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: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 23:33:52 -0500
Reply-to: mike_jing@xxxxxxxxx

Kevin Brown <kevin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Sure, but teleportation should bring corruption down to a constant
value that is independent of the distance between the capital city and
the target city, because with teleportation both cities are now
essentially part of the same city (cheap teleportation would have all
sorts of interesting social consequences that I won't get into here).
Right.  But I think the purpose of implementing corruption in the Civ
series is to model the historical effects of distance and time from
the ruler's location to the outer reaches of the civilization in
question, so the fact that there would be corruption even in the
capital isn't terribly interesting for this purpose.

Actually, the real purpose of having corruption and waste in civ is not for historical accuracy, but as a tool for balancing between different forms of government as well as between large and small empires. In the latter role, distance from capital is used as a reasonable if not entirely accurate measure of empire size. If the distance factor is taken away, then some other measure of empire size, such as number of cities, will have to be used, with the lose of "realism".

There are other effects that distance (in travel time) would have on a
civilization: the more distant a city from the ruling source, the more
likely that city would succeed in breaking away from the ruling
civilization in the event of an uprising.  What this means in game
terms is that it should be more important to keep your citizens
content in distance cities than in ones that are closer to the
capital.  I think this should be modeled in Freeciv if it isn't
already: when the population gets unhappy and they attempt revolt,
there should be some probability per turn that the city will "succeed"
in this and become independent (with the result that any military
units stationed in the city also go rogue and support the city in its
independence).  When that happens, you should have to reconquer it
with your military, which might not be easy if you had a strong
military presence there already.

This sounds interesting, and should work nicely along with the Civ3 culture system. In Civ3 your city might spontenously join another civ due to their superior culture. Along the same lines, they might demand independence as well if they are unhappy about your rule.

Furthermore, moving military units
into a city should be one way to reduce the chance of a revolt's
success, but doing so should make more citizens unhappy.  Right now
having a military presence increases the overall happiness of the
population, which seems counterintuitive.

This is a tough call. Since the chance of revolt happening is determined by happiness, if military units make people unhappy, it would increase the chance of revolt, while on the other hand, you also want military presence to decrease the chance of success of such revolts, it's hard to see what the end result should be.

It doesn't make sense to me to have the city automatically revolt just
because a certain percentage of the population is unhappy.  The
happiness/unhappiness of the population as a whole should affect (but
not be the only factor in) the probability that the city will revolt
during the turn.  A city that is composed mostly of happy citizens is
very unlikely to revolt, but it shouldn't be entirely impossible.

I think people will start a revolt of their own if cities that should normally be at peace suddenly start to go into revolt for no apparent reason. The problem with such random events is that nobody likes them. Civil disorder is annoying enough as it is, so I don't think many would accept such a change.

I think it makes more sense to actually limit the movement distance
per turn that is possible on the railroads.  Right now the railroads
are "infinitely" fast but in reality they are perhaps twice to four
times as fast as travel on horseback.

I agree that rail movement should be reduced.

Then again, time in the game is measured in years to decades, so in
reality you should be able to go an "infinite" amount of distance on
both horseback and on a train, and somewhat less (but much more than
one square!) on foot.

It would be interesting to see how well the game would play with
"realistic" movement and corruption.

Just to beat the dead horse one more time: realism really isn't the most important thing, but gameplay is.


Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at

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