Facism - C3C's least used government?

[Last Conformist]

Also, the answer to the question in the thread title is "no". The AI uses Fascism all the time, much more than Feudalism or Communism.

[eris]

I have just finished a game where I used Fascism for the first time. Because I play considering emotional satisfaction as well as strategic factors, I try to get into a representative government if I can. (a personal quirk, you know) This is also symptomatic of the builder in me. In this game I was actively going for a conguest victory and had taken a Reublic government as far as it would go. I had done oscillating wars and alliances and all sorts of machinations. However, I never had a strong enough tech or production lead and the wars would get long and bloody and expensive. Two large, well armed civs were left. Finally, I bit the bullet and went for Fascism. The initial population loss is brutal and a real shock. But it is recoverable. Also, it does not impact the production of military units quite as bad as you first fear. The production levels were good. I had spent so much of my Republic history developing income to support a constantly growing military that, when I went to Fascism, I was still making a hefty profit. In fact, that became the most interestingly frustrating part of the government, I had all this gold and nowhere to spend it.

The culture thing was a problem. I didn't have any culture flips, but then again I kept pushing the borders back steadily and exposed myself to the risk as little as possible. Maybe I would have been better to have razed cities after I passed through rather than keep them, but keeping the new cities prevented my "allies" from settling in and becoming even bigger future targets. The problem was the cityies would not grow beyond the original 3 by 3 square. This lead to starvation and limited population growth, which hampered the assimilation process. Also, when it came time to tell my ex-ally "Leave my territory or declare war!" there was all sorts of holes in my empire to hide in. We had been enjoying a mutually convenienent ROP until that very turn. So I didn't get to diplomatically send all the Persians out of my territory and had to chase them down all over my territory before they slaughered my workers wholesale. (Probably better than trying to pry them out of defended cities, but still....)

The loss of population was scary, even if recoverable. The ability to war-machine was awesome. The xenophobia/culture relationship is a well designed pain in the anatomy. The commerce problem can be overcome. Worker efficiency was a moot point. I had already manually built up my core to full development and the workers were all on automatic busily over-irrigating the newly conquered territory. As a government, it is an interesting decision choice to make and I can see why the AI falls into Fascism when pressed. I would have to be very hard pressed, or in a very strange mood, to try it again. But now I know what it's like. Sort of.

[Goethe80]

Originally posted by eris
The culture thing was a problem.......
The problem was the cityies would not grow beyond the original 3 by 3 square. This lead to starvation and limited population growth, which hampered the assimilation process.

Well, the starvation bit is actually what I use to speed up the assimilation process. To further speed up the process, I use pop-rush to immediately cull say.. 3 foreign population points (temple), and if you need further fine-tuning, walls is a good option (2 pop w/o any shields, 1 pop with), or perhaps a harbour (2pop with some shields). Some people prefer to rush settlers for the double population reduction, but what are you going to do with a foreign settler in fascism?

Anyway, by now, the city should be down to size 1. Add a native worker (you should have some in your war party anyway), and your captured city will be assimilated in the resistance + pop-rush time (4 turns?).

In short, don't wait for natural city growth for assimilation, way too slow (besides, you should have stacks of workers from the series of size 12 cities pre-sanitation).

[Vince278]

Never used Fascism. I usually just go Despot-Republic-(sometimes) Democracy.

[Arrian]

I've never tried Fascism. I may check it out just for ****s and giggles in my current game, since my civ is religious (celts).

Alexman - I might have to agree with Sir Ralph on the "get into republic and stay there" thing, if non-religious. Communism is great now, but if you are talking about 4-9 turns of anarchy to get there... well, it may well not be worth it. Republic can be very strong in its own right, given the right circumstances. In some games, perhaps switching to communism is the right move despite a long period of anarchy. In others, it is probably best to stick with republic. A lot of that depends on which you need more: research power or shield production (I find that my civs often take a small step back in research power at first, while shield production of course explodes. Research speed will ramp back up once the peripheral cities get their libraries & universities and whatnot).

Since I'm sort of a "sandbox" player, I've been switching to communism a lot. That decision, like many I make when I play, is often influenced more by aesthetics than by actual strategy. I hate corruption, and communism in C3C essentially removes corruption (with courthouses & police stations everywhere).

-Arrian

p.s. I can't remember the last time I used Democracy, which I always wanted to get to in PTW. The free unit support rules for Republic are such that I always choose to stick with Republic over Demo.

[eris]

Originally posted by Goethe80


Well, the starvation bit is actually what I use to speed up the assimilation process. To further speed up the process, I use pop-rush to immediately cull say.. 3 foreign population points (temple), and if you need further fine-tuning, walls is a good option (2 pop w/o any shields, 1 pop with), or perhaps a harbour (2pop with some shields).

Hmmm. I can never stomach the unhappiness penalties of pop-rushing. Affects my play style more than it should, I guess. So, I will ask: Doesn't the cumulative unhappiness of multiple pop-rushing greatly affect the ability of that city to contribute to the empire?

[Goethe80]

yes there will be unhappiness from pop-rushing, but weighing that against the unhappiness of foreign citizens during wars, plus contentedness generation from certain rushed improvements (temples), plus the 4MP limit in fascism, I don't really feel like it's a major issue. In addition, during this time of the game, you should have multiple luxuries which will help even more.

[gunkulator]

Originally posted by Goethe80


Some people prefer to rush settlers for the double population reduction, but what are you going to do with a foreign settler in fascism?

Disband them for 10 shields to help build a Temple.

Pop-rushing a Settler costs 2 pop + 2 pop for the Settler + 1 pop for the ongoing starvation = 5 evil foreigners expunged from the city in one turn.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by gunkulator


Disband them for 10 shields to help build a Temple.

Pop-rushing a Settler costs 2 pop + 2 pop for the Settler + 1 pop for the ongoing starvation = 5 evil foreigners expunged from the city in one turn.

That's evil!


There's a certain irony to the Republic support changes. People were complaining how Republic was better than the modern gov'ts, and they made Republic better in the modern age!

[Goethe80]

Originally posted by gunkulator


Disband them for 10 shields to help build a Temple.

Pop-rushing a Settler costs 2 pop + 2 pop for the Settler + 1 pop for the ongoing starvation = 5 evil foreigners expunged from the city in one turn.

I don't know, fantastic way of lowering the population, but for the 4pop (ignoring the starvation), you can get so much more done!

settler = 1 turn for some shield buildup, 1 turn for rushing = 2 turns, 5 pop reduction, net result - 10 shields in box

temple = 1 turn for shield buildup, 1 turn for rushing = 2 turns, 4 pop reduction, net result - 1 temple

I realise that one of the main goals is to reduce population, but as with the pay-rushing to produce settlers, I think it's always nice to get a few little improvements as a bonus. It's not as if there aren't enough things to build. Barracks, Harbors, Temples, Walls, Courthouses, units.... Anyway, as you can sorta of figure out by now, if I'm attacking while in a pop-rush government, I tend to finish the conquest with a whole pile of size 1-2 cities....

[Last Conformist]

I usually starve down all new conquests to size one. The annoying thing is that each time a foreign national goes down the drain, the stupid governor rests the rest of the population to end the starvation. Damn humanist!

[dogfrog45]

I've got into the habit of changing gov't whilst in a golden age to minimise the effects and at least raise cash. Doesn't a golden age increase defensive bonuses whilst anarchy lowers them?

I could be talking ****e.

[albiedamned]

Neither Golden Ages nor Anarchy have an effect on military performance. Golden Ages boost production and commerce (gold and science), but Anarchy negates that because you have zero production and zero commerce during Anarchy. Therefore Anarchy during a Golden Age is about the worst thing you could do!!

[Goethe80]

Urm, going into anarchy during a golden age is quite a waste. The key points of a GA is that you get additional production and commerce, which is then reduced to zero by anarchy. So while all your shielded tiles are producing 1 extra shield, the 100% corruption during anarchy completely wipes it out.

[Tassadar500]

Goethe is right, using your GA while you have Anarchy is a complete waste. You lose all of the benefits that you get in a GA due to the Anarchy.