Facism - C3C's least used government?

[Rasputin]

thanks for the tips guys , governments and there correct usage is still sometihng i dont know enough asbout ....



-------------
99

[Goethe80]

Hmm... looks like nobody really likes Fascism. At present, I just play it for the massive tech support given (IIRC, my current game, about 25% of land area in a large 80% archi map, free unit support is something like 350).
I'm quite dubious about the claimed republic level corruption though. I've not gotten around to testing it yet (difficult and tedious since you can't just save/load at the end of anarchy to test because when you switch to Fascism, you lose a chunk of population), but it sure doesn't feel like it. If the corruption level is actually at republic levels, then I suppose Fascism is a government that allows you to maintain a massive war effort while still churning out modern wonders and maintaining your mega science cities (if you have those). In my present game, I'm running on Fascism, researching at 100% and have just SGL rushed the Internet (less useful, archi map, but rushed in my biggest island / palace core with 11 cities), and I'm still taking 6-7 turns to get techs like nuclear power. So I'm generally dubious about the republic level corruption, but of course, Fascism doesn't get the commerce bonus from Republic.

That said, I'm going to agree with all the people above who've mentioned that Communism is probably a much better war government as it is unlikely to have a 1-turn infantry/tank producing city (55-70 shields seems to be quite typical for me) at this point in the game, and the corruption hit you take in your core will still allow your 2-turn producers to carry on producing at that rate.

(on a completely unrelated note, I've only recently discovered that disbanding an army gives you 100 shields! - something to do with all those 4-archer armies I don't need anymore.... pentagon by 500BC )

[Harovan]

I would try the other governments much more often, but the time of anarchy is just too long. Switching to fascism or communism pays off only, if you intent to remain at war till the end of the game. But switching from Republic (or Democracy) to Fascism and back costs like 15 or 16 turns, which is just not worth the effort. Sadly, the concept of governments is in Civ3 just as blown as espionage. In most games the best recipe is (unless religious): Get to Republic ASAP and stick with it. Maybe ... just maybe ... switch to Democracy later. Although in most cases it's not worth to do even that.

[Rasputin]

yes the periods of anrchy seem to long sometimes.... would like to see them reduced...

[alexman]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
In most games the best recipe is (unless religious): Get to Republic ASAP and stick with it. Maybe ... just maybe ... switch to Democracy later.

Spoken like a true PTW-only player.

[Harovan]

Do you think it's worth the effort to switch to other governments, alex, especially if you know that you don't want to stick with them for the rest of the game?

Actually, I like the choices of governments in Conquests. But the time of anarchy is waaaaay too long to waste even a thought on them. Halve the anarchy time and see me switch governments much more often.

[planetfall]

Who would be hurt most by shorter anarchy periods-- human, AI?

Can't you see at the start of an epic game a choice for
anarchy-- short periods
anarchy-- normal periods
anarchy-- long periods

Might encourage more govt experimentation.

PF

[alexman]

Sir Ralph, I was just refering to the boost in Communism in C3C, that's all.
Communism is often better than Democracy/Republic, even for builders, if you have a large enough empire.

And I definitely agree about needing to reduce the anarchy time in Conquests.

[Harovan]

Who would be hurt most by shorter anarchy periods-- human, AI?

Can't you see at the start of an epic game a choice for
anarchy-- short periods
anarchy-- normal periods
anarchy-- long periods

Might encourage more govt experimentation.

PF

The AI doesn't suffer long anarchy periods. In the higher levels it has 2 turns anarchy at the very most. So shorter anarchy periods would "hurt" the AI, but in the sense that one of the bold advantages it has would be diminished. For the human, it's just another annoyance. This will probably cause, that long anarchy periods remain in Civ3. Civ3 is not about fun. It is about AI competitivity.

[ZEE]

anarchy time in C3C should be linked to the difficulty level you are playing on. kind of like the way it is set up for the AI. dont know the chart off the top of my head, but in effect longer times for levels like emperor and above, shorter times for regent and below, with monarch being like the MIDDLE. this is just a rough idea, but it would make more sence than having like 8-10 turn anarchy times on almost EVERY difficulty level. im just talking about more of a balance, like the AI anarchy times.

[Goethe80]

This is weird, I'm threadjacking my own thread.....
I find anarchy (esp. for non-religious civs) extremely irritating as well, but look at the true cost of anarchy. I don't think it's so crippling that 2 switches is overwhelmingly painful.

A typical time for anarchy is somewhere around 7-8 turns. I try to enter anarchy after a decent number of my cities have just finished their builds (units, improvements, whatever). In addition, where possible, I try to do it when I'm drawing in GPT from the AI.

So each switch essentially costs me 1 (at most 1.25 techs), and lost unit/improvement production for 8 turns. While added together, it adds up to a colossal number of shields, no one is going to initiate anarchy while racing for an important wonder (ie. Leo or Smith), so the overall loss in shields is probably a couple of improvements and units. The actual loss is also somewhat mitigated by the fact that shields (unless producing wealth) aren't fungible, and if you do a little micromanagement on your specialists, coupled with GPT deals from the AI, you ought to get additional gold at the end of it all.

So, assuming that you're switching to a government that's more efficient for you (be it Feudalism for hardcore middle-age war, Democracy for that tech lead, Fascism for strange folk like me...), that 7-8 turn loss shouldn't be too painful. So long as you don't do strange things like get into anarchy in the middle of a golden age (which is why i REALLY dislike hoplites...).

Which probably explains why I value the religious trait more as a culture machine as opposed to a bonus for multiple government switching (besides, how many switches are you going to do anyway? despo-monarchy-feudalism-communism-democracy?... lol)

[Harovan]

Originally posted by alexman
And I definitely agree about needing to reduce the anarchy time in Conquests.

Are they other than those in PtW? Sorry, I don't know C3C good enough.

[alexman]

Yes, they have been increased. Even religious have a 2-turn anarchy in C3C, and non-religious can have as much as 9.

[Aramis]

Are you sure? It seems to me that if I choose to change the form of govt at the start of the turn (as a religious civ), then at the start of the next turn, anarchy is over and change is made. If I wait until after moving units or doing anything else, or wait until the end of the turn, then rel civ takes 1 full turn of anarchy, which is over at the start of the yet next turn.
But it's been awhile since I played as a rel civ. I must take another look.

[Last Conformist]

I think the Rel anarchy changed back in one patch or another.

Another reason for avoiding anarchy as much as possible: The inability to replace losses means that an unexpected AI declaration of war early in the anarchy period can be very painful, unless you maintain AI-style home defenses (which, needless to say, I never do).