looking for your opinion on Fascism

[Donegeal]

You think that being in anarchy for a number of turns (producing nothing), loosing 2 pop per city and not being able to rush buy with gold is a way of increasing productivity?

NOT A CHANCE!!!!!

The only way I can see this as a viable govt is if you are on course to a Cultural victory and are surounded by larger more powerful civs. You switch to Fascism for defensive military reasons and coast to a win.

[Jethro83]

I've never used fascism under any circumstance. I just don't like the drawbacks of it. Having to add loads of my workers/settlers to my newly conquered and starved cities just so they can START generating culture is the ugliest trait of any government in my opinion. Not to mention the population hit from the switch itself. Even if it had paid labour I'd never use it myself.

But by that point I am running the peaceful, gigantic, democratic superpower and have no need for war, unless they start it.

[Enriquillo]

Democracy is all nice and such, but...

What if you're playing on emperor or higher, have only 2 luxuries and are at war with at least 2 civs. Oh and they started it.
Also it's very likely you won't get all happiness wonders on emperor+ level.
Mix that with crappy map, no strategic resources and democracy suddenly doesn't look that hot anymore.

Circumstances like this make facism very attractive, same with communism.

[jshelr]

I believe Facism has hurt the game.

The reason is that as the game moves into the industrial age, the human player's advantages become too great and the game loses the competitive edge that makes it fun.

Facism interacts badly with ToE and US. While the AI researches nationalism and, particularly if a war is on, facism, the human player goes for ToE and/or US. The result is game over. (I also noted a big population drop in facist China in a recent game that was pretty competitive until China went fascist. The pop drop was much more than just the initial pop penalty.)

The fact that all the human player's work to better develop cities starts to pay off around this time of the game is fair enough. However, what Alexman called the "insane power" of ToE spoils the competitive edge that makes the game fun. The AI should be changed to value ToE very highly or it should be eliminated from the game, IMO.

Meantime, any idea, even if it is a good one, that further deflects the AI from the proper industrial age research direction makes the game worse. Facism is such an idea as far as I'm concerned.

To get back on the thread's actual topic, Facism is not worth the research effort for the human player. If you can trade for it, it looks to be a good war government, particularly (ironically) for a religious civ.

[Cerbykins]

I saw a big Russian AI use it for war, and it just changed back once it had pinched what it wanted
Having said that, it wasn't bothering much with sanitation ANYWAY....
If I remember seeing it correctly, the AI gets revolution time bonuses on the higher levels, so perhaps THIS is it's purpose...?

[furrykef]

Originally posted by donegeal
You think that being in anarchy for a number of turns (producing nothing), loosing 2 pop per city and not being able to rush buy with gold is a way of increasing productivity?

NOT A CHANCE!!!!!

I wouldn't be too sure. For instance, if you're a Religious civ, you wouldn't have anarchy for a number of turns. Also, either way, you need to take into account what government you're already in. If you're in Monarchy or something, Fascism would probably be an improvement. Also your relative civ size and population must be taken into account. You can't really make a blanket statement such as "It causes anarchy and population loss, so it must be bad all the time".

- Kef

[Cerbykins]

Ok, so it's not a GREAT rescue. But it does seem to fit...

Plus, it goes with my path of thinking (already stated) that Fascism is a war government for the smaller empire. Oh, and obviously making Monarchy obsolete, in the same way Democracy makes Republic obsolete (mostly) - and how Monarchy/Republic generally make Despotism obsolete.

[nbarclay]

I'm another in the "never used Fascism" camp. I can see Fascism maybe being worthwhile for a non-religious civ if a player is behind and plans a series of drawn-out wars to catch up, especially on huge maps (where I'm pretty sure wars tend to be longer and war weariness more destructive). But it's not a good government for how I normally play.

I have only minimal experience on Deity level and none at all on Sid, but Fascism is probably a lot more interesting on those levels than it is on levels mere mortals play. War weariness is worse; AI militaries are bigger; and the player is a lot more likely to be behind in tech and therefore unable to fight on the kind of highly favorable terms that are often possible on lower levels. Thus, staying in a representative government for a war of much length would tend to be impractical on those levels. Fascism might start looking attractive under such conditions, especially for a civ that isn't all that big.

Nathan

[habib_crayen]

Hail.
I don't think fascism can be used very long, that's like communism after all, you can produce more than in democracy, but finally, in a dozen of years, you won't be able to pay what you had produced.
If we can find this hidden key, wich allows us to get as money as in democracy with communism, maybe it will be the best Governement. but can we find taht key?

[habib_crayen]

Hail.
I don't think fascism can be used very long, that's like communism after all, you can produce more than in democracy, but finally, in a dozen of years, you won't be able to pay what you had produced.
If we can find this hidden key, wich allows us to get as money as in democracy with communism, maybe it will be the best Governement. but can we find taht key?

[habib_crayen]

What the hell?

[furrykef]

That's called a "double-post". You might have pressed the submit button twice. Just delete one.

- Kef

[Cerbykins]

The fascist player may - if they're up to it - be able to keep up in tech by smart trading and a bit of plaery extortion - but even if they DO recover (unlikely, seeing as it's probably inability that got them i teh mess in teh first place, which means new tricks have to be learnt in a VERY short space of time ), then it ceases to be the best option. In the Korea game mentioned elsewhere, the guy initially wanted democracy but was unable to use it because of the predicament. But by self-confession, as soon as I'd hammered the Japs back with enough wars...I went into Democracy ANYWAY, and ignored Fascism/Communism

That's a tad messy

Basically, what I'm saying is, the initial outlay of resources you have to put in (the lost pop, the inability to get temples to defend against culture flips in new cities, the relative lack of cash) makes it too tough a gov for someone in trouble, and it's power doesn't last long enough to make it viable once/if the player later recovers. You'd have to be a small-land-area, mobilised nation with lots of metros, constantly fighting for your life to get the most out of this gov. And really, it's not a realistic situation. Name all the times you have suffered this

Ok, so I repeat what the others say, but the points stand
Now someone tell Firaxis, so they can make this gov a realistic choice

[Theseus]

Going back to the first post... I'm seeing it not for the player but in KAI civs. Any thoughts?

[Enriquillo]

Now someone tell Firaxis, so they can make this gov a realistic choice

Tell you a secret, it's already a realistic choice.
Not all games are played out peacefully, and if you're like me, easily provoked, democracy can be a real pain
Even though I know it's stupid to declare war on the guy trespassing on your land with a settler/pikeman combo, I still do 'cause I'll be damned if I let that slip by unpunished

Picture this: emperor level, 25 cities, 200 military, 2 luxuries (including the one you traded with the only civ that's not at war with you). You're in the lead, just barely. Also in the process of buiding your railroads (200% workers anyone?)
Anarchy just ended, what do you choose, democracy? I think not.