Management by Corruption

[Comrade Tribune]

OK, so you have noticed most towns in your magnificent empire produce exactly 1 shield and 1 trade because of waste and corruption, and you think you have a problem? Think again! If you manage these seemingly useless towns correctly, you will see you cannot have enough of them.

First rule: Do not invest! Do not waste a single gold coin on improvements or defense. Those towns do not need any public buildings, and if they are not your only home of a strategic resource, they do not need to be defended. They exist for one, and only one, purpose: To pay taxes!

First thing, make them produce a worker. Even with one shield, this will take them only 10 turns. Let the worker build irrigations. Forget about mines, roads and railroads, but build lots of irrigations. Food is never wasted, so your town will grow. Let it grow to size 7, if it has a river or lake adjacent, otherwise 6 will do.

As soon as optimum size is achieved, appoint as many tax collectors as possible without starvation resulting, usually 2 or 3. Put production on Wealth. This will result in:

1 shield converted to Wealth = 1 gold.

2 or 3 tax collectors collecting = 2 or 3 gold.

1 trade = 1 gold.

Which all adds up to: 4 or 5 gold without investment. Even better, if you have a stable government such as Monarchy or Communism, your size 6 town will support 2 free units, while a size 7 city will even support 4. This is why I advocate growing to size 7, where possible without an aquaeduct. 2 or 4 free units equal another 2 or 4 gold without any prior investment -a better deal you get nowhere.

Whiners may complain about waste and corruption. But I love those quiet places in the countryside, where nothing ever happens, except for gold coins being paid into my treasury. They pay for my rent, and keep my empire afloat.

[player1]

Interesting, I always thought that taxmen & scientists are weak in civ3.
I'll try this soon!

[Beau]

This sounds like a really great idea. Thanks for sharing it. This post deserves 5 stars so others can see it.

[Easy Rhino]

Ya know, I've got a few distant coastal cities which are crap for production, but good for population.

excellent...


ER

[adaMada]

cool idea !

-- adaMada

[Enigma]

I will frequently turn *all* of the citizens in a high corruption city into taxmen and let them starve... if you conquer a high pop city then it is way to hard to try to hold onto it culture-wise, I would rather drain money out of the city using taxmen and then turn the city into a worker, thereby disbanding the city.

I hate cultural subversion.

[nato]

One problem, which is what discourages me in getting even semi - productive towns sometimes.

The more cities you have, the higher your corruption is in ALL your cities.

If more cities were strictly a plus, even a small plus, I would get as many as I could. But since they can hurt your good cities, I am less eager.

Anyone know how much each additional city increases empire wide corruption?

[Garrett]

A strategy I've used very effectively is to sell off high corruption cities to foriegn powers. Of course, you have to do so strategically. On one occasion I built a city right on the frontier between my republic and the chinese and then sold it off to the french for one tech and some gold per turn. The result was that I created a "buffer state" between myself and those pesky riders. The deal gave me the benefit of a "mutual protection pact" without the danger of being drawn into a war. The french capital was far enough away that I didn't have to worry about the city becoming devolped unless it was conquered.

On another occasion, I was playing the babylonians and my cultural borders put a city across a narrow channel in my sphere of influence. Over the course of the game the city revolted in my favor three times and three times I sold it off that round to another nation. Each time I made sure that the new owner was both distant and potentially belligerent to any neiboors on the other side of the sea. Within a few rounds tension over the city brought the powers to war each time.

Whenever you sell off a city, the fortifying units are transfered to your capital. This is a little bonus.

Cheers,

Reed

[KLIN-TONN]

this is very clever and well thought out. The only snag I see is that most cities I've had serious corruption problems with were captured cities, bordering unfriendly neighbors. A captured city immediately reverts back to zero culture, of course, and if they don't expand before too long, they're doomed. Rush building a temple after a couple turns, therefore, may prove ultimately useful - even though it requires a little investment.

[Roland Ehnström]

Ehm, in the editor, it sais that Wealth produces 1 gold for each EIGHT shields, not just one gold for one shield. Or?
-- Roland

[evil mookow]

I could never not invest in my cities. I built / conquered / bought the city and I'll be damned if it's just going to sit there and generate gold when it could be built into something so much better. I try to avoid corruption by using commercial civilisations and less corrupt governments.

If you want to start expanding your empire onto another continemt build the forbiden palace (I think thats what it's called but you all know what I mean anyway) and that really does help.

And wouldn't an investment in a marketplace pay off in the long run if you intend to turn the town into a city purely to generate gold? I think part of the challenge of the game is in trying to maintain my civilisation without building a money tree.

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by Roland Ehnström
Ehm, in the editor, it sais that Wealth produces 1 gold for each EIGHT shields, not just one gold for one shield. Or?
-- Roland

You get 1 Gold for every 4 Shields after you discover Economics.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Roland Ehnström
Ehm, in the editor, it sais that Wealth produces 1 gold for each EIGHT shields, not just one gold for one shield. Or?
-- Roland

Correct. But the meaning is:

1 shield => 1 gold
8 shields => 1 gold
9 shields => 2 gold
...

Of course I wish they had made that clear in the rule book /Civilopedia.

[surazal]

There is one item I do have to disagree with on the "corrupt cities" suggestion... but just one... otherwise it's great advice!

There are some investments that are worth doing in a corrupt city. Namely, anything that has anything to do with adding culture to your overall score. I always go for the temples, libraries, universities, etc when the dough becomes available because then you gain a competitive edge over your opponents in the culture department. Not only that it makes the map look prettier to see your claimed land fill up the gaps between cities (due to expanding culture influence).

[Roland Ehnström]

Ah, yes you are absolutely right Comrade, my mistake.
-- Roland

[Rainbowmage]

Keep in mind - the Courthouse. As I understand it (and as I've seen so far) it:

a) reduces corruption in the city, and
b) reduces the chance that city will revolt.

(This is out of the documentation).

Now, with crappy cities captured 2 continents away, etc, etc, the kind where nothing you can do will get it above 1 shield production, a) won't help. But I tell you - sure, milk the city for workers and put it on wealth, but RUSH BUILD the TEMPLE and COURTHOUSE. *Then* you can leave it alone. It generates culture, expands its borders a little, and has a greatly reduced chance to revolt.

This is a really good thread, and I just had to respond.

[Green Giant]

I find the best way to combat corruption is to choose a commercial civ. I rarely have any problems and when I do I can build a forbidden palace reasonably quickly in a city closer to my capitol.

I think CT hit what Firaxis was aiming for right on the head. Its too bad very few people seem to understand it and get frustrated. Cities close to your capitol are for producing, while the small far away cities are better for money and getting territory for resources. I think its a good thing, apparently noone else thinks so.

[conquistadore]

Great idea about milking crappy cities for taxes. But, Rainbowmage, i wonder why should we waste money on courthouses at all. For 1-shield city, i've never seen a courthouse improve anything. As for reducing the chances that the city will revolt, i dont know about that....

[player1]

It depends, how far that city is.

I had 1 shield cities witch later gave 5 shields with Corth. & WLTKD.

[DK36]

Hmm, nice thread.. but wouldn't it be a good investment to build harbors (if it's coastal), marketplaces, banks, etc.. as well as the happiness improvements and aqueducts and let those cities:

1. Add to your culture.
2. Absorb other crappy cities nearby with your so-so culture in that city.
3. Produce much more wealth than a 7 without anything. These guys can grow pretty huge...

I guess it's all in the patience. Some people prefer to not be bothered, others like to pour in their sweat to squeeze that extra few gold out in the long run.

[conquistadore]

Originally posted by player1

I had 1 shield cities witch later gave 5 shields with Corth. & WLTKD.

REally? i must try it once more. Pardon my ignorance, but what in the world is WLTKD??

[Gamer at heart]

WLTKD = We Love The King Day

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by DK36
I guess it's all in the patience. Some people prefer to not be bothered, others like to pour in their sweat to squeeze that extra few gold out in the long run.

It depends. If you intend to take over the world within the next 50-100 turns, there is no long run.

[Peace Builder]

Comrade Tribune, you just described the difference between a builder and a conqueror.

I personally like to alternate between the two with more build than conquer. I like employing all possible tactics. The catch is that many of my games go a long time.

My first victory was by mistake. I was elected to the united nations. I didn't think the other Civs like me that much after I had taken chunks of their cities and took every trade to its max.

[LotC]

My first victory was by mistake. I was elected to the united nations. I didn't think the other Civs like me that much after I had taken chunks of their cities and took every trade to its max.

Don't lose the UN vote. I made the mistake of calling a vote just after I had attacked every other nation in the world, not realizing that a lost UN vote=lost game. I would have gone back to the previous turn if it didn't involve moving 150+ modern armour all over again.

[Grim Legacy]

Besides the corruption-inducing problem that these 'useless' cities have, I also see severe problems with happiness and reversion.

Without any luxury from commerce, garrison nor temple you'll be hard-pressed to keep civil disorder at bay.

I play at Deity, and size 2 w/o modifiers = 1 unhappy dude. So these cities will only be feasible if connected to your luxury resources by road (= free). Do you have 5 luxuries usually? Because I seldom do, barring dependance on trading partners...

Now, without library nor temple, these 0 culture cities are prime reversion-candidates. Not to mention the iffy-ness of having undefended cities at any point in the game...

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Comrade T,

Good thread.

A couple of spins to this idea.

If game mechanics work the same as they did in SMAC (a big if that I haven't yet been able to confirm) then the following should work well.

Do as you suggest yielding cities of 6-7 population. Rush a granary to either aid in getting to size 6-7 or for future use. Allow population to expand beyond these levels (note this may require an aqueduct). When discord sets in specialize the remainder of your entire population to tax men. In SMAC, specialists brought in energy-->coins, and labs--->beakers even when city was in revolt. I'm assuming this is still true for CIV3. Next turn food box will empty but pop loss should happen the following turn. Revert back to food producing workers , rinse and repeat. You've essentially set this city up as a on again off again food producing city and have increased the number of coins yielded.

So for example use the size 6 city as an example.

In your case you've assigned 3 taxmen and hold food steady enuff to support 6 pop points. Net yield is as you indicated.
On the other hand if you convert all 6 to tax men and then back again to have a positive food balance just before starvation sets in you've added another 1.5 coin per turn.

Which brings up another point. If I assume coins can be had from tax men in times of a city in revolt, can they likewise be had in times of governmental anarchy. If so, it may be worthwhile on cities large enough to consider mass conversion to tax men/scientists when changing gov types. My recollection is that you do not get contributions in those times tho'.

[jan3]

strange when i capture a city and try to sell it to the ai they allways refuse
maybe because they are at peace with the former owner or is my game installation corrupt??

Originally posted by Garrett
A strategy I've used very effectively is to sell off high corruption cities to foriegn powers. Of course, you have to do so strategically. On one occasion I built a city right on the frontier between my republic and the chinese and then sold it off to the french for one tech and some gold per turn. The result was that I created a "buffer state" between myself and those pesky riders. The deal gave me the benefit of a "mutual protection pact" without the danger of being drawn into a war. The french capital was far enough away that I didn't have to worry about the city becoming devolped unless it was conquered.

On another occasion, I was playing the babylonians and my cultural borders put a city across a narrow channel in my sphere of influence. Over the course of the game the city revolted in my favor three times and three times I sold it off that round to another nation. Each time I made sure that the new owner was both distant and potentially belligerent to any neiboors on the other side of the sea. Within a few rounds tension over the city brought the powers to war each time.

Whenever you sell off a city, the fortifying units are transfered to your capital. This is a little bonus.

Cheers,

Reed

[adaMada]

Originally posted by jan3
strange when i capture a city and try to sell it to the ai they allways refuse
maybe because they are at peace with the former owner or is my game installation corrupt??

No... I think it's a bug in the game (might have been fixed in 1.16f, not sure). Offer them the city, and then ask them to offer you something in return -- without fail, they'll offer their heads, tails, and butts for it. However, if you change the deal at all, and then bring it back to the original deal, they're 'offended'. Anyway, it's a bug, just not sure if it'll be fixed or not, and I'm not sure if this is exactly how it works (haven't played with it much)...

Hope this helps!

-- adaMada

[Skanky Burns]

Scientists and i presume taxmen still work during anarchy!!!

Which means that even if you are in anarchy for 40 turns, you can make a complete discovery just by making 1 citizen into a scientist.