After playing Civ 3 for 2 weeks, i've come up with some thoughts about the "idea" behind the corruption system that Civ 3 uses.
I know there has been LOTS of complains about the current system, and i couldnt agree more. Allthough my complains goes further than the problem being just a "balanzing issue".
Distance from Capital :
How on earth did this become an accepted criteria for how corrupt a city is ?
If you look at reallife situations, you quickly see the mistake. Distance in itself isnt a "maker" of corruption.
What IS on the other hand, is how that far away city is organized. How much the central government is prioritizing the legal system in the town. If the central government isnt paying attention to the city, the corruption system should be high.
Governments :
The type of government should be an important issue concerning corruptuon. But once again, not the distance.
City Improvements :
This is the area that i think should be the most important factor when determening corruption. Citys without an effective leagal system should be corrupt (think old Wild West towns). But once you build certain buildings, the corruptionlevel should drop regardless of distance to capital. Civ 3 has some of these issues, but they are too limited. If a "far away" city has a courthouse and police station (and some other for that matter) the city should be allmost free of corruption under certain Governments, and more or less under others.
