[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Thoughts about corruption

[Gregor Zeitlinger <zeitling@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, 25 Nov 2001, Mike Jing wrote:
> >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.
the most simple would be to have the same level of curruption in each
city. 
Or even easier: no corruption in each city, but a central reduction of
gold, sience (maybe even lux) depending on the number of cities.

> >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.
yes somewhat

> >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?
yes. you would have just gold and sience and each time a citizen is
unhappy after all local effects it consumes 2 gold. very easy actually.
you can replace 2 gold with 2 science or 1 gold/1 sience or whatever.

> >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.
yes, it would be eliminated. Not sure weather it's disirable.

> >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?
ln(n)/n produces an aggregated trade that develpes with ln(n) (given all
trade values for all cities are equal), if the same coeffient is
multiplied by each city, just as (1/n) produces that development if a
different n is taken for each city.

more formally:
Let t be the trade output from each city (considered to be equal for
convinence)
Let T be the total trade output
Let N be the number of cities.
Let i be the number of the current city (ordered by some alorithm)

a) Different corruption level in each city
T = Sum(i=1, N, 1/i*t) = ln(N) * t

b) same corruption level in each city
T = (ln(N)/N * t) * N =  ln(N) * t

> >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...
Ok, but the basic food supply should be increased alot, so that after
corruption there's something left. 
Larger cities only make sense if we increase the city's arable area, 
though. Could make for nice metropoles...

bye

-- 
Gregor Zeitlinger      
gregor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx