Corruption: Why I miss it

[SofaKing]

After taking a long break from CIV 3, I just recently reloaded it on to my machine and downloaded the most recent patch. I was amazed to find the game significantly easier. Upon reading the boards and the patch readme, I found out why. Corruption/Waste has been neutered. I think this may have been a mistake.
When Civ 3 first came out, several strategies from CIV 2 went out the window, most notably ICS. While this was originally attributed to the increased population cost of a settler, I think it was actually corruption that nuked this strat. The dozens of cities created were at best only good as culture bombs, and more often only served as expensive colonies.
Warfare was also of limited value. Conquered cities were only useful if they added a resource or had a wonder. Otherwise, it was really only a denial strategy to "pacify" the enemy.
All this amounted to having smaller empires, and de-emphasizing conquest. Since that goes along well with my style of play, I thought it was pretty nice. However, I was in a small minority. Corruption seemed to be the number 1 complaint on the boards, and I fully understand Firaxis' decision to make alterations. Keeping your customers happy is the main priority of an business.
However, I am curious if anyone else feels, as I do, that the original corruption rules were balanced and did make an addition the overall play of the game.
Is there a change I could make with the Editor to use the original Corruption model? I don't want to remove the patch because there are so many fixes in them for problems other than Corruption.

[aebrahim]

If you look in the editor, you can now change this using a slider somewhere (I forget where).

[Zachriel]

I agree and disagree.

I believe corruption has a very proper place in the game, but I think the current levels are fine. The only thing is that they really need is another Forbidden Palace.

I think that corruption can be adjusted in the editor.

[Inverse Icarus]

they should make it so that you could build SEVERAL forbidden palaces absed on your # of cities... and leave the corruption levels as they were before.

[ruskiyparen]

Only make each successive forbidden palace more expensive!
I.e. first is 600 shields, second 1000, third 1500...

[Apocalypse]

I would like the forbidden palace to be moveable. One is really enough though.

[SofaKing]

Building multiple FP's would only further eliminate the concept of corruption. Corruption should be a heavily limiting constraint. Aside from being realistic, it alleviates the major problem of turn-based games, micro-management.
Under the current corr. model, players are rewarded for producing tons of cities and crushing the AI with numeric superiority. However, this can often lead to the arduous task of setting production ques and managing the scads of units produced.
However, with heavier corruption, a player is encouraged (if not forced) to build a smaller empire. Instead of simply out producing the enemy, you are forced to employ more finesse when using your limited resources. The opportunity cost of certain action (building Wonders most notably) are more acutely felt when you only have a limited amount of production points.

[Apocalypse]

When you span 3+ continents it is good to be able to have a palace on the one you are concentrating on. This is not just sending off settlers, but also good during war efforts when you need the front line cities to be able to do something before the war ends.

[kimmygibler]

I agree, I play on small and tiny maps and I raised corruption by quite a bit. You can still have large empires but you generally have to wait for either communism or democracy. Also you must have a good economy to support the needed improvements in so many cities. It seems kind of realistic to me. Plus I like the challenge and the decreased incentive to build endless settlers.

[SofaKing]

I think that the degree of corruption has a significant impact on the game. Far more so, than say, barbarian activity. I think that this would be a great "slide" option on the new game option page. A high corruption setting would set the game for smaller "builder" empires, while a low setting would be for more of a "momentum" player.

[Jon Shafer]

I must say, I have to agree with SofaKing to some degree. I feel that there should be some limitation to reduce the size of empires. However, I feel that using corruption to curtail them is not the way to go about it... In history, multiple cultures causing fragmentation of large empires was the primary cause of their downfall (yes, corruption was a problem, but it did not bring the demise of empires). True revolts and rebellions would add a sharp penalty for large empires that would have to be carefully weighed against the benefits of more cities. Look at EU/2 for a good demonstration of how this system could work.

[Fitz]

IT seems we have come full circle from the original complaints about corruption being too strong. I personally never found it to be so, and post 1.21 I still find it unimportant. But I almost never ICS.

The problem (IMO) was two-fold. First, so many people were used to the ICS model. Even in SMAC, you could deal with the resulting unhappiness from too many cities rather easily, but in civ3 it was much harder to deal with the resulting corruption. In addition, the distance corruption was probably way too high. IF you place a city half way around the world, there should be a penalty, but it is very frustrating when it is a crippling penalty. It would have been better if originally the corruption due to empire size in terms of cities had stayed fairly large, and the distance factor been heavily reduced (or btter yet scaled in a non-linear fashion). That way, ICS would have been reduced, or at least netted heavily diminishing returns, but a small city empire could have easily afforded a semi-distant outpost.

Still, if I felt that strongly about it, I would enter the editor and mod the optimal number of cities down to about 3/4 it's current number. That might stop/slow the AI from mass settling too, provided it is programmed to take corruption levels into aco****. But my dislike of editing the game still outways my opinions on the corruption model.

[MiloMilo]

I agree, SoFaKing, that corruption levels are too low post-1.21. Corruption is a realistic limiting factor to the size and productivity of an empire. With high corruption but strong, productive core cities, one could simply do as Theseus suggests and simply buy all the necessary improvements in the outlying colonies. Sure it would be expensive, but that's the sacrifice you make; a important feature of this game (and any strategy game, I guess) is making strategic sacrifices.

Corruption should should be higher, and to counter it the "wealth" build option should be more efficient, maybe double what it is now.

Lucky for us, all of this is fixable in the editor. For small, efficient nations, and to counter so-called "AI Settler Diarrhea," leave the corruption slider as it is and reduce the "optimal cities" value in the "world sizes" tab. For larger nations that need to fight rampant corruption, leave the optimal cities and increase basic corruption.

[Spiffor]

The problem isn't really corruption, it's the lack of ways to struggle against it. Sure, it's possible to build couthouses, police stations, FP, be democratic, be commercial. But still, your overseas cities will be half as efficient as your mainland cities if FP isn't nearby. What I miss, is another way to deal with corruption, which is corruption-reducing techs. For example, once you discovered "postal network", corruption in all your cities should be lower, because the orders go back and forth more efficiently.

Maybe a given modern (say "telephone") tech should cancel whole corruption due to distance. Distance from the capital doesn't influenc the efficiency of a city in the modern world, while it was the central concern in the ancient world.

But I like having an important corruption because of the number of cities : even in democracies, large countries / empires mean more bureaucracy, more slowness etc.

[MiloMilo]

Another note: I think the gov't type should affect not just general corruption, but the aoptimal cities value as well. This way the filling of the map would be more gradual; not every little bit of land would be filled until civs become monarchies or republics, or even democracies.

This would also hinder (slightly) the somewhat exploitative tactic of religious civs building up armies in democracy and switching to Monarchy to go to war. If they have lots of cities as a democracy, they would take a double corruption hit for reverting, thus making them less able to make new reinforcements.

[MiloMilo]

Spiffor, I find your views interesting and attractive. I would like to subscribe to you newsletter.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Spiffor
The problem isn't really corruption, it's the lack of ways to struggle against it. Sure, it's possible to build couthouses, police stations, FP, be democratic, be commercial. But still, your overseas cities will be half as efficient as your mainland cities if FP isn't nearby. What I miss, is another way to deal with corruption, which is corruption-reducing techs. For example, once you discovered "postal network", corruption in all your cities should be lower, because the orders go back and forth more efficiently.

Maybe a given modern (say "telephone") tech should cancel whole corruption due to distance. Distance from the capital doesn't influenc the efficiency of a city in the modern world, while it was the central concern in the ancient world.

But I like having an important corruption because of the number of cities : even in democracies, large countries / empires mean more bureaucracy, more slowness etc.

Very good points, I agree.
I still think that there should be a better way to limit empire size rather than focusing on corruption, but working within Civ 3 your ideas are very appropriate.

[Spiffor]

MiloMilo :
My newsletter

Trip :
These aren't really my ideas. Actually, I didn't invent anything, these are the points I read on 'Poly, and I agreed with. (Just said this not to take credit for those ideas)

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Spiffor
MiloMilo :
My newsletter

LoL
It would be even better if someone asked if they could donate to your charity.

[MiloMilo]

Sorry, Spiffor, arcane Simpsons reference.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Spiffor
The problem isn't really corruption, it's the lack of ways to struggle against it. Sure, it's possible to build couthouses, police stations, FP, be democratic, be commercial. But still, your overseas cities will be half as efficient as your mainland cities if FP isn't nearby. What I miss, is another way to deal with corruption, which is corruption-reducing techs. For example, once you discovered "postal network", corruption in all your cities should be lower, because the orders go back and forth more efficiently.

Maybe a given modern (say "telephone") tech should cancel whole corruption due to distance. Distance from the capital doesn't influenc the efficiency of a city in the modern world, while it was the central concern in the ancient world.

But I like having an important corruption because of the number of cities : even in democracies, large countries / empires mean more bureaucracy, more slowness etc.

Interesting ideas, I like the corruption-reducing tech ideas.

Otoh, you can mod the game. Add a second Forbidden palace.

In my mod, I increase its price 50%. Add a third FP. Increase its price another 50%. Add a fourth, increase price another 50%.
Theoretically you could keep building FPs, but the price keeps going up. There's no actual cap, just a point where it becomes not "worthwhile" or not "efficient" anymore. This would depend on geography and your particular civ's circumstance. This keeps FP placement also strategic.

"Efficient" empires are still possible, but making them "efficient" is a time-dependent process (unless you have leaders) representing your govt's longterm struggle to stamp out corruption. Warmongers not building infrastructure will find their empire's fringes weak. Builder-imperialists will be able to make their fringe cities more valuable and productive, though it will take time.

Without the extra FPs, after the first major expansion, any further expansion isn't worthwhile (except to deny the land to someone else).

[albiedamned]

SofaKing, it sounds like you and I are in the exact same boat. I played intensely for a month in November when the game first came out, then for some reason I didn't play again until just recently. Like you, I installed the latest patch. And while I was pleased that air superiority works now , I was surprised as I started to play by how much corruption had been reduced.

I was one of the people arguing vehemently on these boards when the game first came out that the new corruption model was a good thing and that all the conquerors and ICS'ers of the world would just have to learn to adapt instead of criticizing the game. I still think that. I was able to consistently win at Monarch level despite the corruption, because I adapted my playing strategies for it. To me, the people screaming about corruption were probably just bitter because their Civ2/SMAC strategies were causing them to, gasp, lose.

Anyway, I agree that corruption should be raised back up somewhat. It is not realistic to be able to conquer an entire other continent and maintain useful control of it. Name one example in history where that has happened.

[Arrian]

Spiffor,

I remember arguing for corruption reduction based upon technology back when everyone was complaining about corruption. I thought the initial level of corruption was a bit too high, and was largely satisfied by the time 1.17 came around. Still, I think battling corruption should be a process that continues into the modern age.

I posted a rather long, drawn out table of maximum corruption limits for cities under the various forms of government, divided up by Era (did it that way for simplicity, but I actually like using specific techs better). I should try and find that post...

Anyway, I agree with you. I think that would add something to the game... give you a sense of moving through history.

-Arrian

[Spiffor]

Arrian :
In fact you're agreeing with yourself Sorry I forgot you were the one who thought of it. It's a great idea, and I hope it will be implemented one day (although it's not my top priority, as you can see in my sig. )

[kimmygibler]

"I would enter the editor and mod the optimal number of cities down to about 3/4 it's current number. That might stop/slow the AI from mass settling too, provided it is programmed to take corruption levels into aco****."

The sd thing is that this isn't the case. The ai will continuously build useless cities that produce nothing just to take up territory. The ai doesn't think about corruption at all as far as I can tell. There needs to be harsher penalties for severe corruption. For example, 'the angry rebels haveformed a new civilization, they are calling themselves the Zulus.' Or at least some sort of major penalty that the ai takse into account.

btw, I have never changed my opinion on this. I was always in favour of the high corruption and even raised corruption in the editor since the beginning.

[Panag]

Originally posted by kimmygibler
"I would enter the editor and mod the optimal number of cities down to about 3/4 it's current number. That might stop/slow the AI from mass settling too, provided it is programmed to take corruption levels into aco****."

The sd thing is that this isn't the case. The ai will continuously build useless cities that produce nothing just to take up territory. The ai doesn't think about corruption at all as far as I can tell. There needs to be harsher penalties for severe corruption. For example, 'the angry rebels haveformed a new civilization, they are calling themselves the Zulus.' Or at least some sort of major penalty that the ai takse into account.

btw, I have never changed my opinion on this. I was always in favour of the high corruption and even raised corruption in the editor since the beginning.

hi ,

you can also put zero food on a forest and tundra , together with putting the cost for a a settler a 60-80 shields , ..

have a nice day

[vondrack]

Originally posted by Spiffor
The problem isn't really corruption, it's the lack of ways to struggle against it.
...

Maybe a given modern (say "telephone") tech should cancel whole corruption due to distance. Distance from the capital doesn't influenc the efficiency of a city in the modern world, while it was the central concern in the ancient world.

But I like having an important corruption because of the number of cities : even in democracies, large countries / empires mean more bureaucracy, more slowness etc.

You've got my full support, Spiffor.

The distance-related corruption should really be limited to the ancient and medieval eras... maybe tied to the form of government plus some small wonders? First a postal system, then a telephone network, finally maybe the internet... the corruption/waste due to the number of cities might, on the other hand, be even increased a bit for the more sophisticated government types then (imagine how many offices and governmental institutions current democratic countries maintain...).

[Panag]

hi ,

corruption is part of our real lives , ....in some countries half the GNP is "under the table" , .......

have a nice day

[Barchan]

As I've said before, I think most people's beef with the early versions of the game was the crippling effect of waste, which affects shields, rather than corruption, which affects trade. I, for one, can accept that a far-flung city will get only a small percentage of gold back to the royal coffers at the King's palace. Similarly, I can accept that a large empire will suffer a greater level of corruption than a smaller one, due to administration and policing issues. But I could never stomach the fact that a city, despite having a reasonably well-developed infrastructure and police department, would still somehow manage to lose 90% or more of its basic raw materials used for LOCAL production (which shields are, essentially, since they're not centrally pooled). Waste was (and is) what made building distant colonies impossible, not corruption.

I think Firaxis missed a golden opportunity. If they had fully developed the difference between waste and corruption and reduced waste while keeping corruption high, it would have bettered the game. By divorcing waste from corruption, it would have been possible to build distant strategic outposts that could actually support themselves with local construction projects and unit recruitment while minimizing some of the snowball effects of a large empire, specifically tons-o-gold and massive research capacity.

The bottom line would have been that large empires would primarily benefit only the conquerors, and not everyone. More cities would equal the ability to produce more units, but not necessarily more money or science. Indeed, a small, well-managed empire would have been nearly as wealthy as a large, sprawling one. But by reducing both waste and corruption, now it profits everyone to grow a huge empire. And thus, with yet another strategic pathway pruned (a la the "mandatory science" required to advance a new age), the game is slowly becoming more and more of a "horserace" game where whoever best implements the same (and only) strategy wins.

Yes, yes, I know that there’s a slider for corruption now so you can set it to your own liking, but there’s just the one slider for both corruption and waste. I just think it’s a shame that Firaxis came up with a great idea to distinguish between waste and corruption but then failed to meaningfully implement it. Not as great a shame as colonies, mind you, but there you have it....

[Jon Shafer]

But Barchan, you're missing the point of corruption and waste. Yes, your points make perfect sense, I'm sure most of us will agree. However, corruption and waste were included to tone down on using warfare to expand, and just plain to expand period. Reducing waste would still make it possible for larger empires to be much more powerful than a smaller one. It's designed so that at a certain point, a new city can do NOTHING because the corruption and waste is so high that it's not worth having. That's the point. And changing things would render the system useless.

I still say the problem is massive empires that grow without limits. And I still say the solution is not 'corruption' and 'waste'. It needs to be more historical: the farther away a city/province was from the capital, the more rebellious and independent it became. Rebellions and revolts become more common, requiring a larger military, which is more expensive. Eventually the costs of maintaining a large empire outstrip the benefits of having one. That's how it should be.