What's the deal w/ the FP???

steven8r · November 23, 2003, 17:51

Ok, I've seen several posts about massive corruption in C3C and how cities shouldn't be placed in rings or whatever (I wasn't up on that strategy/exploit before and I still don't know if I understand it now)

So, what's the deal w/ the Forbiden Palace now?

Does it hurt to build it?

Is this on the 'Never Build' list now or what?

If someone could please answer simply... Thank you.

DrSpike · November 23, 2003, 18:03

Check out the Whoa Corruption thread for details, but basically the FP reduces corruption for cities far from the palace but near the FP (as you'd expect), but also increases corruption accidentally in some cities as there is a bug in the way the city ranks are calculated.

steven8r · November 23, 2003, 18:34

DrSpike,

that's the thread to which I was referring (Whoa Corruption), but it got-off on discussing RCP, OCP, BFD, etc. and I was getting lost. That's why I started this thread--to help clarify some of the confusion.

vmxa1 · November 23, 2003, 19:54

As near as I can tell, you can build the FP in a second core that is far from you capitol and benefit.
It is actually less painful to me to build it now using MGL. Before I hated to use them for an FP, now it is not painful at all.

DrSpike · November 23, 2003, 20:21

Quote:

Originally posted by steven8r
DrSpike,

that's the thread to which I was referring (Whoa Corruption), but it got-off on discussing RCP, OCP, BFD, etc. and I was getting lost. That's why I started this thread--to help clarify some of the confusion.

Well I guess the short version is still build the FP, but don't expect it to be as good as it was in PTW at combating overall corruption, at least until the patch arrives.

MrWhereItsAt · November 23, 2003, 21:08

From my recent game it appears (again, precise details depend on exact city spacings from the FP and Palace) to act as a second Palace as before, but now it increases the corruption and waste in cities that are nearer the Palace. When reading about all this I thought it was just the strategy genii getting upset about something that they controlled so perfectly and precisely before, but no, it has a substantial effect that even I noticed. The FP is still worth it, but just means you want your best cities nearer the FP, and the cities you consider "second-place best" near the Palace.

Andydog · November 24, 2003, 12:06

I'm actually starting to think that this 'bug' involving corruption is actually quite good.

My biggest gripe with Civ3 (and PTW) is that warmongering was essential, even if you’re a builder going for a space victory. To remain competitive against the AI’s (I usually play on Monarch, small/medium map), or other humans, you needed sufficient land to house a bunch of cities around both a palace and a FP. Thus you’d always have to go to war for the land and cities and hope for a GL to rush your FP. War was essential, and it got tiresome.

Furthermore, the person who built the FP first more often than not got a massive advantage over the others, and if they built it really early, the game would essentially be over before it had even begun.

Now all the FP does is redistribute corruption - it only makes sense to build it in a place where there are better cities than those surrounding the outer ring of the core cities around your capital. Therefore it now isn't so essential to build it, so war isn't so essential.

Now admittedly I’ve only played two single player C3C games – one on small map 80% water islands, where I did build a FP on another of the bigger islands that I colonised, the other was on a small map 60% water pangea where I went as the Celts (agricultural religious). I got a challenging start position - was cut off by the French, and in fact all other AI's had much more land. Also I was falling way behind in techs. I decided to concentrate on growth, and eventually just managed to get the Great Library, which gave me about 15 techs all up I think. I concentrated a lot on diplomacy - many AI’s have always been gracious toward me, but the French were only ever polite and eventually they launched a sneak attack on me.

Lack of land meant I had had to trade constantly for various resources. Thankfully having concentrated on city growth and science, I had managed to secure the tech lead and had begun trading techs for coal and saltpetre – just in time to hold off the rampaging French – I even managed to take a few of their cities before they asked for peace.

So by making the most of the cities on the limited land I had, I managed to pull ahead of those massive civs who have been fighting each other.

It's now about 1800AD or so and I know that if any of these massive civs attack me for my limited land, I could still beat them off. So the game seems more balanced in that war is no longer essential to win. Sure you can still win via war if that's what you like, but now the builder players also have a good chance.

This is how it should be I reckon.
I'm hoping that this corruption 'bug' stays.

Niessuh · November 24, 2003, 12:25

I agree with you, Andydog. I think that the new FP isn't a bug (appart from the comunism one). Moving part of your government means creating more corruption at the old center. It seems much more realistic that having two capitals.
The old schemes are changing....

DrSpike · November 24, 2003, 12:30

Eh? Read the Whoa corruption thread.........it is very likely the effects are unintended.

Niessuh · November 24, 2003, 12:50

I have read it

is there some kind of "confirmation" made by the designers?

DrSpike · November 24, 2003, 13:00

No, not that I've seen, but once you get down and dirty with the formulae I think the case for it being a mistake presented in the whoa thread is very strong.

Master Marcus · November 24, 2003, 18:39

I've read the other corruption-related threads, and I'm lurking in just to say, for my part and it's just my 2 cents, that the whole FP\corruption compound ( may be intentional coding or not ) is quite manageable. Probably not realistic, but manageable - each time the FP is completed in my epic games, whatever the corruption increase in some cities closer to the Palace and far away the FP ( which I didn't really notice such a dramatic impact like some say ), well my overall imperial income ( net gain, science breakers, etc...) is upgraded a bit. So for me it's not a major bug; it's not even a bug if the coding is intentional. Now maybe the gpt x2 is the only real economic bug for me so far....( though it applies also for the AI ).

TheArsenal · November 24, 2003, 19:22

I’ve read through a few of the corruption threads myself and have a couple of boiled to the basics questions.

What is the deal with Communism and corruption?

And depending on what the answer to that is, is it worth building a SPHQ? How about on another continent?

In my current epic game (large map), I have significant holdings on another continent, have just researched Nationalism, and am debating corruption fighting methods. I would rather not move my palace, but will if I have to. In PTW I found communism was a decent, if imperfect, answer. But it sounds like it may have serious flaws/bugs now.