Was FP Corruption Bug fixed?

[vmxa1]

NYE I think your post qualifies for the "you may be addictive if" thread.

[Kuciwalker]

Actually, they'll nerve staple us all.

"Please don't go. The drones need you. They look up to you."

[dexters]

Originally posted by notyoueither
No, then we riot.

Sir, Apolyton has lost all productivity, due to flaming and general complaints!
The people want patches, more expansions, and Civ4..
What shall we do?

* I'll deal with 'the freaks' of Apolyton, later
* Ahhh, give 'em a patch
* Start posting about Civ4

Where is the "raze the website" option?

[Andydog]

Well I'm also not entirely sure what Jesse was telling us about the FP.

If the FP is intended to reduce distance corruption AND rank corruption ("It is a bug that the FP doesn't provide a new set of city ranks"), then it begs the question: How powerful is this second core intended to be? The more powerful it will be, the more essential the FP will become and the land needed for the second core. If its going to be as powerful as it was in PTW then we're back to the days of the one and only viable strategy - build up your primary core, go to war, get a leader, build you FP hopefully before everyone else. If you didn't get your leader, then more war. War war war freaking war.

Please Jesse, lets keep the FP not so essential. Let us play some other strategies in what is shaping up to be a truly fantastic game.

Or, make the FP reduce corruption such that if you do build it close to your Capital, you aren't being penalised. By this I mean you'd add the reduction of corruption from your FP to the reduction of corruption from your Capital, so in effect you could have one 'supercore' of producers, should you not have the land for a separate secondary core. Say you only had 10 cities - you could still build your FP and then have a civ with zero corruption - 10 'supercities' capable of producing enough to beat off any aggressor, no matter how big.

I admit I'm more of a builder than a warmonger, but the truth is I do enjoy both. But what I don't like is having to warmonger to win. Civ should be a game with more depth, more strategic options, more ways to play. It shouldn't only be about war imho.

What does everyone think about this? Do you want a game where war is essential?

[Buckets]

Andydog: i agree 100%

[Kuciwalker]

I think something that could help the AI (and reduce annoyance for the player) make a go of it even with bad placement is to cap corruption at, say, 60%. Plus it would be a lot less annoying.

[Catt]

Originally posted by Andydog
If its going to be as powerful as it was in PTW then we're back to the days of the one and only viable strategy - build up your primary core, go to war, get a leader, build you FP hopefully before everyone else. If you didn't get your leader, then more war. War war war freaking war.

Please Jesse, lets keep the FP not so essential. Let us play some other strategies in what is shaping up to be a truly fantastic game.

[. . .]

But what I don't like is having to warmonger to win. Civ should be a game with more depth, more strategic options, more ways to play. It shouldn't only be about war imho.

What does everyone think about this? Do you want a game where war is essential?

I disagree that a strong FP means warfare is a required approach. It's often quite possible to expand into 2 decent cores and build an FP manually. War may offer many benefits in Civ 3, but I just don't think a strong case can be made that it is required. In certain positions or certain games, aggressive expansion may in fact be the way to go (may even be "required" in the sense that the game will be exceedingly difficult to compete effectively without it); but I fail to see how war was required in earlier versions employing the traditional "strong" FP.

Or, make the FP reduce corruption such that if you do build it close to your Capital, you aren't being penalised.

I don't think the player is being penalized if he chooses to build an FP within the original core. Sure, one may not be enjoying as much potential benefit as one could by making a different choice, but if choosing a less optimal play equates to penalization, then one is penalized numerous times throughout the game.

Catt

[Plotinus]

[Andydog] I agree completely. Catt is right to say there are times when building the cities for a second core does not require war - settling an uninhabited island, for example. But it is impossible to build the FP in such a place without a Great Leader of some kind, because if it's far enough away to be of any use then there's too much corruption to build it. So I support anything that makes the FP worthwhile closer to home, thereby making warfare a less overriding option.

[ducki]

Please Jesse, lets keep the FP not so essential. Let us play some other strategies in what is shaping up to be a truly fantastic game.

You can play with any strategy you like, including placing the FP close to home, like the AI.

There are so many different playstyles, so many options(at every difficulty level) that the player can make the game into anything they like, even before opening the editor.

I don't think a forced playstyle change is the way to go, especially when not everyone plays at the same level with the same settings. Sure, the AI places the FP poorly. So what? That's one of the advantages the human has over an AI with brutal bonuses at the higher levels.

The FP is not so essential, either. The bug proved that. You can still outplay, outwit, and outmicromanage the AI with or without it. I'd rather not see all players forced into an uninteresting FP-placement/build decision, which is what I think happens when you hamper it so that you might as well let the AI randomly pick a spot for you.

Keep the FP powerful, I say. Leave the players the interesting and strategic decision that comes about when you are totally stumped as to whether to put your second core on your own continent or on another or even on a largish island.

Keep it as it was. If the AI needs help, let's not help it by reducing the players strategic options.

That's my opinion, maybe I'm just being nostalgic.


Edit: @Plotinus - I'm all for a useful nearby FP, but I think reducing the strength of the faraway FP so that everyone just settles for building it close to home is the wrong way to go. Give it a close-to-home buff, not a far-from-home nerf. That would make the decision even more interesting and strategic, IMO.

[Buckets]

Interesting, Ducki says it's more strategic one way and Andydog says the other.

I think it should reduce and REDISTRIBUTE corruption, but not to be as powerful as before. By building the FP far away, you would create a new production core, but reduce your initial (palace) core. Now that would be interesting.

[Kuciwalker]

That's how it worked pre-patch.

[Aggie]

Originally posted by Buckets
Interesting, Ducki says it's more strategic one way and Andydog says the other.

I think it should reduce and REDISTRIBUTE corruption, but not to be as powerful as before. By building the FP far away, you would create a new production core, but reduce your initial (palace) core. Now that would be interesting.

That's what Conquest did prepatch basically. I actually did prefer that to the new way. It didn't devastate games and you had 2 reasonable powerful cores. The way it is now is so far off how we all played that it makes the game more difficult. The big problem with the original was the GPT bug and slightly less so the RCP "fix".

Andy, as Ducki said, its not always necessary to warmonger to get the second core. If you have large to huge worlds with 8 civs its very possible and even with 16 you often have a good deal of land if you get lucky.(say a choke point or two that let you expand)early in one direction and later in the other open area). Of course the more civs you have have the more chance of having less land and thus more the need to warmonger(of course tech trading among AI also increases this need at higer levels, nothing like a good vassal state).
I also must confess that generally I am a warmonger, though I have only won 2 games through domination. Usually I use war for security and increasing research base and usually win by Space Race victory.

Aggie

[monkeyman]

Originally posted by ducki

There's a lot of this sentiment, myself included.

The problem, as I see it, is it's awfully late in C3's lifecycle to go "fixing" something of this magnitude. If it really was a bug, why wasn't it patched in one of the many other patches to Vanilla or PtW?

That's really my main gripe. If you let it go this long, so as to become a "feature", it's a bit too late to "fix" it and call it a "bug".

Had it been changed before PtW, I doubt anyone would have had a problem, but how old is C3? Isn't that a bit long to wait for this sort of fix?

Civ4 guinea pigs, anyone? Just a theory, but perhaps they are testing out some rules changes for civ3.5, er, civ4. Blizzard did a similar thing w/ Starcraft, releasing a major patch, adding most significantly, computer allies enabling in SP and a replay feature. This was 2+ years after the original release. Both of these were implemented quite well in WarcraftIII, so their test release seemed to work quite well in the end.
edit: one could do a lot worse than to emulate Blizzard, SC & WCIII were TIGHT from day one. If only civ4 could be that polished...


--mm

[Capt Dizle]

Good God. The thought that they might use Civ3 as a stepping stone for Civ4 makes me sick on my stomach. The whole world want Civ2 and SMAC to form the basis for Civ3 and they threw the baby out with the bath water and gave us this birth defect called Civ3. Surely they will throw that puking pile of vomit out entirely and go back to Civ2 and SMAC and use those as a basis for Civ4. Or do something entirely new.

But for God's sake don't tell me that Civ4 is just going to be an expansion of this wretched worm ridden linear brain dead ordeal called Civ3.

[WarpStorm]

Well, JT, as the people who made Civ2 and SMAC left the franchise to make RTSs, I would say that it is safe to assume that those who made Civ3 will also make Civ4.

(I also heard a rumor that the BHG guys designed a lot of Civ3 before leaving).

[Kuciwalker]

Civ4 guinea pigs, anyone?

Please, no.

[Jaguar]

I think corruption should be lowered in addition to this change. But if that is not done, then I want the PTW style FP back.

[DrSpike]

Well having read all the posts from Firaxis again, I think they want a situation which I would call the intuitive one, which is Vanilla/PTW corruption but with no RCP and no bugs where you could get many cities with rank 1 after the FP was built.

Hopefully they will get there soon........it has been over 2 years and it's not worked as regards their stated aims yet though.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior
I think corruption should be lowered in addition to this change. But if that is not done, then I want the PTW style FP back.

I hate corruption

[Andydog]

Originally posted by Catt
I disagree that a strong FP means warfare is a required approach. It's often quite possible to expand into 2 decent cores and build an FP manually. War may offer many benefits in Civ 3, but I just don't think a strong case can be made that it is required. In certain positions or certain games, aggressive expansion may in fact be the way to go (may even be "required" in the sense that the game will be exceedingly difficult to compete effectively without it); but I fail to see how war was required in earlier versions employing the traditional "strong" FP.

True, I suppose there are circumstances where you may be able to get enough land for a good second core without going to war. I can think of games on the lower levels with few AI's, or games as Aggie described – large huge worlds or worlds where you can cut off the AI’s at chokepoints and the like.

But in my experience it is rare to get enough land for a good second core that doesn’t encroach on your primary core. Certainly on the higher levels, with the bonuses the AI's receive, it is very hard to out expand them - I was playing monarch once on a standard map, continents, 70% water. I had two floodplain cities producing settlers every 4 turns, pre-roaded to every new city location, and I still couldn't keep up with AI expansion.

And say you do manage to expand enough, can I ask you Catt, how do you then build your FP? Do you rush a courthouse and then wait 100 turns? 100 turns is a long time to wait to double the power of your civ - it makes more sense to go for a leader doesn't it? Certainly on the higher levels you need that second core up and running as soon as possible to keep up with the AI. Imagine how far the AI can get ahead in 100 turns on Emperor.

Okay perhaps war isn’t ‘essential’ in the strict sense of the word, but I stand by my point that PTW and its powerful FP was a game that encouraged and rewarded the warmonger above everything else. As you put it, it was exceedingly difficult to win without it, and thus the game was imbalanced imho. All I’m saying is that I prefer a game where other play styles stand a reasonable chance, a game that isn’t so biased towards the warmonger.

Anyway, it sounds from Jesse’s corruption thread that he is indeed leaning toward a less powerful FP. Hooray!!

[edit: grammer]

[Plotinus]

[Andydog] Precisely. I think Catt misunderstood - the reason why warfare is necessary to get a second core is not because you have to go to war to get the territory, but because the only viable way to build the FP at that distance from your capital is with a Great Leader.

[Kuciwalker]

Well, you could use an SGL.

[Mattaba]

Wouldn't it be possible to add an option to the game set-up screen, where you can choose which form of corruption calculation you like best?

[Catt]

Originally posted by Andydog

But in my experience it is rare to get enough land for a good second core that doesn’t encroach on your primary core.

There will be many circumstances in which you've no choice but to (i) have somewhat (even greatly) overlapping cores; or (ii) use warfare to acquire more room for no-overlap cores. It makes for an interesting choice, IMHO. With plenty of peacefully acquired land: do I live with overlapping cores built early, or do I target no-overlap cores completed much later? Without enough land acquired peacefully: do I live with overlapping cores and peace, or do I go to war to acquire more land for a better placed Palace-FP axis?

The real issue I was addressing was: does a strong FP (a la Civanilla and PTW) require or substantially promote warfare? You expressed the view that it does and did in PTW. My view is that warfare offers many benefits to the Civ player, but leader fishing for an FP rush is not near the top of the list of benefits.

And say you do manage to expand enough, can I ask you Catt, how do you then build your FP? Do you rush a courthouse and then wait 100 turns? 100 turns is a long time to wait to double the power of your civ - it makes more sense to go for a leader doesn't it?

Another interesting choice, IMHO. Do I build the FP in a decent city, completing it in 30 - 40 turns, or do I build it farther out (offering less overlap and more power in the later game) but incurring both the opportunity cost of a delayed FP and the costs of rushing some improvements and joining workers to bring the build time down to what makes sense given the tradeoffs?

Again, for me, it is about interesting questions -- conquering land sufficient for two entirely distinct cores (or acquiring it peacefully) and then being able to build an FP in a timely manner to make the second core productive offers certain benefits and requires certain sacrifices. Playing with a more compact empire and having "1.3" or "1.5" cores also offers certain benefits and requires certain sacrifices.

Certainly on the higher levels you need that second core up and running as soon as possible to keep up with the AI. Imagine how far the AI can get ahead in 100 turns on Emperor.

I'm confident that there are many players who have played and won on the higher levels without ever building an FP. I'm not saying it is necessarily easy nor am I saying that it is a great approach to the game, but it is within reach and doable.

As you put it, it was exceedingly difficult to win without it, and thus the game was imbalanced imho.

For clarity - I said certain games / maps make it exceedingly difficult to win without certain actions. But that, IMHO, is a good thing. Varying game conditions and challenges promote different approaches - if every start offered up every possible playstlye as a viable and equally attractive victory option, the game would become quite dull (again IMHO).

All I’m saying is that I prefer a game where other play styles stand a reasonable chance, a game that isn’t so biased towards the warmonger.

I hear you; I think warfare, generally speaking, offers more advantage to the Civ player than does peaceful building. I just disagree about the degree of bias, I guess. Peaceful play is very often quite attractive and very often offers solid chance for success. IMHO, it is the pretty rare game that requires warfare to put up a challenge and succeed. The innumerable examples of peaceful play at the highest levels (at least pre-C3C's introduction of Sid) would seem to me to confirm the view that such play is entirely within reach.

Catt

[Bonaparte]

OK, I finally have the correct patch installed thanks to an earlier part of this thread. I noticed that corruption isn't as bad as it was before I installed the patch and that the FP does seem to help, but none the less corruption is still way to high...I think I might just go into the editor and lower the corruption slider down to 75%...this is a quick fix, but it should help.

[lethe]

Originally posted by Andydog
And say you do manage to expand enough, can I ask you Catt, how do you then build your FP? Do you rush a courthouse and then wait 100 turns? 100 turns is a long time to wait to double the power of your civ - it makes more sense to go for a leader doesn't it?

Build the FP in the city next to the Palace. Make sure your second core target is the one that will get the Palace when you abandon your capital. Abandon capital. Voila, two cores set up in 10-20 rounds.

In PtW this would mean that your original core would be off center for RCP either before or after the Palace jump, in C3C this doesn't matter, as there no longer is any use in RCP.

This off course means you must build wonders in another city than your (original) capital. On Emperor this will cause some problems, but with a good worker squad, a river and artificially boosting pop it's doable. On demi-god and deity I don't build any pre-industrial wonders unless I get a SGL.

[DrSpike]

Actually in PTW after the bounce RCP in the original core was usually no longer a factor, since the palace rank bug ensured that cities closer to the FP than the closest city to palace was to the palace all had rank one.

And whilst I was a compulsive bumper before, in C3C 1.15 it is no longer the best option as frequently. The new weaker FP means you have to worry more about moving your palace to a relatively undeveloped core. Hence I advise caution in use of bumping strategy.

[lethe]

Hmm, I played too little PtW. DrSpike is off course correct.

In most cases I still think that in a ~50 turn perspective a palace jump is a definite win. It would off course be better to rush the FP with a leader, but that isn't always an option.

Since I started playing on Demi-god I'm doing something entierly different with my palace; it's migrating with the front.

Wasn't the official patch due in late February? I want it, I want it, I want it!

[DrSpike]

Well I've not played enough 1.15 yet, but I think it is certain I will bump less than I used to.

I just finished the AU game, and you started on a nice island with room for 10 or so cities. The most appropriate second core was the next island over, but it was smaller and had worse land. There was no way I was going to attempt a bump given the inferiority of the FP to the palace with 1.15 rules and the fact that I already had decent cities on the original landmass.

I suspect I will be reaching the same conclusion often. This leaves using a courthouse to accelerate production, which I predict will become the most popular strat now. Fortunately this is a viable strategy now, whereas when palace bumping was discovered it was not, since corruption was worse, courthouses sucked, and the FP cost too much!

[Feyd]

Put me down in support of setting the corruption rate max to 60-70%. The Forbidden Palace was not correctly implemented anyway since it was the Palace of the Chinese Emperor anyway! Here is what I propose:

Cap corruption at 70% for problematic (corruption) govs
Cap corruption at 60% for nuisance/communal govs
Cap corruption at 50% for low govs
Commercial lowers that number by 10% for each gov
FP drops it 10% more and doesn't rechart distance
Secret Police does 10% also and doesn't rechart dist.

This would put the cap as low as 30% across the board for Commercial Democratic or Commercial Communists who had all the bumps.

What I would really like to see is a formula to recalculate corruption based on how long it takes a 1 move unit to get from the capital to the city in question. Now the Civ police will gawk and say, "But that makes corruption 0 on your continent!" and I reply, "So?" Corruption was a huge part of the Ancient to Pre-Industrial eras in reality. The time it took envoys to get from one place to another bearing the decrees of the leadership was a huge part of the corruption problem that was pervasive in many empires. Today, however, a presidential decree is carried live by all the networks. Corruption is no longer a factor of distance from the capital as it is the amount of revenue a city has drawing greedy eyes. New York has a lot more corruption than say...Salt Lake City. Distance to the capital has nothing to do with it since agents of the government are within each city (and not to mention New York is like 5 hours from D.C.) but instead New York is just so large that it has corruption issues. So...answers...Have the travel time of a one move unit calculated into the corruption formula. If they can make it there in 0 turns then the city counts as 3 squares from the capital or effectively AS the capital. ADD a corruption rating of 5% for a city and 10% for a metro (non cumulative) So...a size 20 city with a RR from the capital feeding into it would have relatively NO distance corruption but 10% crime corruption.

Anyway, sorry to post a realistic argument for once, but I can't stand this idiotic corruption system especially in the modern age when corruption has nothing to do with the distance from the "seat of government" at all!

Peace,

Feyd