edit: Thought it was about corruption. You got your post in while I was still typing

)

Robert Plomp · November 15, 2001, 07:37

yeah, I'm a commercial civ.
I thought (might be wrong) though that HUGE games featured more corroption then small ones.

I know that going further will come with more corruption.
But what I try to show is that you can have a decent empire with several colonies and still be able to manage corruption.

Of course, when you spread over the world and conquer other nations expect corruption to occur.

Grim Legacy · November 15, 2001, 08:45

Indeed, the Huge map has less absolute corruption. It seems this is scaled to relative numbers. So you'd have to look at the percentage of the world your civ covers and the percentage of cities you own. I estimate that it is only about 17%.

So taking into account your modest empire, your Commercialism, your Democracy and your city improvements, I'd say your picture grows a lot darker. Even in this optimal situation, you still lose 50% of shields and commerce... and there is nothing you can do to improve this at all.

Skanky Burns · November 15, 2001, 09:01

Quote:

Originally posted by CyberShy
and I'm playing on a HUGE world...

And that would be your reason for having 50% corruption that distance away from your capitals.

The corruption factor is scaled to map size, so 30 cities on a huge map, for instance, translates to 5 or 6 cities on a tiny map. I had a city 9 tiles away from my capital, it was the 5th city, and it had more corruption than your city does!!

Ill have to try a game on a bigger map, so i can compare to how the tiny map plays. Will report back later

Ozymandous · November 15, 2001, 09:08

Actually having more corruption on smaller maps makes sense, from a game balance view if you think about the ratio's involved.

On a huge map you may need 30 cities just to be competitive. On a small or tiny map you may only need 5.

On a huge map trying to take over the world is much, much harder to distances involved. On a small or tiny map it is much easier if onyl for the fact that there is less land to control.

To me, having more corruption on smaller maps makes perfect sense fom the play balance view. Of course if people want to brag they beat diety level on a tiny map with only two other civ's then they wouldn't like the corruption levels, but hey, that's how it works.

Anyone else thought of this?

Grumbold · November 15, 2001, 09:18

Corruption as a means of reigning in the ability to dominate even a third of the world map is clearly working. Where I think it is failing is in explaining itself to gamers who want to make sense of the game they are playing and identify the problems and solutions.

CtP had corruption and discontent if your empire grew too large but provided an acceptable package of solutions in the combination of distance calculated by fastest travel method, enhanced governments, new buildings to discover and military or luxury costs to reign in the effects. Civ 3 seems to be lacking the solutions that can be used to tackle the problem of distance based corruption. This ought to be crippling in pre-industrial times but become almost irrelevant to a modern state with good air and rail transport networks. That allows other more important factors like government type, military presence, cultural mix and population happiness have a noticable effect on your efficiency levels.