Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: November 2001:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Thoughts about corruption

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Thoughts about corruption

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Thoughts about corruption
From: "Mike Jing" <miky40@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 19:49:45 -0500
Reply-to: mike_jing@xxxxxxxxx

Gregor Zeitlinger <zeitling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sun, 25 Nov 2001, Mike Jing wrote:
Maybe we should just implement the auto-elvis feature and banish civil disorder once and for all. Or maybe we should just get rid of unhappiness altogether. I know that would make a LOT of people VERY happy. ;-)
Yes, I think this would be very useful, but since it is a very different feeling, I think it should be optional.

I only said the above in jest, although the auto-elvis feature would be helpful. I thought Civ3 had it when I saw the city governor can manage citizen mood, but unfortunately it didn't work. :-(

Some ieas I had about corruption and trade - motivated from long
micromanagement sesssions in Civ2.

1) I think it's easier and more predictable to make it a function that
depends on the total number of cities only.


2) Which city has how much corruption could still depend on the distance
to the capital. Still easier would be to have the same amount of
corruption in each city, as in Communism (civ2 at least). Order of
founding could also be a possibility.

Order of founding is a bit tricky.  Better keep it as simple as possible.

3) How about making gold income and sience production a continuous
function rather than a discrete one. This would eliminate the problem of a
10 and 1 city producing both 1 sciene because of 90% corruption.

I believe this is what Reiner has in mind, and it would certainly fix the roundoff problem.

4) A totally new idea would be to do the same as in 3) with luxury. There
are two ideas I could come up with.

4a) (luxury is continuous) Convert the excess luxury (after making
everyone content) into science or gold.

This would defeat the purpose of having a fixed science/tax/luxury rate and make the effect of rate adjustment less predictable.

4b) Pool all luxury together and then distribute it among the cities to
make all people content, or, if sufficient, happy.

Then how should it be distributed? How do you predict which city will become unhappy?

The idea is to eliminate losses from roundings, which I hate, because I
love efficiency :). Predictability is another point though.

The loss of excess luxury is not a rounding error.  It's a feature.

I also though about the function to calculate corruption. I think it plays
a central role in determining the optimal number of cities. Is it a lineal
one right now? Does anybody know, or know where to find?

Yes, it is linear. It's proportional to the distance from the capital, with a little base percentage thrown in under Despotism. There is a cap of 36 on the maximum distance. Of course, it doesn't depend on distance under Communism.

5) I would suggest something like (1/n)*base_trade, where n is your nth
city. (ln(n)/n)*base_trade is the equivalent function if it applies to all
cities, which has the convinience that you dont have to worry about which
city has with level of corruption.

If you mean a city will have (1/n)*base_trade after corruption, then it would be a very steep penalty indeed. I don't see how you come up with the (ln(n)/n) though. Could yu explain that a little bit?

This fuction has the property that the total science level is ln(n) where
n is the trade from each city, given they are all equal. In the first
model (different corruption levels) its aleways good to found new cites
(for trade), while in the ladder it might be bad in the short run.
I could also imagine a function where the trade level in all cities
together is the same as if you had just one city ((1/n)*base_trade in each
city). You would still have an advantage because you could produce more

Again, how does the ln(n) come about?

6) The same concept can be applied to waste (which is for shild as
curruption for trade) and food potetially too (although I don't think that
it's much desirable)

Food probably should not suffer from the same kind of corruption/waste. However, this gives me an idea of removing the hard limits on city population...


Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]