New Perspective on Corruption

JohnE · February 7, 2002, 13:41

The other day, I noticed that many of the players who complain the most about corruption play on larger maps and build sprawling empires or distant outposts to gather resources. This suggested some approaches to dealing with corruption that I hadn't seen anyone discuss, so I decided to bring them up. I post here even though this might belong in the mod or general forum because I am hoping to attract attention from good strategic minds and avoid flamewars.

Except for the diplomatic victory one-city culture victory, all victory conditions need more land at higher levels. The domination victory explicitly requires the same percentage of the world on all map sizes. To earn the conquering victory, you need an empire big enough to conquer everybody, which means roughly the sam percentage of a huge world as a tiny one. The science victory requires a larger percentage of a larger world than a smaller world ( more on that in a minute. ) For the whole civiliaztion cultural victory, you always have to reach the same milestone, but the requirement to have twice as much culture as anyone else means you still need to be fairly large.

In short, for most of the victory conditions, and certainly the most popular ones, you need as large or larger a percentage of the land on larger maps than you do on smaller maps. The game however, allows you a smaller percentage of the larger maps.

I found this out by looking in the world sizes menu in the editor. For a tiny map, you are "allowed" 12 cities on a map with a total area of 3600 squares ( 60 by 60 ). That's 300 map squares for each city you're allowed. This ratio steadily increases with map size until it is 1000 squares per "allowed" city on huge maps! The game as shipped handicaps all civilizations on larger maps!

I also calculated the ratio between the tech rate and the optimal city limit, finding that it is five on tiny maps and 7.5 on huge maps, again handicapping all civilizations on larger maps.

I believe the increased ratio between map size and optimal city limit is a source of corruption and therefore frustration for players who play on larger maps: They need to build cities in proportion to the map size, but the game penalizes them for doing so. Since players are driven to build sprawling empires or distant outposts for the purpose of collecting resources, that is another source of frustration. I think we could alleviate some of these problems by adjusting optimal city limits, tech rates, commonality of resources, and likelihood of resource depletion. What do you guys think?

Thrawn05 · February 7, 2002, 13:51

You made some good points, but I'll state what I do with large maps from another post here:

1: I keep my empire tight with little/no wasted space and no overlapping tiles.

2: Inorder to gain more land I build culture building to gain territory that way.

3: Defense! Defense! Defense! In the early game anyway, be nice to your neighbors. I never give in to threats, I always call their bluff.

I can get about 15 cities, (3 to 5 are on the cost, 2 or 3 to fill in holes in my empire, and the rest acting as a "culture shock barrier").

Kc7mxo · February 7, 2002, 14:15

Personally, I've always played civ as more of a wargame, than of a simgame, even though its a synthesis of both. But civ 3 makes conquering large empires frustrating. The AI breeds like jackrabbits, so just brning cities down doesn't work. Conquering them is an excersise in futility, and hurts your inner cities because of the way corruption works.

But winning without war is either stupid (UN), boring (culture), or a techrace (spaceship).

What I would like to have seen was a similiar vassal system in smac, where after I whoop the ai, it becomes my vassal. I'd be happy to give it back its cities, as it would be a loyal ally, rather than one who wants 150 gold per turn for its ivory.

Honestly, I can't understand some of the things they left out of this game that were the bread and butter of previous civ type games.

JohnE · February 7, 2002, 14:28

You both have good points, but I have a question:

Do you think the modifications I mentioned could make corruption less of a problem overall?

barefootbadass · February 7, 2002, 14:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Kc7mxo
But winning without war is either stupid (UN), boring (culture), or a techrace (spaceship).

You forgot 'more boring (score)'.

barefootbadass · February 7, 2002, 14:46

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnE
You both have good points, but I have a question:

Do you think the modifications I mentioned could make corruption less of a problem overall?

Well it would help, but I don't know how much, you'll need to ask the modders about that.

Kc7mxo · February 7, 2002, 14:52

Quote:

You forgot 'more boring (score)'.

heh, yes i did. i've never even seen this happen. though personally i tend to quit plaiyng a a game of civ once it becomes too obvious that i'm going to win, and since it takes quite a few turns for the ai's scores to start averageing down after i put the smack down. . . .

Allemand · February 7, 2002, 17:05

I've been setting the optimal city number for huge maps to 128 (from 32). This seems to bring the corruption levels down somewhat, but distance is still the big culprit. I would prefer to keep the city number lower while raising the "allowable" distance from the capital/forbidden palace.

Unregistered · February 7, 2002, 18:54

Yes, I agree with your analysis JohnE. I've personally felt that the game didn't seem to be scaled up correctly to the huge map, but I never thought to run the numbers as you have. Thanks for confirming my feeling! And I agree that bumping the optimal number of cities up through the editor will alleviate the problem somewhat. For instance, I started with 16 civs on a huge map in a monarch game, and for many years now the total number of cities has remained relatively stable around 340, which would keep the average well below the optimal number of 32 (I think it's 32 anyway). Over time though, 7 of the civs have been eliminated, and one only has two cities left (year is 1942)

But!! There are two other things that I've observed that I'd like to point out.

One of those is that the corruption effect is also determined by the distance from the capitol as Allemand pointed out. Perhaps as an inverse square relationship?? At any rate, playing on huge maps like I do, it just doesn't feel right. Even before busting the optimal cities #, being too far away from your capitol has a severe corruption effect. This seems to start kicking in somewhere between 20 & 30 tiles away from one's capital. Imo, that's just plain silly on a huge map. Unfortunately this 'radius of corruption' isn't in the editor that I know of. (Not @ home now, so can't ck on this, but I don't remember seeing it in there)

The other thing is that imo the corruption effect should change over time. In other words, corruption in the ancient age should be kick in with both a smaller 'optimal number' of cities & a smaller 'radius of corruption' than in the modern age. This would reflect how increases in the speed of communications and travel have made the world a smaller place irl. The 'simple' way to implement this would be based on entering a new age. A more difficult, but more accurate probably, implementation would be based on aquiring particular tech advances, such as radio. The best solution would probably involve both.
However, both of these changes would require some fairly extensive (though perhaps not really difficult since the basic code is already there) changes to the game engine. And the editor.

Anyway, mi dos centavos,

gracias,

Willem · February 8, 2002, 11:39

Quote:

The other thing is that imo the corruption effect should change over time. In other words, corruption in the ancient age should be kick in with both a smaller 'optimal number' of cities & a smaller 'radius of corruption' than in the modern age. This would reflect how increases in the speed of communications and travel have made the world a smaller place irl. The 'simple' way to implement this would be based on entering a new age.

That's a good idea, but there should also be some sort of reverse effect in the optimal number of cities. This would represent the increased bureaucracy that's required in order to manage a larger empire.

JohnE · February 8, 2002, 13:02

Thanks for your comments, all.

Unregistered's ideas made me think of something else. I think increasing the optimal city limit will help the AI. Its relentless expansion will be braked later by corruption, and it will not be penalized as much for its pointless tundra cities.

You are right that the distance factor is huge, and doesn't appear to be editable. I would like to be able to change that, but I am focusing on things I can actually do. I had some thoughts of creating things like a National Telephone Network small wonder that would act like the Forbidden Palace, and a Radio Station city improvement that would reduce corruption and add culture points. On a sidenote, I am annoyed that there are no improvements whose primary or only effect is to increase culture.

Willem · February 8, 2002, 15:17

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnE
Thanks for your comments, all.

Unregistered's ideas made me think of something else. I think increasing the optimal city limit will help the AI. Its relentless expansion will be braked later by corruption, and it will not be penalized as much for its pointless tundra cities.

You are right that the distance factor is huge, and doesn't appear to be editable. I would like to be able to change that, but I am focusing on things I can actually do. I had some thoughts of creating things like a National Telephone Network small wonder that would act like the Forbidden Palace, and a Radio Station city improvement that would reduce corruption and add culture points. On a sidenote, I am annoyed that there are no improvements whose primary or only effect is to increase culture.

Try thinking along the lines of what your own society does to eliminate corruption. Things like a Supreme/Provincial (State) Court, the Senate, Parliament, the FBI (I like to play American), or even a Penitentiary. Those would make more sense than a telephone network, or radio station. I've even included a Canterbury SW, to reflect the schism between a foreign papacy and a civ's control over their own religious beliefs. The requirement is 5 Cathedrals.

I agree with you on the cultural improvements, I was rather annoyed as well. But I've since added Concert Halls, Art Galleries, Radio Stations etc. I've also added "Reduces War Weariness" to all of these. They definitely didn't spend very much time thinking about what constitutes culture, or what the effect is on people. It was just a game rule that they retrofitted the old improvements into. Nothing new was added at all.

JohnE · February 8, 2002, 17:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem

Try thinking along the lines of what your own society does to eliminate corruption. Things like a Supreme/Provincial (State) Court, the Senate, Parliament, the FBI (I like to play American), or even a Penitentiary. Those would make more sense than a telephone network, or radio station. I've even included a Canterbury SW, to reflect the schism between a foreign papacy and a civ's control over their own religious beliefs. The requirement is 5 Cathedrals.

I agree with you on the cultural improvements, I was rather annoyed as well. But I've since added Concert Halls, Art Galleries, Radio Stations etc. I've also added "Reduces War Weariness" to all of these. They definitely didn't spend very much time thinking about what constitutes culture, or what the effect is on people. It was just a game rule that they retrofitted the old improvements into. Nothing new was added at all.

I believe you talked about those ideas before, and I see your point. They are good ideas that I plan to present to my real-life friends who play this game and are working with me on my mod. My point about the telephones and radios was that if you regard rapid telecommunications as key to reducing corruption, then simulating it in the game in these ways might work out.

Willem · February 8, 2002, 18:38

Quote:

Originally posted by JohnE

I believe you talked about those ideas before, and I see your point. They are good ideas that I plan to present to my real-life friends who play this game and are working with me on my mod. My point about the telephones and radios was that if you regard rapid telecommunications as key to reducing corruption, then simulating it in the game in these ways might work out.

Yes, I see your point, but to me they don't really make sense as far as a corruption reducing mechanism. At least not the way the game deals with them. If the effects where spread out evenly over your whole empire then sure, but that's not how the game deals with the effect. But in the end, it all boils down to what you feel makes sense. Plus it doesn't really matter what you call it, as long as it works.

Dodgy Geezer · February 10, 2002, 21:44

I think that the distance factor of corruption should be completely negated by an advance of the late industrial/early modern age. Computers might be a good one, but equally radio. Lets face it Perth (the West coast of Australia, for all those non-Aussies it is just about the remotest city on earth - around 3000kms from the capital) doesn't suffer more corruption than other state capitals of its size (eg Brisbane), does it?

I also think the distance factor is WAY overdone. Corruption should never exceed 50% of output unless you are playing the Romans.

Maybe the "Arthur Andersens Offices" Minor Wonder. Then again.....