MOD: Civ3 Fascist Patch

[Rjak]

Civ 3 is a game of history.The Fascist patch merely adds more realism to this game.A whitewashed history of the world is no history at all but someone' dream of what the world is like.He who does not learn from history is condemned to repeat history!In World War 2 there were tremendous sacrifices by both sides and this should be remembered.Anybody who doesn't like the Fascist patch should create their own patch.So why isn't there a Winston Churchill patch?This is America and I will fight for the right for people to remember WW2.World War 2 happened!!It's true,it's true!!

[Barfus]

just out of curiosity wolfhanze, how did you create this gov and not have crash in the middle of a game? i have tweaked the game in many areas for my own personal use and had it work fine, only to crash after numerous turns into the game. i am using just the simple game editor that came with it. should i be changing something else as well? (some text file perhaps?) thanks for any help

[Calanor]

OK, this is a looong thread and I haven't exactly read every reply, so if the following lines of Wolfhanze have already been discussed to no end, please ignore this post (well, sort of )

The Nazis most productive and fruitful economic years were BEFORE THE WAR, as they ammased many social benefit and work programs... when the war started, it took the Nazis YEARS before they ever had a full-scale wartime economy... the Germans were WAY BEHIND in production figures over what they could have been, and in fact, it took the Germans over five years before they ACTUALLY went full-scale wartime production footing, and by then, it was too late. The Communists on the other hand had a booming economy during the war, and easily and quickly outstripped Germany, not only because of it's size, but because of it's commitment to the war, which the Nazis never took seriously.

I can't say that I agree. Germany most certainly prepared for war, but underestimated their opponents (or perhaps the number of opponents they'd face). Perhaps a more appropriate scenario is that Hitler overestimated Germany's ability by lunging it into a two-front war, something history clearly shows is a very bad move. Remember that many of Germany's greatest successes occured during the first few years of the war - e.g. Erwin Rommel in North Africa, the conquest of France, the "iron ring" around Britain and things along those lines. As soon as Germany engaged Soviet, they also suffered their first major losses - partially due to the zeal of the russians and partially due to Hitler's inept handling of the situation.
If we're talking five years into the war, we're dealing with the equipment Germany "should" have employed in the early days, such as the Königstiger, ME-262 and other impressive weapons of war, which quite likely would have won the war for Germany.

Nazi Germany was NEVER geared towards a major war effort... in fact, every plan the Germans had regarding war was the minimalist approach. Blitzkrieg warfare by it's very nature is designed to be short decisive wars with minimal economic impact at home. The Nazis lost partly-in-fact because the war with Communist Russia dragged on... the Communists successfully adjusted the economy, while the Nazis handled theirs poorly during the war.

That Germany never expected the war to last that long is most likely true, but that can be said about any war. Remember that the "Great War" (WWI) was supposed to be brief, but it lasted what seemed to be forever, contrary to what any nation believed when it started.
The main reason Germany lost was because they engaged themselves in a two-front war. They had the technology, discipline, and military leadership to win vs basically any one of their opponents, but not against everyone at the same time.
Germany made a huge mistake when they broke their alliance with Soviet - apparently, Stalin held no hostility towards Germany and if Germany had concentrated their efforts on e.g. Britain, they'd most likely conquered the isles (and as an effect, the US would most likely never have been involved). Over-confidence is mainly what cost Germany the war.

Scientifically, though Nazi Germany suffered corruption and redundant programs, they still had great scientific success, something the Communists never (or at least rarely) had. Not to say that the Nazis had a better science drive than American Democracy, but it was CERTAINLY better than the Soviets

Scientifically, Germany was way ahead of its time. There is little doubt about it. Their tanks were clearly the most effective in the world - for instance, Panzer Mk. III during the desert war, Panzer Mk. V (the Panther), Panzer Mk. VI (the Tiger), the various Jagdpanzer (the Stug III, for instance) and to some extent Panzer Mk. VII (the Königstiger, a unit that joined the war a bit too late, though) were all extremely effective machines. They had success when the navy is concerned as well, although Hitler's fascination with huge battleships might not have been the best direction they could have taken. Actually, the subs were way more effective. Luftwaffe suffered somewhat from Hitler's lack of interest in aerial superiority (another mistake), but the Junker Stuka and various ME's are well known for their efficiency (in the former case, that was mostly based upon the panic it caused when attacking, however). Not to mention the V1's and V2's, the Waffen-SS divisions armed with surprisingly "modern" weapons and what have you.

Overall, if you look at what I did, is that I placed Fascism IN-BETWEEN Communism and Democracy in it's effectiveness for wartime and peace... a whole I think Fascism fills in nicely.

Sounds about right. Still, don't confuse Fascism and National Socialism, as they are not identical in nature. However, NSDAP did promote free enterprise even though they centralized some of the socioeconomic controls, regardless of what others in this thread claim (do your homework, guys ). Thus, I do feel that the economic bonus is justified.

I understand that you (and perhaps others) may view Fascism and thier kind as running the PERFECT wartime economy, as seems to be your argument. Well, if history is any indication, you couldn't be more mistaken... the Nazis and their Blitzkriegs were designed to keep their economy as close to a peacetime one as possible!

That is a matter of debate. Hitler did, among other things, extend the road network before the war, but he also invested heavily in the armed forces. Lots of armoured vehicles, guns and so forth were produced during a fairly short time. Remember, after WWI Germany was forced to give up all of its armed forces, rendering the country virtually defenseless - a quite unreasonable demand which was exploited later by Hitler.
Investing in the weapons industy obviously boosted the economy, but that would not have lasted forever.

The game of Civilization is not meant to make history a mockery of what it was, but rather perhaps, with a little luck, teach everyone a little bit about history. The Fascist myth (and it is a myth) of Fascism being the perfect wartime economy is plain silly. The historical truth is that Fascism was far more a free-market economy and not well suited for all-out war. Had the Fascists actually used the German economy to it's fullest capacity for war starting in 1939, rather than in 1944 as was the actual case, we may all be speaking German now!

I have not read that much about Mussolini's Fascismo movement, but I can't recall that it was that free-market oriented. National Socialism, however, did include such elements - in effect, it centralized some of the economy, transfered the political authority to a single leader, while still allowing a certain extent of personal freedom (e.g. the partially free market mentioned several times in this thread). Furthermore, they introduced quite harsh steps in order to stop crime - for instance, it's said that if a couple of MP's found a guy about to rape a woman, they had the right to execute him at the spot. Such measures obviously reduced crime dramatically and made Hitler and NSDAP even more popular. As a side-note, the majority of the members of NSDAP were.. women!

Finally, the comment "we may all be speaking German now" is a bit too cliché, don't you think? There's nothing to suggest that the Germans would have forced people into taking up German as a native language. Much like the Romans, who Nazi Germany admired, never really interfered in the local traditions and language of the states they conquered (with a tiny few exceptions, heh).

[Calanor]

Originally posted by jpps1


Actually, when I think fascism, I think Mussolini.

Actually, I second that. And Franco, of course - perhaps also Austria's Dolphus (who was assassinated by the SA, if memory serves).

[K.J.H.]

Japan?

What about Japan?

[HansZarkow]

Hey there,

what I always disliked ever since Civ1 was the Gov Democracy. This sounds like the USA or The Ferderal REPUBLIC of Germany cannot be democratic.
Modern education actually does only differ between Monarchy and Republic, Republics can then be democratic or monocratic (Communism/Fascism).

I would like to see the peoples factor more important in Civ3. Actually the Government-form has no tremendous effects upon the science rate or anything, because Inventions don't come from Bankers but from smart people. Capitalism and the expectation of Wealth is also no real factor, since all the great inventors in history (Da Vinci, Edison) didn't do it for the bucks. The Soviets have been able to keep up to the US for 40 years, beating them in such a highly scientific thing like the Space Race. Fascist Germany was a technical leader having invented such "great" things like the submarine or the Atom-bomb.
What eventually ended these Govs was the treatment of the people.
I remember in Civ1 there was an "Election" every few turns - to test if you have the manual.
This would be a great thing again: You could have Fascism or Communism with real advantages, like better production and less costs, but you'd be facing the danger of a revolution, effectivly ending the game for you.

For the Guy thinking of Mussolini when he hears "Fascism":

Even though the reign of the "Duce" is actually the first one to be called Fascism I think most people think of Hitler as "Mr. Fascism" and a lot of people (esp. in the USA) would probably wonder a while who Mussolini was if it was his head and not Adolf's.

[Barnacle Bill]

I'm not sure if I totally agree with your analysis regarding research effects of the government types.

Bankers don't do research, but they fund it. Edison, by the way, founded GE - one of the biggest corporations in the world. In a free economy, there is more economic activity going on and therefore more funding available for research projects. Of course, the projects that will get funded this way are those with commercial applications. Under Communism, if it is not funded by the State it doesn't happen.

The USSR was not "ahead" in any meaningful area for any length of time, and was way behind in many, many areas. Communism let them focus their limited research on the priorities of the State, which a free economy does not. This, for example, made the space race competative but PC's almost non-existant & backwards compared to contemporary Western designs. To really model this correctly in a game, a free economy would get more research points but you'd get less control over what to develop - everything would get developed eventually but it would tend to go "left to right" on the tech tree and at any given branch would tend pick the the advance that increases commerce over other benefits. Communism would get far fewer points but far more control. To really model it well, you would need the ability to research advances in parallel as in (for example) MOO2. In a free economy, there would be a limited budget actually under the State's control and a large amount of "automated" research over which the player would have no control (and which would tend to choose economic advances). Under Communism, the "automated" research would not exist but the State-controlled research budget would be higher than that of a free economy. However, the total research (State controlled plus "automated") would be higher under Democracy than Communism.

Fascism was/is a heavily regulated private enterprise system - regulated primarily for the purpose of enhancing the power of the nation state. Of course, no "free economy" in modern times has been totally free - there is a variable amount of regulation which can be as much as Fascism or a lot less. Typically, though, the purpose of the economic regulation under "Democracy" is more "altruistic" - maintain competition (which Fascism considers wasteful), protect workers, provide a "safety net", protect the environment, help the "disadvantaged" (however defined), etc... However, Fascist governments usually came to power with a good deal of popular support based on their "campaign promises" to deliver social order, employment, etc... Delivering on these promises looked a lot like some of the "altruistic" regulation in a "free" economy. So, I think Fascism in a Civ game would rightly fit in between Communism and Democracy in terms of both the overall level of research and the control of the State in focusing that research.

As an aside, I think Democracy should also have less control over what is built - you would have to leave most cities to the governor, and under Democracy it would tend heavily to build happiness, economic & industrial improvements if any are available (if it chose to build a military unit, you could select which one). Of course, being in a war would let you override the governor more often in both research & building, but it should increase war-weariness proportional to how much you do. However, historically the economic systems of the Western Democracies were pretty similar to Fascism when fully mobiled for WWII.

I do agree that people should have a general happiness bonus under freer systems, but perhaps it is enough that freer systems have more surplus income available to spend on luxuries.

[HansZarkow]

Hey Barnacle Bill

I think your suggestions are great and should be considered by the Civ4-Team, if there's any.
Well the USSR was certainly ahead in all (for them) relevant areas, and certainly ages behind in the (for them) irrelevant areas. The PC design you mentioned is a good example: The Space flight advances indicate that they had sophisticated computers, but they didn't regard it as necessary for everybody to own one.
I think your idea of losing some control to the governor is great, but I do hate them now, I would certainly damn them by then. So I think there should be more unhappiness to the people in the cities, so you would have a better reason to built some extra amusement thingies.

And to come back to the Topic of this Thread:

I think no government succeeding Monarchy - so Fascism - should have free Units, since Nazi Germany had to actually pay for its units, what was one reason for the defeat. While feudal regimes had the right to gather troops from their population without payment, at least for some time.
This would get Fascism away from the War-Government, since most war-waging countries in history were not Fascist.

[Dr Goth]

Originally posted by Wolfshanze

I'm sure if the nazis were around today, they'd love "Political Correctness", because it's just a fancy word for censorship and banning thoughts you don't agree with, which oddly enough is what the Fascists practiced a lot of.

That is the best and most inelligent thing I've heard in a long time. I know that I'm a bit late and I'm sorry but I just had to say that.

I have downloaded the patch and will try it as soon as I'm done with my first game.

BTW, is it just me or is Civ3 harder than its predecessors?

/Doctor Goth

[Golgo13]

Originally posted by Calanor

Germany made a huge mistake when they broke their alliance with Soviet - apparently, Stalin held no hostility towards Germany and if Germany had concentrated their efforts on e.g. Britain, they'd most likely conquered the isles (and as an effect, the US would most likely never have been involved). Over-confidence is mainly what cost Germany the war.

Actually, Stalin was planning on violating the Non-aggression Pact at relatively the same time Hitler decided to. In fact it was apparent to both Germany and the Soviets that war was going to break out. In Berlin, the munitions factories were going round the clock and the German war machine was quite visibly being shipped East. Hitler tried to deal the first lethal blow before the Soviets could gather in force. In other words, the second front was inevitable, Germany just decided to take the initiative and attack. And let's remember, the Germans were within 100 miles of Moscow; they almost pulled it off.

[dannyevilcat]

yup. That reminds me of a book I read on Stalin... can't remember who wrote it...

Since the Yezhovchina was a sort of prelude to war, the author made a case that the purges he planned for the fifties was a prelude to a third world war to fulfill "the great dream" of world socialism.

Great book. I'm not so sold on the theory though.

[Calanor]

The German offensive came to a halt some 40 miles west of Moscow, so they did indeed almost pull it off. IIRC, Stalin was located in Moscow at the time and plans were being made of how to evacuate him.
As for Stalin not intending to break the pact, I agree that it is a matter of debate. Some sources claim that Stalin refused to listen to his advisors' warnings about an eminent attack as he actually believed that Hitler would honour the pact (at least for the time being), while others claim that he was buying time in order to mount an attack himself - in the latter scenario, Soviet would play the role of the liberator freeing the masses from the capitalist war-makers. Now, mix in a healthy dose of war-time propaganda and it's not always easy to say exactly what the initial intentions were.

[Calanor]

Re: Japan?

Originally posted by K.J.H.
What about Japan?

Monarchy/Empire is probably the term you are looking for AFAIK, the oldest one still (sort of) existing in the world - supposedly, the founder of the current dynasty (Jimmu-tenno, if memory serves) was also the first emperor of Japan. That would mean that the same family has ruled Japan the last 2600 years or so, which would be something truly remarkable (and probably quite unique).
Of course, since the end of WWII, the emperor no longer holds any actual power.

[Gromit]

For once, I agree with you Barnacle Bill.

[Optimizer]

Fascism should indeed have a commerce bonus, and it should be able to support many units.

The assimilation rate should be zero, at least if the government is supposed to simulate the Third Reich. Citizens of foreign blood should neither accept, nor be accepted by, a Nazi government. Maybe a Mussolinian ideology would.

The only way to get rid of foreign nationals would be to decimate them by forced labour.