Repairing corruption

[Ray K]

Originally posted by lockstep


As the 'other poster' Ray K referred to, I have to say that the issue of additional corruption hardship on tiny maps is not just a matter of 'credence', but strongly backed by rather simple calculations regarding map sizes, numbers of civs and the 'optimal cities' setting.

lockstep,
my apologies for not remembering your moniker. These forums load too slow!

Again, thank you very much for those calculations. I'm guessing that is probably what turned the tide in demonstrating that, yes, there is a real problem here. Hey, maybe I'm not a newbie whiner after all!

[Oerdin]

Originally posted by CygnusZ
1) You have to learn to deal with corruption, it's part of the challange. It really isn't so bad.
2) The goal of Civilization is not "Take over the world"
I won by making the world very good freinds with me.
You could by getting votes in the UN.
You could also win by building a Space Ship.

None of these victories are easy, all must be earned.

Yes, you could win by using those methods, but, what about also being able to win through military means? The way the game is currently configured it is not possible to recreate historical real world empire's like the British, French, Spanish, or Mongol. I admit the purpose of the game isn't to reproduce the real world but shouldn't the player's have the option of creating far flung colonial empires if they want to? Right now that just isn't a practical possibility.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Ray K
lockstep,
my apologies for not remembering your moniker. These forums load too slow!

Again, thank you very much for those calculations. I'm guessing that is probably what turned the tide in demonstrating that, yes, there is a real problem here. Hey, maybe I'm not a newbie whiner after all!

Hey, if you were a newbie, what would I be then?

[CygnusZ]

Originally posted by dainbramaged13


theres where youre wrong, if i have 13 production in a city, no matter how far away from my capital, i should have more than 1 active prodoctuion. This is ridiculus!

Hmm, You know, I really don't have these problems with corruption. Yeah, it sucks and leeches my resources, but I always manage to get *SOMETHING* out of the city. Worst comes to worst I can always make it "specialistic city".

I have a suspicion that cities experince less corruption the longer they've been in your empire and the stronger your cultural influence.

Maybe Commerical Civs have too large an advantage in dealing with corruption too.. ah well. It's still my opinon that the corruption adds only a bit of challange to the game.

[Ray K]

Originally posted by CygnusZ


Hmm, You know, I really don't have these problems with corruption. Yeah, it sucks and leeches my resources, but I always manage to get *SOMETHING* out of the city. Worst comes to worst I can always make it "specialistic city".

Not on a Tiny map. Give it a shot sometime.

I have a suspicion that cities experince less corruption the longer they've been in your empire and the stronger your cultural influence.

Possibly, although Soren never mentioned that in his post about dealing with corruption.

Maybe Commerical Civs have too large an advantage in dealing with corruption too.. ah well. It's still my opinon that the corruption adds only a bit of challange to the game.

I play a commercial Civ - the Greeks.

Soren has admitted that they may have a corruption problem with the Small & Tiny maps. If there is a problem, they will probably adjust something in the patch.

You guys should be thanking me for complaining about this problem instead of just saying it's OK because it's a new feature.

[CygnusZ]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Yes, you could win by using those methods, but, what about also being able to win through military means? The way the game is currently configured it is not possible to recreate historical real world empire's like the British, French, Spanish, or Mongol. I admit the purpose of the game isn't to reproduce the real world but shouldn't the player's have the option of creating far flung colonial empires if they want to? Right now that just isn't a practical possibility.

Let me right now assure you that I had a tremendous empire. Not multiple contients, but I managed to clear my contient in the name of Glorious Empire of France. It was easily 30% of the entire landmass. Meanwhile, on the other contient the 4 other "peaceful" (snicker) powers lagged behind me due to their lack of expansion.

I made a choice at a point where I decided I would just load up my gold coffers and spend money on cultural buildlings. I'd say at the middle of the Industrial Era you start to gain the choice of what type of victory you wish to achieve. I'm pretty certain that if I decided I wanted a military victory, I probably would have been able to attain it through the use of Diplomacy.

The game I'm playing I've not decided what type of victory to aim for (I have one more tech in "Ancient"), but given the huge landmass I'm starting on, military is starting to look like a viable solution.

[CygnusZ]

Originally posted by Ray K
Soren has admitted that they may have a corruption problem with the Small & Tiny maps. If there is a problem, they will probably adjust something in the patch.

You guys should be thanking me for complaining about this problem instead of just saying it's OK because it's a new feature.

I've only played "Normal" maps, so you could be right
Why do you want to play "Tiny" maps anyway?

[yavoon]

ray k ur so transparent.

now u only harp ont his "tiny map" imbalance, well I suggest than that u do ur lil math thing, readjust the # of cities allowed for tiny, and not mess w/ the rest. unfortunately thats not what you did, u set everything to 256 so u didn't have to worry about it nemore. and u could continue to not adapt to new challenges.

good job.

[The Rook]

Adjusting the city limit for map size I can understand, but setting it to 256 so that you can expand all you want is defeating the purpose of the game. You may not agree with the numbers set by Firaxis, so change 'em, but when you go around bragging about how you beat the game on Diety level, be sure to include that little bit of information.

[Ray K]

Originally posted by CygnusZ


I've only played "Normal" maps, so you could be right
Why do you want to play "Tiny" maps anyway?

Very valid reasons.

#1. I like to encounter the other Civs as soon as possible. Ancient-era combat is cool to me, and I like for the early turns in the game to have a real impact on the end. Yes, keeping the Babylonians from expanding into this part of the continent could make the difference.

#2. Every city is important. There's something very tense about being attacked by Roman legions when you only have 5-6 cities in your empire, and your capital city is not that far away.

#3. Less tedium. In the old games, the endgame micromanagement was unbearable for me, and that is cut way down on small maps.

#4. Games play faster. I have to get my Civ playing time in during breaks from the family, so a large map would take me several weeks to play!

In the end, I understand that it's a personal preference. However, if Firaxis is going to make Tiny maps a standard option, they should make them playable.

[Ray K]

Originally posted by yavoon
ray k ur so transparent.

now u only harp ont his "tiny map" imbalance, well I suggest than that u do ur lil math thing, readjust the # of cities allowed for tiny, and not mess w/ the rest. unfortunately thats not what you did, u set everything to 256 so u didn't have to worry about it nemore. and u could continue to not adapt to new challenges.

good job.

oh shut up. You continue to be so uninformed that I shouldn't waste my time responding to your feeble barbs. However, the next poster made a related comment so I will address that.

I set the limit to 256 last night because I didn't know what the proper limits should be. I set them arbitrarily high just to see if the "Optimal # Cities" limit was at the root of the problem. It was.

Now, TODAY -- the poster 'lockstep' has figured out mathematically what the proper numbers should be. From this point on, I will be using those numbers until Firaxis patches the problem.

Tonight will be my first chance to use the proper settings.

[HalfLotus]

If your palace is not near the center of your empire after you get going a bit, relocate it to the center. If you live on two continents, build the forbidden palace on the second one.
Can anyone confirm that happiness and/or culture decreases corruption?

[albiedamned]

Have you tried it on regular map size yet or only tiny? Obviously everyone has their preferences, but I think 3 of your 4 points reasons for preferring tiny maps are not necessarily valid in Civ3:

#1. I like to encounter the other Civs as soon as possible. Ancient-era combat is cool to me, and I like for the early turns in the game to have a real impact on the end. Yes, keeping the Babylonians from expanding into this part of the continent could make the difference.

In my normal map games with 8 civs, I've encountered at least 2 or 3 other civs very early. The only civs I didn't encounter early were those on a different continent, but that should be no different on a tiny map (you still needs techs to cross the ocean).

#2. Every city is important. There's something very tense about being attacked by Roman legions when you only have 5-6 cities in your empire, and your capital city is not that far away.

Every city is important in normal map games too, simply because you don't build nearly as many cities in Civ3 as in Civ2 (at least I don't). I started with a core of 5-6 solid cities, and I didn't expand that for a long time. In fact, I didn't expand it at all until I went to war with one civ and conquered a few, and then culturally assimilated a few from another civ.

#3. Less tedium. In the old games, the endgame micromanagement was unbearable for me, and that is cut way down on small maps.

Given my comments in #2 above (less quantity, higher quality cities), it follows that there should be less micromanagement in the endgame. I haven't gotten to the endgame though, so I can't say for sure!

#4. Games play faster. I have to get my Civ playing time in during breaks from the family, so a large map would take me several weeks to play!

I do agree with this one - games should probably play faster on a tiny map.

I'm not criticizing you here, I just think that given your reasons for preferring a tiny map, you might want to at least try a normal size map if you haven't already.

[yavoon]

ray, ur a petty whiner, the game got hard, u took away the feature that madeit hard then sed "problem solved." I have no respect for that attitude, and I never will.

[Ray K]

Originally posted by albiedamned
I'm not criticizing you here, I just think that given your reasons for preferring a tiny map, you might want to at least try a normal size map if you haven't already.

Well, under the fresh-water problem on Tiny maps is fixed, I will be playing on Small maps. That's a copromise, I guess.

[WhiteElephants]

Originally posted by Ray K
Here are the originally "Optimal Cities" limits for the map sizes (Tiny/Small/STandard/Large/Huge):

8/12/16/24/32

Assuming that the "Standard" map is the optimal setting, here are the balanced numbers for "Optimal Cities":

12/14/16/21/26

You can see that there is a big difference for the Tiny map. Going from 8 to 12 is a 50% improvement. That is the setting I will be playing on. I wonder how many players on Large and Huge maps will be lowering their settings to make corruption as difficult as on the Standard map?

I have to respectfully disagree with this evaluation, unless of course you're willing to scale back the amount of movement points each unit receives as well as the amount of land each city can work?

It is my belief that the numbers are skewed to reflect the very smallness and largeness of the respectable map sizes. For instance, on a Huge map it would take a naval unit much, much longer to circle the world while on a tiny map it would probably take only take a matter of turns. To balance this I imagine that the numbers need to be skewed in order to reflect the relative size of the map. Allowing only a few cities on a tiny map means that your enemies capital is less likely to be within striking distance of your entire army. Giving players more cities on a Huge map increases the likelyhood of you being within striking distance of at least your enemies border cities.

While the math that has been done is interesting it fails to consider the that amount of land worked per city and that amound of movement points per units remains unchanged. If one is to truly scale the game down these things must be considered.

[Ray K]

Originally posted by yavoon
ray, ur a petty whiner, the game got hard, u took away the feature that madeit hard then sed "problem solved." I have no respect for that attitude, and I never will.

That was no feature. However, you believe what you want. It has no bearing on my enjoyment of the game.

[Grunthex]

Originally posted by yavoon
ray, ur a petty whiner, the game got hard, u took away the feature that madeit hard then sed "problem solved." I have no respect for that attitude, and I never will.

You sir, are an ass. You come in here like some kind of exiled royalty, and criticize someone who has made completely valid points on the subject.

You know what? I don't really agree with Ray, but then I don't play the small map sizes, so I haven't experienced it.

On the other hand, he has presented clear numbers, and has taken some time to experiment and figure out how things change. You haven't made one reasonable or even intelligent point in your several postings, and I think everyone here would be greatly appreciative if you were to kindly shut up, leave, and never come back.

[Grunthex]

Ok, now that he's done... I noticed you said the (current) Max # cities for Large maps is 24. In my current game, I have 23, but even so, the farthest cities are experiencing from 50-75% corruption.

Not counting one I'll get to in a bit, these are all on my continent, connected by road to my capital (which I sorta relocated to be more central). They're managable though, and even though I think it's a BIT high, and might tweak it a bit later, for now it'll do.

The one other city is on a small island, about as far from my capital as you can get. I can NOT break the 99% corruption here, even with a harbor connecting it, an airport, and a courthouse. Under democracy. Has anyone been able to set up functional cities on 3 separate continents in a large+ map? (3, because you can handle 2 with Forbidden Palace)

It seems like the distance algorithm on large is as cruel as the #s on small.

[pg]

Originally posted by Ray K
Here are the originally "Optimal Cities" limits for the map sizes (Tiny/Small/Standard/Large/Huge):

8/12/16/24/32

Assuming that the "Standard" map is the optimal setting, here are the balanced numbers for "Optimal Cities":

12/14/16/21/26

i saw the math and it indeed looked perfectly correct but all this fuss is based on the assumption that the standard map and it's setting are correct and can be transferred via mathematical formula and applied to all maps. frankly, i find that to be a bit absurd. it seems to me that you have made up your mind that the corruption is wrong and are relentlessly causing havoc even though the game has only been out for 3 days. in truth there is probably a very reasonable explanation for this that we just don't know about yet. i'm am just a bit concerned when someone raises so much a ruckus regarding a certain issue given inadequate research or CREDIBLE PROOF. it seems to me you have an unannounced agenda that benefits from corruption being drastically lowered.

[Pyrodrew]

If corruption is increased on Huge & Large Maps it will make the Commercial Civ Bonus even greater, which already received the most votes in a recent poll in the Civ3-Civilizations forum (compared to Religious which received 3). We don't need the Commercial Civ Bonus being even more powerful. The majority of corruption complainers seem to be Tiny map players... so make the adjustment for the Tiny & Small maps (maybe slightly for Standard) as Soren hinted to. I haven't seen a Tiny map player insist corruption was fine or too low.

If I am going to change corruption it's going to be to add more. The more difficult the challange, the more fun the game is.

This falsely assumes that the AI will benefit from increased corruption. Given how fast the AI grows & expands on maps it would be logical to assume that increased corruption would make the game easier (unless you can expand faster than the AI which I haven't heard anyone claim yet).

[lockstep]

Originally posted by pg
i saw the math and it indeed looked perfectly correct but all this fuss is based on the assumption that the standard map and it's setting are correct and can be transferred via mathematical formula and applied to all maps. frankly, i find that to be a bit absurd.

All I was trying to say was: Even if you assume that the setting of one of the five maps is 'correct' (e.g. that of the standard map), the other settings are anomalous with respect to map sizes and numbers of civs.

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
If corruption is increased on Huge & Large Maps it will make the Commercial Civ Bonus even greater, which already received the most votes in a recent poll in the Civ3-Civilizations forum (compared to Religious which received 3). We don't need the Commercial Civ Bonus being even more powerful. The majority of corruption complainers seem to be Tiny map players... so make the adjustment for the Tiny & Small maps (maybe slightly for Standard) as Soren hinted to.

Assuming the setting for huge maps is correct results in 'optimal cities' numbers of 14/17/20/26/32 (only integers used). Again, I don´t have the game yet, so I can´t comment on the 'absolute' hardships of waste and corruption.

[Garrett]

Nothing in life, including any feature of a game, is absolutely “good” or “bad”.
It all depends on your perspective.

Instead of supporting or trashing an element of the game, it seems better to ask the question: “what did the designer intend here”. If you agree with the intent of the designer then the feature is appropriate for you, if not then change it. I mean, it is your game, after all.

In C3, I think corruption and culture are both intended to keep as many civilizations in the game as possible, and as equally balanced as possible, as long as possible. Both features favor small civs over expansive ones and domestic turtles over expansionist hawks.

Comparing C2 and C3 the apparent result (from the 3 full games and a few more short experiments I’ve played) is that in C3 neither the player nor the computer civs can “steamroller” the map. In C2, with good placement and a little luck, one could develop powerful military units early and consume nearby cities. Every new city added more power to the military engine and, once you got the roller going, it was usually only stopped by the ocean. Even at higher levels (though not, personally, at Deity) It was possible to win by conquest before 0 AD.

Winning is fun. What was not fun (to me) were the games where I would steamroller my continent and one opponent would take over another. Often, because C2 AI was never very good at naval management, I would come out in a superior position but not an overwhelming one. A cold war can be fun, but not if it degenerates into a long military build up followed by a D-day type invasion. Endless building and resource management gets boring, as does endless combat. I would get in these situations and a question would rise in my mind: “I know I can win this, am I willing to spend hours pressing Enter and watching units move around to get there?” Usually, I would save the game and start over.

Also, to me, the game becomes less interesting the fewer opponents there are. In a number of games I would intentionally not destroy an obviously weaker civ just to keep it “in the game”.

From the games I’ve played, I think the balance in C3 is better. Military engagements lend to be more frequent but shorter, especially early in the game. Before the modern era, I have been successful at targeting perhaps one or two cities per game (on a standard map with 8 civs) for conquest, usually because they had access to strategic resources or location. But the decision is an ambivalent one. I’ve usually taken enemy cities as much to deny an opponent access to something rather than as a technique for expansion. Captured cities are almost never productive until many turns later, once one of them revolted and eliminated my garrison. That really stunk, but I retook the city a few rounds later. Since holding the city denied the other civ access to saltpeter, it was worth the cost.

In the modern era, it is possible to “blitz” an opponent, especially now that zones of control are eliminated. If you have a superior culture and you go straight for your opponents capitals and best developed cities, you can cut the heart out of the enemy and then take the periphery piecemeal. Some cities will revolt (on the upside, capturing the city doesn’t generate partisans) but, if you capture a few in the middle, you can disrupt the cultural network. The cultural radius of each enemy city no longer supports the others, even if they revolt a round later.

It is true, though, that a recently conquered opponent requires more resources to suppress than it generates. If you haven completely destroyed the civ, cities keep turning on you. They generate nothing of value in your hands. The whole thing seems non-productive.

Except, of course, that you deny these cities to your opponent. That is the basic strategic decision in C3, I think: “Is it worth the cost to deny this to my opponent”. If you actually want to make a captured city productive, the cost is much higher…which is why opposing civs, especially weaker ones, tend to raze cities they capture.

In C3 it is a tactical blunder to try to defeat a opponent from the outside inward. You fight and die just as hard while denying the least productive enemy cities. The purpose of each battle is to weaken the enemy. Avoid the periphery. Capture the capital or a well developed city. Pillage the local infrastructure. Sell off critical improvements like the cathedral or temple. Make a tactical retreat back into your own territory to regroup, heal and reinforce. The opposing civ will be forced to use military units to fortify and suppress recaptured cities. A few rounds later, you conduct a similar raid. I’ve been able to keep an opponent completely reactive (building only defensive military units, constantly struggling with starvation and domestic unrest) with a dozen units this way. Meanwhile, my cities acquire culture, technology, and improvements. Enemy workers improve my land.

In essence, I’m doing the same thing as before. It’s a “cold war” in which I slowly build up an advantageous position. But, round by round, I find it more interesting to play because the decisions are diverse and part of a broader strategic plan. There is some fighting, some building, and some negotiations.

If you want a more directly militarist campaign, I think turning down corruption is a good idea. When I played SMAC, I used to turn up the city defense percentage because I got tired of a single enemy unit making an early cheap shot against a city a continent away. By adjusting that number I made the game more enjoyable for me…and hell, I was playing not working, right?

In conclusion, however, I would like to point out that culture and corruption don’t favor peaceful vs. militarist civs. Being aggressive is still a good policy, but the kinds of useful aggression (bombardment, objective raids, search and destroy) beyond direct conquest make the military aspect of the game more, not less interesting…to me anyway. Think of the C3 rules as modeling a combination of Sun Szu (“be formless, keep the opponent reacting and defensive”) and Clauswitz (“politics by other means, eliminate the enemy will to fight.”). In this light, a moderate sized, elite, and flexible military is an essential component of success.

[Kindbud]

My two cents on Garrett's post are that for the first time I have a better idea on the game flow of Civ3. I knew I would have to modify (and in one way completly abandon) my Civ2 strategies but after 6 aborted starts I was still missing the "bigger" picture on game flow. Well written, Garrett...

[Libertarian]

Originally posted by Iloveculture
Stupid Noobish question

What is ICS?

Infinite City Sprawl.

[Pyrodrew]

I agree on many of the points Garret mentioned, yet would like to add some things.

Instead of supporting or trashing an element of the game, it seems better to ask the question: “what did the designer intend here”. From the games I’ve played, I think the balance in C3 is better.

I agree for the most part it is better, but it does need to be tweaked. Especially since they were tweaking the game up to the last minute. I think the corruption on Tiny & Small maps is 1 of those areas, evident by all the posts & Soren's comments. On Huge & Large maps corruption is fine the way it is.

Also, to me, the game becomes less interesting the fewer opponents there are. In a number of games I would intentionally not destroy an obviously weaker civ just to keep it “in the game”.

I strongly agree, but I wouldn't want the other extreme where killing a civ is impossible. I like knowing the threat of my civilization being "genocided" exists if I play poorly or anger too many civs. Knowing I could do anything & only be marginally hurt would suck.

As far as methods of success I would hope there is a wide variety to choose & adjust to depending on your situation & enemies rather than only 1 superior choice to find.

[Leonid]

There has to be a better way than cheats thru using the editor.

[aetherspoon]

Note: I haven't played on a tiny map. I admit that. I tend to play on large maps so I CAN go on forever and ever in one map

Anyways, on a tiny map, if you had all of your bases on one continent, centered around the palace, and had an expansion on another island (or another part of the continent if you are going pangaea) and shipped a leader over there, wouldn't that solve the corruption "problem"? If it is by quantity of bases, the easiest solution would be to keep hovering around your capital and going to a democracy. Then, you focus on base improvements, get your culture up there, and slowly start taking possession of the AI bases through culture. The AI was the one to build up the base already, so you don't have to go through the 1 shield blues...

Would that work?

[Wolfgang76]

Corruption is really out of hand. I know that firaxis said they may have goofed on the small maps and I think I know why now.
I am currently playing a game on the small map and I have a city thats only about 20 squars away with a courthouse thats facing almost 92% corruption!@! WTF!!
No offense Firaxis but, come on!! With democracy, a courthouse I should at least get about 60%. Heck if this was real life our country (USA) would be toast due to the distance from Washington to LA. Although it might explain some things about LA....
Eitherway this really needs to be addressed in a patch. Tone it down a bit. Heck even 80% would be a boon for my Civ.

Wolf

[Farmer]

Well this old skool CivNet player would like to thank Ray K for his information and insights. While I'm not going to change the settings now, I think I probably will after a few games because it seems ridiculous to me to have 90% corruption in a democratic city with a court house. Maybe I can work around it by using a different strategy, but hey I like conquering the world and having cities on every continent. That's how I played thousands of games of Civ I&II, maybe I can have some fun with diplomatic and cultural victories, but I want to be able to kick ass as well.