[Freeciv-Dev] Re: (PR#2574) RFC: (PR# 1762) corruption revisited

["Per I. Mathisen via RT" <rt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, 16 Dec 2002, Davide Pagnin via RT wrote:
> I say that we can discuss in the meantime and decide how to modify
> corruption handling and after that add the waste implementation and the
> mandatory capability only once!
>
> When the waste patch is completed (mandatory capability, at least) I
> will volunteer to maintain it up-to-date for HEAD inclusion, in the
> waiting for the agreement on the corruption handling (if this is Raahul
> concern).

Well, I don't care much either way.

> I've explained this in other mails.
> We need gen-impr or a new flag for democratic government
> (or use F_UNBRIBABLE for this!)

You mean G_UNBRIBABLE. Sure, I'm for it.

> > This may seem like triviality, but for some rulesets this will be
> > important. Davide's suggestion makes it impossible to force a player to
> > build increasingly effective anti-corruption buildings to fend off rising
> > a steadily increasing empire-wide corruption, since one Courthouse will
> > always give you atleast 50% trade/shields (which can be a lot). For
> > example, ICS can be solved using a rapidly rising corruption for each
> > additional city, and have several effective buildings that can counter
> > this effect that you have to build in order to expand your empire past a
> > certain point.
>
> I'm not sure to understand what you are saying here, but I want to make
> an example.
>
> If, instead of having this not-really-cut-50%-corruption courthouse, you
> instead realize this scheme:
>
> courthouse I:
> cut (REALLY) 20% corruption
>
> courthouse II (need courthouse I):
> cut (REALLY) 20% more corruption
>
> courthouse III (need courthose II):
> cut (REALLY) 20% more corruption
>
> Isn't more or less what you asked for?
> With only courthouse I you cut only 20% of corruption, with both I and
> II you cut 40%, and with I, II and III, you cut 60%

Yes, but with your CLIP-Courthouses you are guaranteed to get 20%, then
40%, then 60%. For such a game as I described above, early game 20% is
insigificant, but late game it may well be too much.

The importance is that the usefulness curve is very different for these
two effects.

> What I see difficult is how to make that option available through
> gen-imp, but as far as I get the courthouse work as I expect, I don't
> bother that you can use the courthouse in the actual way.

Two different effects, one before and one after the CLIP.

> > (Also: If a city produces 10 trade and 30 trade would be taken by
> > corruption, then it doesn't really make sense that the net result should
> > be that the city produces 5 trade. That's magic. Where did that trade come
> > from?)
>
> And how 30 corruption out of 10 trade are possible? (... magic???)
>
> My point is that, if courthouse is expected to cut 50% of corruption, it
> make sense that you get _at least_ 50% of the 10 possible trade of that
> city. Stating that 30 shouldbe the trade cut by corruption is a mere
> internal calculation of freeciv, not something real!

The calculations are intended to abstract from something real.

In the given city, you have such a great distance to capital, such
inefficienacy, such great corruption among city officials, that you have a
potential corruption of 30. You have an income of 10. Since the potential
corruption is bigger than your income, you get no income. A Courthouse
removes half the corruption problem, which has a potential of 30, thus
making it 15. You still get no income, since the problem was bigger than
what the Courthouse could deal with.

Anyway, that's how I see it.

  - Per