Corruption in Civilization III

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"John A. Mason" <jamason56@MYearthlink.net> wrote in
news:Rw%Sd.9336$x53.2748@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:

> I know this has been discussed often, but maybe we can discuss
> again. I am playing a game of C3C... there are three
> civilizations, Americans (me), Germans, and English.
> It is currently 1970 and I am a Democracy. Here's some info:
> Current income: 1884
> Expenses: 1877
> - 389 to science
> - 51 to entertainment
> - 903 to corruption
> - 335 to maintenance
> - 199 unit support costs
> - 0 to other civs
>
> I have 84 cities... most on one major continent, with15 on a
> couple of smaller islands.
> I do not have a Forbidden Palace built yet, nor Police Stations.
> All but 5 of the cities are connected.
>
> Corruption is supposed to be 'minimal' in a Democracy. Why am I
> losing *50%* of my income to corruption? Corruption is listed as
> 'rampant' in an Anarchy, but 50% seems 'rampant' to me!
>
> Any ideas on this? I realize corruption has been controversial in
> the past... but how can 50% in my situation be justified?
> Thoughts? Comments?

Seems pretty obvious to me. You have 84 cities. You fail to
mention map size but the Optimal number of cities is (IIRC) 16 for
normal up to 32 for huge. So even if you're playing huge, you have
more than twice as many cities as you should.
Corruption isn't meant to be realistic, it's used to help balance
the game so that smaller empires still have a chance to compete with
oversized empires like yours.

--
ICQ: 8105495
AIM: KeeperGFA
EMail: thekeeper@canada.com
"If we did the things we are capable of,
we would astound ourselves." - Edison

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 13:27:13 GMT, "John A. Mason"
<jamason56@MYearthlink.net> wrote:

>I know this has been discussed often, but maybe we can discuss again.
>I am playing a game of C3C... there are three civilizations, Americans (me),
>Germans, and English.
>It is currently 1970 and I am a Democracy. Here's some info:
>Current income: 1884
>Expenses: 1877
> - 389 to science
> - 51 to entertainment
> - 903 to corruption
> - 335 to maintenance
> - 199 unit support costs
> - 0 to other civs
>
>I have 84 cities... most on one major continent, with15 on a couple of
>smaller islands.
>I do not have a Forbidden Palace built yet, nor Police Stations. All but 5
>of the cities are connected.
>
>Corruption is supposed to be 'minimal' in a Democracy. Why am I losing *50%*
>of my income to corruption? Corruption is listed as 'rampant' in an Anarchy,
>but 50% seems 'rampant' to me!
>
>Any ideas on this? I realize corruption has been controversial in the
>past... but how can 50% in my situation be justified? Thoughts? Comments?

Well, anyone can tell you that "democracy" and "corruption" are far
from mutually exclusive things. In this case "minimal" just means "as
low as you can get". It doesn't mean actually "close to nonexistant",
particularly when you haven't taken all the available methods for
corruption control. Just build your police stations and Palace, get
some taxmen in outlying cities and move on.

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

That IS minimal corruption level.

Rampant is Dispositism, you'd be suffering much worse.

In anarchy in Civ III, you suffer 100% corruption. The only gold you
can produce is from taxmen.

What your doing wrong:

1. Assuming you have the Conquests 1.22 patch, the FP should have been
built long ago. Effectively doubles the OCN everywhere. There's also a
major reducation in max corruption for the FP city itself (Max
corruption -=70%) And it has an additional minor benfit for the nearby
cities by reducing distance based corruption, provided it's not
surrounded by cities already at max allowed corruption.

2. Having no police stations. A Court House, Police Station, and WLTPD
[shields only] each half the effective city number for the city rank
corruption calculations. In addition, both a CH and a PS reduces max
corruption by 10% each. With both structures, a city will suffer no
worse than 70% corruption.

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

In alt.games.civ3 Mike Garcia <mtg@cornellc.cit.stumbling.block.cornell.edu>
wrote:

> In article <Rw%Sd.9336$x53.2748@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>, "John
> A. Mason" <jamason56@MYearthlink.net> wrote:
>>I know this has been discussed often, but maybe we can discuss again. I am
>>playing a game of C3C... there are three civilizations, Americans (me),
>>Germans, and English.
>>It is currently 1970 and I am a Democracy. Here's some info:
>>Current income: 1884
>>Expenses: 1877
>> - 389 to science
>> - 51 to entertainment
>> - 903 to corruption
>> - 335 to maintenance
>> - 199 unit support costs
>> - 0 to other civs
>>
>>I have 84 cities... most on one major continent, with15 on a couple of
>>smaller islands.
>
> At a guess you have the sliders set to 10% luxuries and 80% science. 199
> units (including workers) for 84 cities is ~2.4 units per city. You are
> running light on the military.

Not necessarily a bad thing if he's not at war, given the size of his empire
which is presumably railroad connected, so he can station all his troops on
his borders, and move them rapidly to counter any threat.

More serious IMO is his maintenance - less than 4 gold per city. Assuming
that he's acquired half his cities recently, and build nothing in them, that
still means that his core empire has only 8 gold/turn's worth of improvement
in each city.

It's a bit late to do anything about it in 1970 - you should decide on your
victory condition and focus on achieving it. If it were earlier in the
game, I'd recommend you put science down to 10% (or zero and create a
scientist) and use your revenues to build income earning improvements.
Market Places and Banks obviously, but also Granaries, Cathedrals, and
Aqueducts - anything, in fact, which helps them to grow. When I had over 80
cities in my last huge-map game, with many of them recently acquired and not
fully developed, I was taking in over 4000 gold/turn before expenses.

You don't get ahead in this game by being technologically advanced, but too
poor to enjoy the benefits. You get ahead by making the best use of the
tech you do have, which means building the improvements they make available.

>>I do not have a Forbidden Palace built yet, nor Police Stations. All but 5
>>of the cities are connected.

That's part of the problem. The FP in particular will be a huge benefit.

> Mike G

--
Daran

The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that
English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words;
on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them
unconscious and riffle their pockets for new vocabulary. -- James D. Nicoll

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

>Thanks to everyone for the comments and suggestions. I'm shocked that 50% of
>my revenue can be lost to corruption at the 'least' corrupt government
>level. It also bothers me that the number of cities is intentionally limited
>to 'balance' the game.

If that bothers you so much, it's easy enough to mod the game files in
place. Poke around in your installation directy. Make original copies
of any file before you start editing. If you're new at this sort of thing,
there's a chance you can screw it up. Also, don't change too much at once.
Change a little, try a little (that way if you screw it up, you don't
have to unwind everything in a big chunk).

C//

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

Domination victory level is 66% of worlds land area + 66% of the worlds
population.

Cultural victory level is One City : 20K, Empire wide 100K on standard
map, adjusted for different sizes, plus in addition double that of the
second highest cultural.

If the game hits 2050, what's going to matter is score for the tie
breaker, which is heavily weighted towards land area & population.

Check out F8 / the big "V" on the bottom to see how close you are to
winning / losing.

I do note that a dead player is not eligbile to win via score, and in
addition, the culture of any wiped out player drops to 0.

In future games, I strongly sugest 0% luxaries for most of the game.
The slider is very inefficent compared to aquiring and trading for
luxary resources.

40% science slider is also very low for a peaceful player. That level
is much more apporatie for a war mongler. I more peaceful player should
generally have science as high as possible.

If your intending to win the game militarly, and already have a good
size land mass when the 3rd era comes around, I sugest going for
Communism and switching to it. It has communial corruption and in
addition under stock rules allows the SPHQ, which further reduces
corruption globally. The important thing under this govt is CH & PS
everywhere. If your corruption in cities without any of the P/FP/SPHQ
under communism have acceptable waste without a police station, I
sugest your empire isn't large enough, and you need to conquer more
cities. But also note that if you could actually reserach at a decent
rate under communism / SPHQ, your so close to winning via domination
you might as well finish conquering your neighbors.

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 02:42:02 GMT, "John A. Mason"
<jamason56@MYearthlink.net> wrote:

>> of the cities are connected.
>>
>> Corruption is supposed to be 'minimal' in a Democracy. Why am I losing
>> *50%* of my income to corruption? Corruption is listed as 'rampant' in an
>> Anarchy, but 50% seems 'rampant' to me!
>>
>> Any ideas on this? I realize corruption has been controversial in the
>> past... but how can 50% in my situation be justified? Thoughts? Comments?
>> Best,
>> John
>>
>Thanks to everyone for the comments and suggestions. I'm shocked that 50% of
>my revenue can be lost to corruption at the 'least' corrupt government
>level.

Well c'mon, you don't have any cops.

It also bothers me that the number of cities is intentionally limited
>to 'balance' the game. Land is value, is it not? Why should I be penalized
>for grabbing as much as I can...

Well, fundamentally it's to reflect the realities of taking over a
large part of the world. There's a reason why Britain divested itself
of most of it's empire, and it's because that gigantic colonial empire

was costing a fortune. However an efficient administration, which
yours is not, can minimise costs and maximise rewards.

I don't want to fight for it, but I *do*
>want to expand as fast as possible to control as much territory as possible.
>Is that an unreasonable 'real-world' tactic? For this game, I'm on a
>standard size map with roughly 2 large continents and a number of large
>islands and smaller islands. Germany is alone on one continent and England
>is sharing the large continent with me (but way behind, since I grabbed most
>of the land as fast as I could). The islands a scattered with a mix of a
>three civs.
>
>In general, I have been building the revenue producing city improvements....
>but I will revisit what I build, and when in future games. I will also build
>the Forbidden Palace sooner next time around. I have converted some of my
>population in some cities to policemen, but that's only good for 1
>commerce... not much when I might be losing 20 or 30 to corruption!
>
>For most of the game, my luxury slider has been at 10% and science at 40%.

Unlike it's relatives, in this the luxury slider is generally almost
useless. You very rarely realise a noticeable benefit from it.

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"John A. Mason" <jamason56@MYearthlink.net> once tried to test me with:

> I'd be happy to post a screenshot, but I don't want to post one to
> this text group. Any ideas on how I can best post a binary?

You can just go to http://imageshack.us/ and upload an image and it will
tell you the link which you can cut and paste into your post.

--

Knight37

The gene pool could use a little chlorine.

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

> Domination victory level is 66% of worlds land area + 66% of the worlds
> population.
>
> Cultural victory level is One City : 20K, Empire wide 100K on standard
> map, adjusted for different sizes, plus in addition double that of the
> second highest cultural.
>
> If the game hits 2050, what's going to matter is score for the tie
> breaker, which is heavily weighted towards land area & population.
>
I just lost this game in 2043, diplomatically as German and England both
voted against me in the UN. At that time, Germany had 110k culture, I had
86k. I was at 56% land area, and 52% population with Germany trailing at 34
and 33% respectively. Washington was the largest city on the map and had a
culture of 13.5k, the highest in the game.

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 19:01:35 GMT, rgorman@telusplanet.net (David
Johnston) wrote:

>Well, anyone can tell you that "democracy" and "corruption" are far
>from mutually exclusive things.

I assume you mean that corruption can occur in a democracy. In real
life, democracies consistently have lower levels of corruption than
other forms of government. (And yes, that's coming from a
professional political scientist, and I could give you sources and
theory if you wanted, but the short reason is that open government
makes it easy to keep an eye on politicians.)

Scott Orr

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 23:23:54 GMT, rgorman@telusplanet.net (David
Johnston) wrote:

>>For most of the game, my luxury slider has been at 10% and science at 40%.
>
>Unlike it's relatives, in this the luxury slider is generally almost
>useless. You very rarely realise a noticeable benefit from it.

It depends on what level you're playing at and where you are in the
game. On Diety, I have to spend a decent amount keeping people happy
early in the game, because I'm too busy building new cities and then
fighting a war to build lots of improvements (and I don't typically
get more improvements available beyond temples until some cities have
gotten too big for temples to be enough). I also usually fight that
early war partly to get more luxuries--before that, I may only have
three or even two, which makes the marketplace a lot less useful.

Scott Orr

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"John A. Mason" <jamason56@MYearthlink.net> wrote in
news:rdvTd.6374$Ba3.5227@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:

> As far as the gaps, I know I'm OK if my borders are connected. But the
> only way to do that in early game is by plopping down cities fast.
> There's no way to generate the culture necessary fast enough in early
> game to expand my territory that way. And if the other civs are on the
> same continent as you, then they are going to be hunting for land to
> expand also.
>

Trying playing as Babylon -- cheap temples and libraries. Also forget about
trying to build any wonders in the Ancient age. Focus your research on the
technologies you really need ie. to get temples, libraries, grannry, etc.

data64

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

> That long land mass must not be *too* skinny if you have 41 cities on it
> <g>.

http://www.ajwebb.eclipse.co.uk/Pi [...] Empire.jpg

zulu, yellow...thats me.

--
From Adam Webb, Overlag
www.tacticalgamer.com
CS:SOURCE server now active


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.859 / Virus Database: 585 - Release Date: 14/02/2005

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

"John A. Mason" <jamason56@MYearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:_9bTd.5576$Ba3.913@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>> of the cities are connected.
>>
>> Corruption is supposed to be 'minimal' in a Democracy. Why am I losing
>> *50%* of my income to corruption? Corruption is listed as 'rampant' in an
>> Anarchy, but 50% seems 'rampant' to me!
>>
>> Any ideas on this? I realize corruption has been controversial in the
>> past... but how can 50% in my situation be justified? Thoughts? Comments?
>> Best,
>> John
>>
> Thanks to everyone for the comments and suggestions. I'm shocked that 50%
> of my revenue can be lost to corruption at the 'least' corrupt government
> level. It also bothers me that the number of cities is intentionally
> limited to 'balance' the game. Land is value, is it not? Why should I be
> penalized for grabbing as much as I can... I don't want to fight for it,
> but I *do* want to expand as fast as possible to control as much territory
> as possible. Is that an unreasonable 'real-world' tactic? For this game,
> I'm on a standard size map with roughly 2 large continents and a number of
> large islands and smaller islands. Germany is alone on one continent and
> England is sharing the large continent with me (but way behind, since I
> grabbed most of the land as fast as I could). The islands a scattered with
> a mix of a three civs.

This is an old problem with all the civs. In Civ 1, corruption was not
originally tied to number of cities, so the best way to play it was to
create a LARGE number of cities of population 1-2. A later patch added the
penalty for number of cities to squash this technique. This has continued
throught all the Civ's.

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 02:42:02 GMT, "John A. Mason"
<jamason56@MYearthlink.net> wrote:

>> of the cities are connected.
>>
>> Corruption is supposed to be 'minimal' in a Democracy. Why am I losing
>> *50%* of my income to corruption? Corruption is listed as 'rampant' in an
>> Anarchy, but 50% seems 'rampant' to me!
>>
>> Any ideas on this? I realize corruption has been controversial in the
>> past... but how can 50% in my situation be justified? Thoughts? Comments?
>> Best,
>> John
>>
>Thanks to everyone for the comments and suggestions. I'm shocked that 50% of
>my revenue can be lost to corruption at the 'least' corrupt government
>level.

It is much worse in other government types. Also, if you had fewer
cities, within the limit of the optimal number of cities, it would be
*far* less.

> It also bothers me that the number of cities is intentionally limited
>to 'balance' the game. Land is value, is it not? Why should I be penalized
>for grabbing as much as I can... I don't want to fight for it, but I *do*
>want to expand as fast as possible to control as much territory as possible.
>Is that an unreasonable 'real-world' tactic?

Too large an empire has been a problem in the real world. No
globe-spanning empire ever existed, and many large empires in history
faced all sorts of problems managing their territory.

You can grab as much land as you want. What you can't do is use it
efficiently. Consider the OCN as the natural size of your homeland.
Everything outside that is the provinces, going their own way and
paying lip service respect to the empire, but unwilling to contribute
much.

High corruption cities still give you culture from culture
buildings, control of the territory within their borders, resources
(likewise), and population for your score. Just don't plan to use
them for a whole lot else -- unless you play using Conquests.

Conquests adds more counters for corruption and waste, making bigger
empires more effective, if you can afford to invest (rush builds) in
the outer cities. It won't make them equal to the core territory, but
it is a lot easier to raise them up to self-supporting levels.

>For this game, I'm on a

>My empire is connected totally by railroads, and lately harbors to my three
>large islands. One thing I've been concentrating on since about turn 300 is
>culture... Germany has been kicking my ass in that area, so I started
>concentrating on building mainly culture producing improvements.

This is a big part of the problem. You need to build culture
buildings early and often. First thing after getting a new city, I
build either a library or temple, rush-buying it. You can't rush
easily before changing out of Despotism, but after that, speeding up
this initial growth of culture should be a prime goal.

With loads of cities, even highly corrupt cities, your culture
production with temple and library in all will be very high.



--
*-__Jeffery Jones__________| *Starfire* |____________________-*
** Muskego WI Access Channel 14/25 <http://www.execpc.com/~jeffsj/mach7/>
*Starfire Design Studio* <http://www.starfiredesign.com/>

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

In article <4220818b.5096932@news.telusplanet.net>, rgorman@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote:
>
>Corruption isn't taxation either.

Just the opposite in fact, at least in Civ 3 terms. That which you the player
can't tax is lost to waste and corruption. :-)

In Civ 3, that part of the economy that is not under control of the central
government (the player) is lost to corruption and waste. In the real world
"corruption and waste" is what we the people get to consume.

Mike G

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

In article <422290d3.140101905@news.telvsplanet.net>, rgorman@telvsplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote:
>On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 07:39:20 GMT,
>mtg@cornellc.cit.stvmbling.block.cornell.edv (Mike Garcia) wrote:
>
>>In article <4220818b.5096932@news.telvsplanet.net>, rgorman@telvsplanet.net
> (David Johnston) wrote:
>>>
>>>Corrvption isn't taxation either.
>>
>>Jvst the opposite in fact, at least in Civ 3 terms. That which yov the player
>>can't tax is lost to waste and corrvption. :-)
>>
>>In Civ 3, that part of the economy that is not vnder control of the central
>>government (the player) is lost to corrvption and waste.
>
>No it isn't. That wovld lead to the obviovsly absvrd conclvsion that
>the only research that ever happens is government fvnded research.

I don't see how yov reached this conclvsion. Non-government research wovld
yield new technology that the central government has no wide spread vse for.
Think of microwave popcorn.

>Neither of yov are right.

Odd, I think I'm right and yov are in error.

>Corrvption is crime, is striking vnions, is recreational drvg vse
>(legal or not) eating into prodvctivity, is low level insvrgency in
>border regions, is clvmsy administrative procedvres leading to wasted
>time and money, is local extortion rackets. It is not taxes, and it
>is not all economic activity that is not taxed.

Hmm. How yov did yov reach this conclvsion? I'm cvriovs as to how crime,
striking vnions, recreational drvg vse, low level insvrgency, clvmsy
administrative procedvres, and local extortion rackets mostly happen ovt in
sticks and not in the empire's capital.

Yov are right that corrvption is not taxes. In game terms taxes are that part
of commerce that the central government is diverting into the treasvry.
Corrvption is that portion of commerce that the central government can't
control.

If yov look at a partially corrvpt city (vse the zoom to option) yov will see
red shields and blve shields. The red shields are not available to prodvce
stvff that the player wovld like to prodvce, like tanks, while the blve
shields are available. It seems very obviovs to me that waste (red shields)
is not available while non-waste (blve shields) are available. Commerce works
in a similar fashion.

Therefore that portion of the economy that is not available to the central
government (the red shields and red commerce) is waste and corrvption.
It is the in-game definition.

Mike G

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.strategic (More info?)

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 16:47:07 GMT,
mtg@cornellc.cit.stumbling.block.cornell.edu (Mike Garcia) wrote:

>In article <422290d3.140101905@news.telusplanet.net>, rgorman@telusplanet.net (David Johnston) wrote:
>>On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 07:39:20 GMT,
>>mtg@cornellc.cit.stumbling.block.cornell.edu (Mike Garcia) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <4220818b.5096932@news.telusplanet.net>, rgorman@telusplanet.net
>> (David Johnston) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Corruption isn't taxation either.
>>>
>>>Just the opposite in fact, at least in Civ 3 terms. That which you the player
>>>can't tax is lost to waste and corruption. :-)
>>>
>>>In Civ 3, that part of the economy that is not under control of the central
>>>government (the player) is lost to corruption and waste.
>>
>>No it isn't. That would lead to the obviously absurd conclusion that
>>the only research that ever happens is government funded research.
>
>I don't see how you reached this conclusion. Non-government research would
>yield new technology that the central government has no wide spread use for.

You mean, like the airplane? Or refining?

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 15:03:14 -0000, Adam Webb <adam@ajmysecondname.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
>> Cool... so you can build more than one capital? I presume that is a
>> Forbidden Palace?
>> So much to learn, even after playing so long <frown/grin>.
>> John
>>
> yup one the forbidden palace, and the 3rd one is the secret police, which is
> comminism based improvement that offers the same effects as a forbidden
> palace. Helps greatly with the curruption i my long empire :-)
>

Does it only work if you stay with a communist government, or can I switch
back to republic after?

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 20:05:29 GMT, The Stare <wat1@not.likely.frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
> "Dave Hinz" <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:38h59dF5n0t5rU4@individual.net...
>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 15:03:14 -0000, Adam Webb
>> <adam@ajmysecondname.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> Cool... so you can build more than one capital? I presume that is a
>>>> Forbidden Palace?
>>>> So much to learn, even after playing so long <frown/grin>.
>>>> John
>>>>
>>> yup one the forbidden palace, and the 3rd one is the secret police, which
>>> is
>>> comminism based improvement that offers the same effects as a forbidden
>>> palace. Helps greatly with the curruption i my long empire :-)
>>>
>>
>> Does it only work if you stay with a communist government, or can I switch
>> back to republic after?
>>
>
> It doesn't work if you switch out of communism.

OK, so...endgame-ish, large map, started out 8 civs and down to 3. I've got
a bit over 50% of the land mass on 3 continents. Is this the time to go
commie, and put one on each of the land masses? or, more likely, write off
the smallest as just self-sustaining and that's all, and have the FP and
Palace on my original continent, and the secret police HQ on the newly
conquered continent?

How would communism compare to , say, Republic, in this situation? I'm
at the difficulty level, er, one to the "hard" side of the middle,
or maybe the next one up, if that matters.

Dave Hinz

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"Dave Hinz" <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:38hg6jF5nqcahU1@individual.net...
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 20:05:29 GMT, The Stare
> <wat1@not.likely.frontiernet.net> wrote:
>>
>> "Dave Hinz" <DaveHinz@spamcop.net> wrote in message
>> news:38h59dF5n0t5rU4@individual.net...
>>> On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 15:03:14 -0000, Adam Webb
>>> <adam@ajmysecondname.eclipse.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> Cool... so you can build more than one capital? I presume that is a
>>>>> Forbidden Palace?
>>>>> So much to learn, even after playing so long <frown/grin>.
>>>>> John
>>>>>
>>>> yup one the forbidden palace, and the 3rd one is the secret police,
>>>> which
>>>> is
>>>> comminism based improvement that offers the same effects as a forbidden
>>>> palace. Helps greatly with the curruption i my long empire :-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Does it only work if you stay with a communist government, or can I
>>> switch
>>> back to republic after?
>>>
>>
>> It doesn't work if you switch out of communism.
>
> OK, so...endgame-ish, large map, started out 8 civs and down to 3. I've
> got
> a bit over 50% of the land mass on 3 continents. Is this the time to go
> commie, and put one on each of the land masses? or, more likely, write
> off
> the smallest as just self-sustaining and that's all, and have the FP and
> Palace on my original continent, and the secret police HQ on the newly
> conquered continent?
>
> How would communism compare to , say, Republic, in this situation? I'm
> at the difficulty level, er, one to the "hard" side of the middle,
> or maybe the next one up, if that matters.

Since communism has cummunal corruption, it doesn't matter where you put the
SPHQ though you should choose one of your science cities if you have one.
Your FP should have been built early in the game and can't be moved without
abandoning the city. With other corruption reducers, you will have 3
corruption 3 cities and the rest will be minimally corrupt under communism.

Once you try C3C Communism with a large empire, you will always use it in
the future. It's just that damn good. The corruption was reduced to help
keep the AI from self destructing after switching to communism. The side
effect is that we now have a goverment bugged in the players favor ;-)