Corruption and Waste destroy Civ3

Ben Williams · January 2, 2003, 20:27

It's true and everybody knows it. If you're playing a normal, unmodded game, there is no way to ever create a realistic large empire. It gets worse the further you get, and horrifying if you're actually trying to conquer the world.

The model of tying corruption almost solely to distance from your capital is absurd. Until this is fixed Civ3 will not be complete.

Right now I'm playing a game with no corruption or waste and it's amazing. You can actually build things. I'm not saying there should be none at all, just that it should make sense.

Okay, I'm done.

Tuberski · January 2, 2003, 20:40

Then why does everybody play the game the way it is? A lot of people do.

I don't, I reduce corruption to 50% and it seems to help a lot.

ACK!

trickey · January 2, 2003, 20:43

That is a pretty bad rant. I have seen lots of players (much more skilled than me) build very large empires without being crippled by corruption.

You should take into account the placement of your Palace and forbidden palace. Don't build your forbidden palace as soon as you can. Wait a little while, untill you can almost visualize a second core for your empire.

Once you are very well off (in terms of # of cities) then consieder making a palace jump. A palace on the tip of a pinninsula is a waste, move it to a much more central location.

SanPellegrino · January 2, 2003, 20:51

I played civ 1,2 and AC before and I hated the corruption in Civ 3 of course. But the more I played, I get to like it! It considers careful planning and gives the Human an edge over the AI.

WarpStorm · January 2, 2003, 21:00

Plus you can always switch to Communism, which in some cases can help a lot (if you are prepared for the switch ahead of time).

BigDork · January 2, 2003, 21:02

Cool, Ithaca. I'm originally from Binghamton... anyway

I'm currently playing PtW without any patches. Don't currently have internet at home. Sure corruption is a pain but it doesn't make the game unplayable. I'm sure it's a better game with patches but not playing it patched I wouldn't know. I enjoy it now and am sure I'll still love it after I can finally patch the thing.

BigDork

peterfharris · January 3, 2003, 00:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Ben Williams
It's true and everybody knows it.

I didn't know and I think it is not true. Tuberski said it all.

Antonin · January 3, 2003, 10:30

Me, I think corruption is a good feature. It's another obstacle for me to overcome on my way to global domination. I wouldn't play C3/PTW without it.

Fried-Psitalon · January 3, 2003, 10:49

Top five ways to avoid distance-corruption issues:

1. Palace movement
2. Proper placement of FP
3. Communism
4. Play a commercial Civ
5. Play smaller maps

If you're getting this problem after conquering cities, you could always adopt a scorched earth policy and use workers to build invasion roads.

Lambiorix_be · January 3, 2003, 11:30

Although I agree that even with corruption and waste you are still able to build large empires I would like to see some changes to way it is conceived.

I think corruption should not only be linked to the distance of the captital or FP but also to the technological level of the infrastructure. If the city is liked to the capital with a railroad and or an airport it should have less corruption then a similar distant city that has only a road. This is only logical since the distance to the capital in 'time' diminishes.

I don't think this change would unbalance the game in any way...

sabrewolf · January 3, 2003, 14:31

i used to mod out corruption because it annoyed me. but since i play CFC's GotM, i've got to practise with the original unmodded version.

corruption truly can cripple you. however, it does make sence. specially the # of city-corruption is good for beating a much more powerful nation (the AI sucks in dealing with corruption in large empires).

however, i'd prefer the disctance-based corruption to be less extreme. cities more than 10 tiles away are waaaay too slow in despotism. so if you don't start in a great region full of bonus resources and lots of shields and trade, it can be quite difficult to have a powerful core.

i agree with lambiorix about the time-distance that sould count. 2000 BC an empire was the size of a modern day country like egypt (egyptians) or iraq (mesopotamians, babylonians). around year 0, it was the mediterranean region, then always bigger and bigger.

look at today: archorage, san francisco and honolulu don't have bigger corruption than washington, and they ARE very far away from the east cost...

Jimboscott · January 4, 2003, 06:35

Very usefull tips, I think :

If you have the chance to win a leader use it to build the Forbidden Palace, if you choose the good place, that's is very usefull. The FP come simply in one turn and all cities around have immediatly the benefit...

Do all the think possible to have a leader, like build Barracks in each city, always attack with the Elite troups when that's possible and you increase your chance to win a leader.

I hope this is helpfull...

Ben Williams · January 4, 2003, 11:58

I'm not dumb, I know all about the FB and palace placement. I almost always play a commercial civ, and I build every corruption improvment available. What I'm complaining about here is the way corruption is instituted. As it has often been said, the current corruption model would make Washington (and Las Vegas, if you consider that to be the location of the FP) the least corrupt city in the country. At the same time, Alaska and Hawaii would never produce anything, and would be more corrupt than any place in the continental U.S. What I'm complaining about primarily here is what I see as the massive hole in gameplay brought about by a drastic over-simplification in the current system governing corruption and waste. Sure, you probably can manage a large empire with enough planning, but it will never be realisitic, esspecially as you enter the modern age. You cannot, for example, have one large continent and a small island, because the island will only have one production for the bulk of the game. It is almost impossaible to build remote bases.

Also, it's ridiculus that communism is the best form of government for corruption. Maybe for small governments this would work, but as Russia showed us, just because something is communal does not mean it's less corrupt.

Mazarin · January 4, 2003, 13:47

first: why do you think that communism is the "best form of government for corruption"? At the strategy forum, alexman made some excellent research on corruption and the results were -IIRC- that communism is not better in terms of corruption than monarchy.
second: this game is not realistic -it's not supposed to be. Civ3needs corruption as it is the only way of balancing expansion vs. building...I actually would like to have corruption tied to happiness/culture but they prefered to make it more simple...that's ok for balancing the game.

Panag · January 4, 2003, 14:55

hi ,

give the editor a look , ....

have a nice day

Coracle · January 4, 2003, 23:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Tuberski
Then why does everybody play the game the way it is? A lot of people do.

I don't, I reduce corruption to 50% and it seems to help a lot.

ACK!

"Everybody" does NOT play the game the way it is. Many Civ 1 and 2 addicts no longer play it at all and are long gone from this forum.

As for modding it, that helps a little. But his POINT was the game AS PRESENTED BY FIRAXIS is not very playable. That is the result of a rushed product and little playtesting (if any at all).

His other point was it is ABSURD to tie corruption to distance from capital, even in a Democracy. If that was so Alaska and Hawaii would be cesspools of rampant corruption. So there is no realism in Civ 3 either.

WarpStorm · January 5, 2003, 10:48

I think there should be an option to tie corruption to the amount of time it would take a movement 1 foot unit (a hypothetical government bureacrat) to get from the palace or forbidden palace to the city using any transportation means (road, rail, ROP, Airports, ships, helicopter, etc.). The base corruption for an unconnected city would probably need to be increased

to get the numbers right. This would be much more realistic model of corruption and still be simple enough to implement.

sabrewolf · January 5, 2003, 11:20

exactly, warpstorm.
a few months ago there was a thread about this.

my idea would be:
corruption system stays the same, maybe even slightly higher base corruption, BUT:
- road connection reduces corruption by 5-10%
- railroad by 10-20%
- harbor connection by 10-20%
- airport connection by 20-30%

if city A is connected to B by airport, but city C only has a road to B, then city C just gets the road reduction.

also, technologies should/could reduce corruption, not just governements. there are democracies (e.g. italy) which are more corrupt than republics and communisms.

Inverse Icarus · January 5, 2003, 14:01

why does this thread always start the day one just like it falls to the second page?

Panag · January 5, 2003, 14:54

Quote:

Originally posted by sabrewolf
exactly, warpstorm.
a few months ago there was a thread about this.

my idea would be:
corruption system stays the same, maybe even slightly higher base corruption, BUT:
- road connection reduces corruption by 5-10%
- railroad by 10-20%
- harbor connection by 10-20%
- airport connection by 20-30%

if city A is connected to B by airport, but city C only has a road to B, then city C just gets the road reduction.

also, technologies should/could reduce corruption, not just governements. there are democracies (e.g. italy) which are more corrupt than republics and communisms.

hi ,

a long , long , very long time ago it was asked that Firaxis would include something like state capitals , .... a courthouse and police station should also play a ( small ) role in nearby cities , ......

but we are still waiting , well if we dont give up , who knows , ......

have a nice day

Panag · January 5, 2003, 14:56

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX
why does this thread always start the day one just like it falls to the second page?

hi ,

its called the theory of evolution , ......;

have a nice day

P.S. what would you do to improve the game when it comes to corruption and waste

Fried-Psitalon · January 5, 2003, 16:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Coracle

"Everybody" does NOT play the game the way it is. Many Civ 1 and 2 addicts no longer play it at all and are long gone from this forum.

As for modding it, that helps a little. But his POINT was the game AS PRESENTED BY FIRAXIS is not very playable. That is the result of a rushed product and little playtesting (if any at all).

His other point was it is ABSURD to tie corruption to distance from capital, even in a Democracy. If that was so Alaska and Hawaii would be cesspools of rampant corruption. So there is no realism in Civ 3 either.

I would respectfully disagree- the game is quite playable as it stands. I can prove this simply by saying: lots of people play it. What you mean is *you don't like the way it plays* as Firaxis presents it. And voila, the solution is there as folks have pointed out, in the editor.
I personally think that corruption, as annoying as it is, is probably the only realistic way to stop ancient-era war from exploding to an even greater degree than it does currently! The game as it stands right now leans far too heavily in favor of the warmonger (whether or not history does in fact support the power of warmongers over builders is an interesting, but irrelevant, topic...) Honestly, as much as people complain about the power of warmongering, the case might be made for increasing corruption, particularly in conquered territories...

How would I fix the situation? I think there should be a technological decreaser, say, at Education, Navigation, Steam Power, Motorized Transportation, and then finally Rocketry, as each of these symbolize a significant increase in our ability to communicate information and ideas. There might also be a few INcreases in corruption as well - say, when The Corporation is reasearched. (American history shows a period in which the government struggled a great deal with corporate power; I apologize for my ignorance of the economic history of other nations.)

Corruption could be a lot more than simply a negative impact- it could become a very active facet of the game.

Perhaps other nations could affect your corruption as well through various means. This might be a very useful defense for "Builders" against "Warmongers." I could go further on this but now we're truly stepping into the fantasy realm of what is likely to never be.

Conqueror · January 5, 2003, 19:10

Corruption and Waste are key elements in the game, without them, it would be just too easy to win. It would be like civ2 - no challenge even you played deity on hugest map.

Corruption & Waste system as it is now on Civ 3 is very good and should not be changed. Everyone who dislikes it can change the corruption to 0 from the editor if they want to play corruption-free civ3

BigDork · January 5, 2003, 22:02

Quote:

Originally posted by panag
P.S. what would you do to improve the game when it comes to corruption and waste

Personally I think that corruption and waste should be more related to happiness. From personal experience, I work harder when I am happy with my job then when I totally hate it.

BigD

Zamphyr · January 6, 2003, 00:22

First: I like warpstorms idea....

Second: Alaska and Hawaii ARE corrupt. Have you ever looked at the legislation their senators submit ?

Third: Uberkrux is right. end thread.

Coracle · January 6, 2003, 00:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Zamphyr
First: I like warpstorms idea....

Second: Alaska and Hawaii ARE corrupt. Have you ever looked at the legislation their senators submit ?

That's pretty funny.

Unfortunately for the "logic" you present, the most corrupt state is New Jersey - just look at how Lautenburg stole the Senate election in November. New Jersey has been notorious for corruption for generations. It is a whole lot closer to the capital in Washington than Alaska or Hawaii.

So we see another Firaxis concept makes no sense at all.

BigDork · January 6, 2003, 01:30

Actually, I bet if you look you could find a whole lotta corruption right in the Capitol itself. Probably more than would be found in a lot of the cities farther away.

BigD

CrONoS · January 6, 2003, 02:31

I think to balance the game, corruption can be a factor about foreign people. More you got Foreign people in your city, more corruption you got(when you capture city from another civ). This will balanced the game for non-Warmonger people. AND you keep the same Corruption system but decreasing with time, like the idea Fried-Psitalon said before me.
" there should be a technological decreaser, say, at Education, Navigation, Steam Power, Motorized Transportation, and then finally Rocketry, as each of these symbolize a significant increase in our ability to communicate information and ideas. "

And maybe some Hapiness factor.

petemajor · January 6, 2003, 09:20

When I started playing Civ 3 I hated the corruption model too. I gradually changed the way I played, after figuring out strategies on my own and reading posts here and on http://www.civfanatics.com. Now I love the corruption system - an empire has to be planned, not just tidal-waved with troops!

"It's almost impossible to build a global empire in Civ3..." is the common argument. Uh, *news flash* - of course it is, and of course it should be! That's why it hasn't happened in real life!

I *really* dislike city flipping, but I'm learning to live with it and it hasn't happened to me for at least half a dozen games now and I assume I'll eventually like it as much as the corruption system.

BOTTOM LINE: It's easy to hate a game feature you don't understand and that stops you from winning! So stop playing the same everytime and learn how to beat it!

Argos65987 · January 6, 2003, 14:52

Quote:

Originally posted by petemajor

BOTTOM LINE: It's easy to hate a game feature you don't understand and that stops you from winning! So stop playing the same everytime and learn how to beat it!

Well said.