Corruption & Courthouse

[player1]

I think I know how it works.

Courthouse decreses distance factor for unhappines.

So, if city is just too much far away, it won't do anything.
Even reduced distance is too big.

Especialy for cities on other continents.


So proposal (for Firaxis, since they are only one capable of doing this) is this:

Record maximum effective ditance.
That's a distance after which all cities are corrupt.
It depends form government and number of cities.

Now,

make all cities more far away to be treated as they are at that effective distance.

So if you build Courthouse near such city, corhouse WILL MATTER since cities will have reduced distance below that effective maximum. Like they are all on same (maximum) distance form capitol.
In fact, all those cities will have some sort of "border" corruption.
I think it's somewere between 70% or more.

This way, city on other continent will matter if having Courthouse.

I hope that this will be implemented.

P.S.
I don't know how Communism corruption is calculated, but if avergae distance of all cities is used there should be no problem,

but if nothing depends from it, then to balance out Communim, corruption needs to be reduced in it.





P.P.S.
Making multiple Forbbiden Palaces, or moving exsiting one should be nice feature to implement too (interesting anti-corruption measure).

[Skanky Burns]

[Hurricane]

Great idea!

I really got mad in my last game when I captured an Island on the other side of the world, built courthouses and police stations in all 4 cities and still only had 1 shield and 1 commerce. I want a Fix!

[BillChin]

I am for some kind of minimum effectiveness for corruption reduction buildings. However, I think the proposed change makes the game too easy to build large empires. A 70% corrupt city is a good producer once railroads and factories get built. It also makes an already weak Communism government even weaker as a player can get close to communal corruption without the other negatives of Communism.

The change that I want to see is rounding up, so a player gets at least 2 shields after building a courthouse and 3 shields after building a police station (10+ shield cities). I do not think a minimum threshold of 30% is a good idea, but a minimum of 3 shields and leaving gold at the base rate so a player knows what the real percentage is and if it is worthwhile to build a factory.

No player is going to conquer the world with 2 and 3 shield output cities, but they might with a bunch of 15 shield cities far from the capital (30% minimum reduction at 50 shields with factory and coal plant). Some kind of minimum level of effectiveness gives the player some sense of control and makes the game more fun. The key is to make the change without making the game too easy.

Another idea is to have a fourth class of specialist, a civil engineer, that produces one shield immune from corruption. Limit of three engineers per city for game balance.

[player1]

70% cor. was just assumption.

If it's true is can benefit AI too.

They usually have cities on other contininets.
Someting what human wouldn't never do since it's in most cases pointless.

You still need to build courthouses.

And libraries, temples, etc.. to make city not flip.

So, you still need a lot's of money to invest to make those cities productive.

But, at the end they should be, at least a little productiove.

And too make having cities on other continents an option.

[AJ Corp. The FAIR]

Sigh.

The extreme corruption settings fully cripple the far distant cities.
This is not realistic, especially not during industrialized and modern era. You and 'thousand' others before have already concluded this several months ago. Even Firaxian players should have noticed something less appealing with corruption settings by now, I suppose, but alas, no reactions ...

Does this mean a) they don't play themselves b) they play very bad and never succeed in building up a large empire c) they don't think the corruption criticizm is valid?

Perhaps not all corruption criticizm (and boys, that's a LOT) is fair, although there must not exist any doubts about the far distant cities being able to produce more than 1 shield!!!!!!!!

Heck Firaxis, even Ethiopa and Afghanistan produce lots more !!!

Where are your minds???????????
When will you begin to understand?

AJ

[BillChin]

Originally posted by AJ Corp. The FAIR
Does this mean a) they don't play themselves b) they play very bad and never succeed in building up a large empire c) they don't think the corruption criticizm is valid?

Perhaps not all corruption criticizm (and boys, that's a LOT) is fair, although there must not exist any doubts about the far distant cities being able to produce more than 1 shield!!!!!!!!
AJ

Unfortunately, I think Firaxis has lost focus of the big picture. The big picture is that Civ III is a game. Games are supposed to be fun. Many Firaxians seem to focus on micro issues instead of trying to make the game more fun to play. More strategy options for the player makes the game more fun. Funneling players into a narrow set of options makes the game less fun. Making the game too easy is also no fun.

The current corruption rules are often frustrating and limit a player's options. The current rules give a player little sense of control, and few options, other than using the editor to change the entire game, often making the game too easy.

[AJ Corp. The FAIR]

Originally posted by BillChin


Unfortunately, I think Firaxis has lost focus of the big picture. The big picture is that Civ III is a game. Games are supposed to be fun. Many Firaxians seem to focus on micro issues instead of trying to make the game more fun to play. More strategy options for the player makes the game more fun. Funneling players into a narrow set of options makes the game less fun. Making the game too easy is also no fun.

The current corruption rules are often frustrating and limit a player's options. The current rules give a player little sense of control, and few options, other than using the editor to change the entire game, often making the game too easy.

I kind of agree, but ...
How could they have lost the big picture?
Aren't they making enough money? Sure they are. Don't want to nail them down (they ARE making patches), but why aren't there more programmers on work as we speak? Of course they don't have to take everything suggested in consideration, but a certain minimum isn't too much to ask for, is it?

There are numerous threads and suggestions about easily 'retuning' the game (units movement rates, new units, corruption, couple of new features and commands, ...), but almost none (except the not so imaginative J-stack command) has been implented to a patch so far.

Don't they love their game anymore?
Perhaps they DO feel like many of us ...

The game is nice, but not great.

Why waste more time?

Tss, Tss, Tss, shame on you Infogrames/Firaxis: one of the biggest game communities supports your product and even helps you with some very good ideas and all you do is moderately patching.

And even for that you take too much time.

Competitiors of the civ legacy, get in the field now!!!
The pioneers are fading! That's clear.

AJ

[Fitz]

Originally posted by AJ Corp. The FAIR
Heck Firaxis, even Ethiopa and Afghanistan produce lots more !!!

Of course they do, all of their cities are very close to their capitals, even though they are in an anarchy/depotism. I think a better complaint would be even Hawaii produces more than one shield.

I too think the corruption rules need to be far downgraded as the loss to distance ratio, but possibly only for specific governments (Democracy possibly?). The importanct point though is that a linear scale doesn't work too well. If you halve the loss for all distances, you can have a fairly productive empire of twice the size. But what if instead you use a log scale? In this case, you might have a city at 5 squares with no effective difference, one at 10 with 33% loss instead of 35%, one at 20 with 60% instead of 70% loss, and one at 30 with 75% instead of 95%, etc. In this case, it might require twice the distance to finally hit that 1 shield regardless distance, but having little effect on core cities. This allows for further distanced "outposts" with some minor productive capabilities, without significanlty impacting the overall empire's productive capabilities.

[Da_cOmRaDe_MiKe]

i pick germans. mostly start in usa. build a lot take continent. slowly expand. build a few cities in south america ( central) and 1 out of 4 shields... slowly let city grow and ive got like 4 out of 15 shields!!!!?!?!?!?!?!

[player1]

Originally posted by Da_cOmRaDe_MiKe
i pick germans. mostly start in usa. build a lot take continent. slowly expand. build a few cities in south america ( central) and 1 out of 4 shields... slowly let city grow and ive got like 4 out of 15 shields!!!!?!?!?!?!?!

You are lucky.
Try placing city on other side of ocean.

[Shaka II]

Originally posted by player1

P.S.
I don't know how Communism corruption is calculated, but if avergae distance of all cities is used there should be no problem,

but if nothing depends from it, then to balance out Communim, corruption needs to be reduced in it.

Communism has the communal level of corruption, the same high rate, independent of distance from capital. I think this is the government you need to conquer the world, but I am more of a builder and not a world conquerer.

I think Democracy might be about right for the overall play, It is always frightfully high far away from palace or FP, but a courthouse usually adds a few shields.

BillChin makes a good point in that reducing corruption further for Democracy might make it too easy and make Communism pointless.

[bardun]

Well, for me corruption is this: It sucks once you establish one city far from your palace or forbidden palace. So, make sure those are put in a good area (change palace city if possible).

However, I noticed that the hard part is get the cities past the Aqueduct state. Once past that and with courthouse and stuff, really, corruption isn't all that bad. Yeah, I agree, until you have the city big (+8-9 and up) and can't draft infantry to protect them, it's tough. I am a culture player, and once I get some cities on the same continent and am patient with them, it works out pretty good. Anyone else with same experience? I do have to shell out a LOT of money in the early building stages of the city, but in the end, it's worth it.

Bardun

[geofelt]

I think the current corruption/waste system hurts the game instead of helping it. It presents the player with a problem to be solved(which is good), but there is no way to solve it which just makes players frustrated with the game. If I have a thriving economy in africa, and want to start colonies in the americas, what can I do? It seems to me that courthouses help corruption, but not shield waste. It is actually waste, more than corruption that is the problem. I can handle lower tax revenue and science in an out post, but shield waste is more frustrating. Setting up a "We love the leader" situation helps, but not much else. You can build only one forbidden palace, and that can't be rushed with gold. In the place where you most need it, you can't get the shields to build it. Getting a leader to do it is mostly a roll of the dice. I think this area needs to be reworked.

[BillChin]

Originally posted by geofelt
I think the current corruption/waste system hurts the game instead of helping it. It presents the player with a problem to be solved(which is good), but there is no way to solve it which just makes players frustrated with the game. ...

I agree. There need to be more options to solve the problem. Right now the only options are weak, limited and expensive (courthouses, Forbidden Palace, police stations). I feel like someone on the development team is really digging in their heels on the corruption issue at the expense of the fans. Corruption is a good idea for game balance, but the current implementation needs tweaking. Again, Firaxis, please focus on the big picture, making the game more fun (without making it too easy).

[player1]

The biggest problem with Courhouses is that they are not giving anything to cities far away from capital (explained in first post).

So giving them some benefit (similar like in 1 post) will make them very important.

Still, those high away cities will have lot of corruption, but they will be alble to build something like riflemen or Temple by themself.

[AJ Corp. The FAIR]

Player1,

as a Flemish/Dutch saying goes:

"Je slaat de nagel op z'n kop" --> "You hit the nail on its head /from above"
--> You couldn't be more right .

Kind regards,
AJ

[watorrey]

Originally posted by Shaka II

Communism has the communal level of corruption, the same high rate, independent of distance from capital. I think this is the government you need to conquer the world, but I am more of a builder and not a world conquerer.

Communism gets worse as you acquire or build more cities. I believe it is based more on the # of cities than average distance to capital. The core cities will have somewhat less corruption than the outlying ones, thus distance to capital is a real factor, albeit not much.

In one game, w/ about 4X the optimal # of cities, the corruption reached >50% in all cities. Waste is always a bit worse.

[Zachriel]

The Afghans produce approximately 2% as much per capita as Americans. That means shields in Philadelphia would be about 50-100; shields in Kabul would be 1-2. With a reasonable home-rule government, hopefully they will do better in the future (Republic with proximity to the capital).

[Zachriel]

-

[player1]

Originally posted by Zachriel
The Afghans produce approximately 2% as much per capita as Americans. That means shields in Philadelphia would be about 50-100; shields in Kabul would be 1-2. With a reasonable home-rule government, hopefully they will do better in the future (Republic with proximity to the capital).

Governments & Infras. are much more importatnt here (then corruption)

Which means: Factories, Banks and Lots of luxury (to prevent using of sliders)