Steven Strayer
Philosophy behind the Fascist Patch.
First off, is the obvious question... why Fascism? To answer your first thought... no, I'm not a Fascist, nor do I think it's "cool" or any such thing, I just can't stand political correctness, especially when it attempts to alter or ignore history, and especially when it comes at the cost of minimalizing the impact Fascism had on the 20th Century. Regardless of its succes or failure, or it's time on earth Fascism had a TREMENDOUS impact on the 20th Century whose ramifications simply can not be ignored for politicall correctness. Yet somehow it's okay to include Communism, which was responsible for nearly 30 million dead this century. I guess as long as it was mostly Russians who died, it's okay to include Communism in Civ2 and Civ3???
In a nutshell, the purpose of the Fascist Patch is to add a BALANCED VIABLE THIRD OPTION of government to the late-game of Civ2/Civ3. First and foremost it seeks balance, secondly, if possible, it seeks accuracy. Obviously a Fascist Regime can have many drawbacks, but for gameplay, keeping it balanced BETWEEN Communism and Democracy is the MAIN goal. Most of what I state concerns Civ3, but can often be applied to Civ2 as well (at least the goal of a third government for late games).
It's been stated before, nobody uses Republic late in the game. There is a reason for this... because anyone who uses Republic tends to switch to either Democracy or Communist late in the game.
Why do they switch? Why does nobody use Republic late in the game?
Because the corruption of Republic is simply awful and nobody chooses it over the lower corruption of Democracy or Communism.
If you stop and think for a minute, how I rated Fascism is simply a Republic with no war weariness and free units, but it still has the awful corruption of Republic.
Fascism is CLEARLY superior to Republic... it's supposed to be, because nobody uses Republic late in the game. Don't think of Fascism being superior to a Republic in regards to a modern 20th century republic, but rather think of Fascism being superior to something more akin to the Ancient Roman Republic (which was rife with corruption itself). After all, in game terms, nobody uses republic in the late game because it "seems" like an "ancient" government in it's usefullness, so I have no qualms about making Fascism better than a Republic.
What it is NOT clearly superior to is Democracy (which will kick a Fascist Government in the ass with research and commerce), or Communism, which has a lower and better balanced corruption rate than Fascism.
Fascism seeks a middle ground between the high science and monies of a Democracy, and the all-out-war status of a Communist regime. Fascism lies in the murky ground somewhere in-between, as Fascism has always had a strange place between free market and totalitarian power. Both in Civ2 and in Civ3, Fascism is a Jack-of-many-trades, but master of none. It is decent in science and taxes, better than Communism, but not as good as a Democracy… it is better at war than Democracy, but not as good as Communism.
As stated above there are disadvantages...
CORRUPTION, CORRUPTION, CORRUPTION
The biggest one is the corruption which is obviously bigger than either Communism or Democracy, plus because Fascism comes late in the game, it sucks even worse if you're a large empire (which most people are late in the game) since corruption is awful on the fringes of your empire... neither Communism or Democracy have to deal with this.
Bottom line, the only advantage Fascism has over Communism is the trade bonus, and NOTHING ELSE. Communism on the other hand, is much better at being a large empire and dealing with corruption. Communism's level of corruption in Civ3 is BOTH lower AND spread out better than Fascism.
The Democracy is a tougher call, but is clearly a better choice than Fascism for some... people say the "war weariness" is great for Fascism vs Democracy... well, maybe to a warmonger it is, but if you're shooting for culture or other peaceful endeavors what good is war weariness to you? Furthermore with less corruption (far less), A Democracy can outresearch a fascist government, so clearly, for the peaceful player (or even a defensive wartime player), Democracy is a better choice than Fascism.
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.
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!
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 hole I think Fascism fills in nicely.
Communism under the Fascist Patch also gets a further boost of free units… double that of Fascism, so there is BALANCE here with the patch.
As for one other tidbit... a Fascist Government hurries production with slave labor, ergo killing off it's own population... something a Democracy (or even Republic) doesn't do!
Yes, Virginia, Fascism has plenty of downsides.
Send comments to the webmaster:
Steven Strayer
Click here to go back to the Fascist Patch Home Page