Police: this makes little sence

aahz_capone · February 22, 2002, 07:34

Maybe y'all haven't noticed but the police stations only make yer proleteriats accept war. While this is logical it does nothing for an age old problem in civ3 that has been mentioned billions of times is lessen corruption. I mean, isn't this what cops do? Having played my upteenth super huge game I've been getting really pissed about how world spanning empires have almost half the cities useless for production in democracy, so one is constantly forced into communism, which doesn't amuse me.

This makes little sence: democracies CAN be huge and not be so FUBAR with corruption. In the real world San Fransisco doesn't have all but one of it's shields in the red even though it's thousands of miles away from DC. I think that a police station should also put down corruption because a courthouse does little or nothing at great distances.

aahz_capone · February 22, 2002, 07:35

oh yeah, and this should be included in patch 1.18.

(please)

korn469 · February 22, 2002, 07:47

i'll have to check, but i am 99% positive they made police station reduce corruption in 1.16f

Alex · February 22, 2002, 07:59

They did. It's even on the Civilopedia. Check out the entry 'bout Police Station.

Ironikinit · February 22, 2002, 08:15

Quote:

In the real world San Fransisco doesn't have all but one of it's shields in the red even though it's thousands of miles away from DC.

In the real world, cities don't measure their productivity with colored shields.

In Civ 3, the USA wouldn't be a very big civ. Prob wouldn't even need a forbidden palace.

The Viceroy · February 22, 2002, 08:17

Quote:

This makes little sence: democracies CAN be huge and not be so FUBAR with corruption.

You haven't been to India recently

ha ha ha ha .. If we follow there example, even the capital would only produce 1 shield

Personally, I believe the link between distance from Capital and corruption is vastly overplayed .. Lack of education is often a big reason for Corruption (as in India), and also unhappy citizens with the distant government (as in Boston from London before independance) ..

I think CTP had a better idea, where distance caused un-happiness .. but Colonization had it even better, citizens slowly turning against you .. maybe Civ3 should have distant cities turning to a new civ slowly, one citizen at a time (unhappiness is a cause for the change) and only when they are a majority, does the city declare independance and all near by cities that have any changing citizen join in the fight ..

I can imagine it would be something loved and hated

.. but it would give a good reason to look after your distant cities ..

Who knows, maybe the unhappy citizens of Los Angeles will oneday demand to join Mexico, or start a Hispanic Californian state of there own ??

DrFell · February 22, 2002, 08:26

Quote:

Originally posted by Ironikinit
In Civ 3, the USA wouldn't be a very big civ. Prob wouldn't even need a forbidden palace.

You can recreate the US on a world map of whatever size. I don't know how that would work out, but I'd be willing to bet that cities on the west coast would be very corrupt without the forbidden palace. With the palace it would be a bit better, with the less productive areas located in the centre. Still, Hawaii would be worthless.

aahz_capone · February 22, 2002, 08:35

'K, thanx folks. (downloading...)

anyway, even IF in the REAL WORLD cities don't measure production in shields (maybe THATS why my economics professor hates me)

, the US without a forbiden palace on the west coast would be messy.

Ironikinit · February 22, 2002, 09:14

I opened up the standard and huge Earth maps that come with the game. On standard, the land occupied by the US is about 10 tiles, coast to coast, and 20 on huge. I haven't played many games on huge maps, but 10 tiles to the capital on a standard map doesn't involve tons of corruption. From notes I have from my huge map game, a city 22 tiles from my capital (no ForbPal) had less than 50% corruption without a courthouse or WLTKD.

Is distance from capital the most realistic way to handle corruption? I don't know. The game isn't really very realistic at all, and I don't see why people strain over this detail or that. I know they do and it's OK that they do, but it's a little mysterious to me.

Tarquelne · February 22, 2002, 13:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Ironikinit
Is distance from capital the most realistic way to handle corruption?

Ease of communications/contact with the capital is probably the important factor, realistically. So distance works well untill, oh, mid-Industrial Era. After that corruption based on distance should, realistically, decrease dramatically. Whether or not it should in the game is another matter, of course. Personally I'd like it if corruption dropped a great deal with, say, Radio, and was replaced by a new late-game-only problem of some sort to deal with. A variety of cheap and descructive Espionage effects maybe? (So there'd be a pseudo world-wide golden age when most civs have Radio (and thus low low corruption) but before they start disrupting each other's civs with spies.)

N. Machiavelli · February 22, 2002, 13:13

Remember that the US also has regional self-governments in the form of States Capitals. Washington runs the nation, but Sacramento holds a great deal of sway over California, like Honolulu has over Hawaii. To translate into game terms, it's like having a minor Forbiddon Palace every 2 or 3 cities on the map.

Moonsinger · February 22, 2002, 13:20

Quote:

Originally posted by korn469
i'll have to check, but i am 99% positive they made police station reduce corruption in 1.16f

Yes, that is correct! The police station does reduce corruption in patch 1.16f.