Thread Tools
Old January 25, 2002, 16:30   #1
Albert B
Warlord
 
Albert B's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:50
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Indianapolis, IN USA
Posts: 118
Corruption, a debate
In righting my long-winded article on what I like and don't like about Civ3, I realized that several features that I find enjoyable are a bane to other players. Hence, I decided to try to create an open debate on some of these items. Hopefully a good discussion can result. Maybe you might even persuade a few people to see things your way and garner support for your cause. Maybe you will gain a new respect for a particular feature of the game. At the very least, if you proceed with an open mind, you will at least gain an understanding of how the “other side” feels about a particular issue.

I picked corruption first because it seems to be one of the biggest gripes many people have about the game. It is also a feature that I find to be good for the game. Before I get into why I like the current corruption scheme (I play v 1.16), I would like to set a few ground rules that I hope everyone can agree to follow:

This is meant to be a debate - not a gripe session; not a name calling event; not a battle of who can be the funniest, wittiest, most sarcastic, etc. Regardless if you agree with something or wish to refute it, give a good argument with solid reasoning. Posting “it just sucks” or “just deal with it” are not arguments and thus not wanted. If you disagree with a point another has made, refute it with a reason not a “you are wrong” or “what an idiot”. Prove they are an idiot with facts, sound logic and/or good examples, its much more satisfying that way. Basically, play nice, be thoughtful and provide the best defense for your opinions that you can.

All that being said, on with the discussion…

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here’s a loaded question to kick things off… Is corruption a bad thing? If you are the one skimming profits off the top and living the good life because of it, maybe not. However, for the rest of us it is not so good a deal. Oh wait, wrong corruption debate…

In Civ3, corruption levels are rather high. Many complain that corruption is far too rampant and a real hindrance to their ability to enjoy the game. I however, contend that corruption is just another obstacle to be overcome and is actually a game play enhancer. “How so?” you ask skeptically.

First, the courthouse is no longer a useless building. How many of you ever built courthouses in civ 2? I know I never did except in late game situations in which I had absolutely nothing better to do with my production and gold. Now, the further your cities get from your capital, the higher a priority it is to build one.

Another excellent feature of the corruption “problem” is that ICS based strategies are much less effective. How many of you corruption complained that it was too easy to win civ 2 by continually building more and more and more cities until you could simply overrun the competition with sheer force of numbers? How many recognized the power of building a settler instead of an offensive unit because a settler removed 1 worker from your city radius and provided 2 workers in the new city. Now high corruption values and the 2-population point hit of settlers, ICS is a less effective means of easily swarming the world and winning the game.

The near overwhelming corruption that occurs when conquering or settling other continents is a third “good effect” high corruption. Again, it increases the challenge of trying to win in this manner. It should be a challenge to keep workers productive and governors honest when they are far from the central seat of government. In game play terms, it keeps a player from conquering a larger foreign coastal city and then turning it into a military factory to swarm the originally nation that created the city.

My final discussion is on the realistic aspects that corruption gives the game. As I have mentioned in other posts, I generally try to avoid this type of argument for 3 reasons. One, civ is a game, not real-life and not even a simulation. Secondly, the realism argument is quite the double-edged sword. For every example one can give from the real world to support a feature, another kind generally find an equally valid counter example. Finally, I am not a historian by trade or education. History is a mere hobby and fascination for myself and thus I am not as well versed in facts and figures as one would need to be to offer a true argument of how the game models past events. All that being said, I am now going to offer real world support for the civ corruption model. For example, corruption was rampant in the out-lying areas of the Roman Empire and eventually became a problem for the interior cities as well. Oppression and corruption were key factors in the British (and other) colonies breaking away, revolting, etc. And as a last example, the ‘old west’ of the United States was terribly corrupt until the migrating people demanded and established justice and order (i.e. courthouses).

In general, I say that corruption should be embraced as a game feature. I agree that it is a formidable obstacle to overcome, but not unbeatable. It is also a great enhancement to the game. It is one of the biggest reasons that many civ 2 game strategies do not work in civ 3. Any change that makes me alter my plans and think of new ways to play is a good thing. If I wanted to continue playing the same old game in the same old way, I would have stuck with civ 2 and just downloaded a mod or two to change the name of units or advances. In some ways, corruption is merely the 17th civ in the great battle for control of the world. You just need to identify the enemy and find ways to defeat it.
Albert B is offline  
Old January 25, 2002, 16:48   #2
player1
Emperor
 
player1's Avatar
 
Local Time: 21:50
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Belgrade, Serbia
Posts: 3,218
Re: Corruption, a debate
Quote:
Originally posted by Albert B
First, the courthouse is no longer a useless building. How many of you ever built courthouses in civ 2? I know I never did except in late game situations in which I had absolutely nothing better to do with my production and gold. Now, the further your cities get from your capital, the higher a priority it is to build one.
Corthouse is useless building for faraway cities.
In fact, you can't do anything to lower corruption in those cities.

Same for island cities.

There is no obstacle to overcome.
You just need to accept to have 99% corruption.
And that's not fun.

Fun is crossing obstacles (reducing corruption by playing the game), not accepting them unsolvable.


Several solutions:
Make corruption less dependent from distance, but more from number of cities.

Make corthouses function differently, so thay can be usable even for faraway cities.

Make waste corruption lower then gold corruption. (realism factor kicks in, plus, that type of corruption is more irritating factor)
player1 is offline  
Old January 25, 2002, 16:50   #3
player1
Emperor
 
player1's Avatar
 
Local Time: 21:50
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Belgrade, Serbia
Posts: 3,218
One more thing:

This debate should have been in Strategy forum, not here.
player1 is offline  
Old January 25, 2002, 17:11   #4
Detritus
Settler
 
Local Time: 12:50
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 2
Corruption is actually manaegable up to a point. In my experience, playing communists (which I hate to do), and having courthouses and police stations in faraway cities actually makes possible for those cities to produce a few shields (but only a few). Then you can do "management by corruption" as somebody pointed out in the strategy section. I agree that corruption is good for preventing a cheesy vistory by "swarming". But there should be a solution, even if expensive one. How about being able to build more then one Forbidden Palace? (say 2 or 3?). Or one FP per continent? Or reduced corruption when you have a national holiday or something. Would that take away the pluses of the corruption system?
Detritus is offline  
Old January 25, 2002, 17:15   #5
player1
Emperor
 
player1's Avatar
 
Local Time: 21:50
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Belgrade, Serbia
Posts: 3,218
One FP on 8 cities (standard maps). First one costs 200, second 400, third 600, etc...
player1 is offline  
Old January 25, 2002, 17:22   #6
player1
Emperor
 
player1's Avatar
 
Local Time: 21:50
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Belgrade, Serbia
Posts: 3,218
When having such FPs (colonial ceneters), if enemy take one of those cities, you could get total colapse in that region (very high corruption).
player1 is offline  
Old January 25, 2002, 17:24   #7
Albert B
Warlord
 
Albert B's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:50
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Indianapolis, IN USA
Posts: 118
I posted it here intentionally for a couple of reasons. I am staying away from the strategy forum on purpose. My enjoyment of civ 2 began to decrease when I learned everyone elses ways to defeat the game. At first it made for good reading material and discussions but I quickly learned many techniques and skills that allowed me to win much more easily than I could before. I am still learning the ins and outs of civ 3 and don't wish to prematurely learn "all there is to know" about it. Secondly, the threads on the general have basically become "whiners" vs "fanboys" (other peoples words, not mine). I am trying to do what little I can to turn the discussions to something more productive and fun to read. I also hope to promote more discussion and less personal attacks and maybe keep a poster or two from getting banned for a week or more (i.e. ****gyRA and Lib recently).
Albert B is offline  
Old January 25, 2002, 17:37   #8
Albert B
Warlord
 
Albert B's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:50
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Indianapolis, IN USA
Posts: 118
In responce to player1's comments about corruption becoming 'absolute' after a certain point and for island cities - I have yet to attempt to build an empire that spans several continents/islands. I prefer to play continent maps and build a large nation that occupies as much of the land as I can get before the AI civs. I then usually attempt to play somewhat peacefully, only declaring war for one of a few reasons, such as needing to gain access to a prime piece of real estate (defensive stronghold, strategic/luxury resource, etc) or in responce to aggressive actions by a foreign civ toward me, an alliance, a mpp partner, etc or some other good (and sometimes not so good) reason. Therefore, I have not had problems with absolute corruption affecting any of my cities. Can you give city numbers, land area coverage, distance information about cities you have expierenced this problem in? I would like some information on what size civ is needed to cause such issues to arise. Please offer information from games you have played, including map size and number of AI opponent info.

Thanks,

Albert B

Last edited by Albert B; January 25, 2002 at 17:43.
Albert B is offline  
Old January 25, 2002, 19:59   #9
Flight
Warlord
 
Flight's Avatar
 
Local Time: 19:50
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: of Ombey
Posts: 184
Make waste corruption lower then gold corruption. (realism factor kicks in, plus, that type of corruption is more irritating factor)

This was my favourite idea the first time i saw how bad corruption was. Corruption in the real world is generally just the lack of taxes being taken in and thus the lack of new buildings being built as the local government cannot pay for them. I'm also not a historian but it seems logical. Civ differs by having a seperate system to pay for improvements and units than money. Like the example of the old west, people will build things that they want in a situation like that, sorting out corruption for themselves. There might still not be much in the way of taxes but the people produce things anyway.

Given modern day communications, a liberal government and fast transport system corruption is much lower generally. As a game feature that would not be difficult to implement (corruption based on transport links and tech advances) and i hope firaxis do change corruption in some way.

Also I do not know of many large cities that are crippled by corruption as a size 12 can be in civ3. Do people congregate in corrupt cities far from their capitals? Corruption should decrease proportionally to city size, or a city's size should be limited without corruption-handling improvements
Flight is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 15:50.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team