Fascism as a 3rd form of Modern Government in v1.18

nationalist · February 22, 2002, 04:55

There has been an ongoing debate in a few threads about whether the governments of civ 3 are satisfactory or not. Much debate has circled around the inclusion of Fascism as a form of government, and I was just curious as to what people's opinions on the topic are. Here are my opinions (most of which have been posted on a different thread).---

I think that Fascism should be the modern version of Monarchy, where Democracy is equivalent to Republic and Communism is equivalent to Despotism. It should have the same commerce benefits as Democracy (Fascists are capitalists), but greater corruption. It should be good at fielding an army. You should be able to conscript 3 units from each city, and those conscripts should have "regular" status, with three life bars (to reflect the militarism of Fascism and the popular support received by Fascist governments) After that, units should be the same as Democracy. To reflect the industrial benefits of Fascism, factories should produce one extra shield in every shield producing square and rush building should cost half as much as in Democracy (fascists, with the exception of Nazis, didn't use slave labor. Therefore there should be no population killing rush building.) The same martial laws that apply under communism should apply under Fascism. The drawbacks to Fascism should be that the per turn culture benefit from each building should be halved (representing the surpression and destruction of dissenters) and, most importantly, alienation from the other Civs due to belligerant nationalism. This alienation will make trading far more difficult and the probability of alliances and sneak attacks against you far more probable. To balance the system, Democracy should recieve 1.5 times as much culture from buildings as it does now, and AI will treat Democracies with far more trust, making trades easier and sneak attacks much more unlikely. Communism will remain as is, except it should also recieve a culture penalty.

Fascism is a real and historical form of government, and should be represented. In itself, Fascism is no more evil than Communism or other forms of authoritarian government. Though there have been whole books written about fascism, in a nutshell it is an extension of democracy gone wild. Fascists can only come to power when they have overwhelming popular support. Once they have that support, they use it to do the will of the majority and force the majority's opinions on everyone else in the country. It is basically the "mobocracy" that the American founding fathers sought so hard to avoid: majority rules regardless of what happens. They are hyper-nationalistic ( they think that they are better than any other people), and tend to be militaristic due to the nationalist rhetoric inherent to their government. The governments are lead by a strong, idealized, father figure type. They tend to arise when nations are in very hard times, and allow for extremely quick industrial and economic growth.

Fascism and Nazism are different things, and Fascists are not all Nazis. There have been a number of fascist governments in the world beside Nazi Germany ( Mussolini's Italy, Perron's Argentina, Franco's Spain, and some would say France under Napoleon and Napoleon III, along with some other less notable cases), and those Fascists did not commit genocide. Genocide was central to the Nazis. Sure, Fascists governments aren't the nicest governments if you aren't one of the majority, but for the majority, they tend to be less oppressive than Soviet style Communism (except for the Nazis. Both the Soviets and the Nazis were totalitarian, but that's another story.)

I think that Fascism would be a good middle step between Democracy and Communism, just as Monarchy is between Republic and Despotism in ancient times. It would be a nice new addition to version 1.18. What does everyone else think?

korn469 · February 22, 2002, 05:37

nationalist

personally i would like to see fascism or some other modern government be thrown into the mix, however without improvements in the editor it is difficult to properly distinguish between all of the governments while maintaining balance

personally to me i see fascism as the upgrade to despotism while communism is the upgrade to monarchy, i know that communism didn't work as planned, but a communist (marxist) state doesn't have to be exactly like the soviet union

Gramphos · February 22, 2002, 05:42

The biggest problem with sush a government would be to get the rules work well for it.

As you say

Quote:

Fascists can only come to power when they have overwhelming popular support.

The peoble need tu be unhappy with the current government to be able to swich to fachism, and maybe also have been unhappy with any other government they can think of. Sush rules require mush programming, but that's the only way to get it working without debalancing the game.
I don't think Firaxis shoul focus on this yet, but maybe focus on adding more options to the governments in the editor.

nationalist · February 22, 2002, 05:53

Quote:

Originally posted by korn469
nationalist

personally to me i see fascism as the upgrade to despotism while communism is the upgrade to monarchy

The reason that I see Communism as equivalent to modern despotism is because the production penalty of despotism is analagous to some of the problems inherent in Communism. Communist governments are notoriously wasteful and unproductive (due to the "communist work ethic" Why work harder than anyone else when we all get the same benefits?) Also, Fascists are capitalists, and should be able to generate commerce at a rate equivalent to democracies, which are also capitalist. Communist governments aren't capitalists, and should therefore not produce as much commerce as the capitalist forms of government (much like despotism has a cap on commerce generated per tile.)

MonsterMan · February 22, 2002, 06:05

meh

check out my mod.

Grumbold · February 22, 2002, 07:09

Give the community a better editor and new government types will sprout all over the place. Fascism will certainly be one of the most commonly included.

I don't personally see Fascism as a commercial success, more as an industrial one. The average German became no better off once the initial climb out of the depression and rebuilding of Germany was complete. If production rises then the 'wealth' option will become more lucrative. So a Fascist country building wealth is buoyant but when it turns to building tanks and bombers it tails off rapidly.

aahz_capone · February 22, 2002, 07:26

I personally agree with nationalist here. His arguments are solid and he destinguishes nicely between fascism and national-socialism. However I don't think this problem will be fixed by just having a better editor. Yeah, editing and making mods is fun (check out http://www.netrexgp.nl/civ3/downloads.htm for the most well rounded and accurate mod of the Netherlands, my home country) but the biggest problem there is that everyones mod for fascism would be different, just as there are many different mods for including the spanish and the vikings and god knows what else.
I would like to see FIRAXIS bring out there own stuff so that the is standardization amongst the civ community. This includes of course bringing out fascism and maybe some more civs.

The fact that fascism is missing doesn't pain me in the way of missing CTP, but it pains me in the way of missing the political intrigue of SMAC. As you say, democracies should be nicer to eachother (as is in the real world) etc. I also think its comendable the way you've thought of government affecting culture.

nationalist · February 22, 2002, 14:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Gramphos
The peoble need tu be unhappy with the current government to be able to swich to fachism, and maybe also have been unhappy with any other government they can think of. Sush rules require mush programming, but that's the only way to get it working without debalancing the game.

I don't think that you would need to do anything that drastic. In my opinion the anarchy normally caused in the game when you switch governments would be enough to bring about a fascist form of government. Going into anarchy always makes my entire civ bacome unhappy, and that unhappyness could produce the same effect that you are talking about. Nothng else special would be needed, simply click the revolution button, wait for the anachy to end, and choose fascism. Therefore, Fascism would simply be another government you could pick from.

Gramphos · February 22, 2002, 14:26

Quote:

Originally posted by nationalist
I don't think that you would need to do anything that drastic. In my opinion the anarchy normally caused in the game when you switch governments would be enough to bring about a fascist form of government. Going into anarchy always makes my entire civ bacome unhappy, and that unhappyness could produce the same effect that you are talking about. Nothng else special would be needed, simply click the revolution button, wait for the anachy to end, and choose fascism. Therefore, Fascism would simply be another government you could pick from.

Well, maybe, but what would you give it for stats to not unbalance the game?

Kilroy_Alpha · February 22, 2002, 14:50

Adding Fascism as you describe it would break the game. It would also require a lot of retooling, time probably better spent improving the editor.

Kilroy_Alpha · February 22, 2002, 14:54

Quote:

Originally posted by nationalist
Communist governments are notoriously wasteful and unproductive

Nonsense. Russia managed to industrialize in about half the time it took the United States. China pulled it off fairly quickly too. Compared Russia in 1900 and Russia in 1930 and tell me why you think they're "unproductive."

ACooper · February 22, 2002, 14:58

You cannot argue against adding more governments. (As long as they are all balanced and one is not too powerful.)

Scooby_Doo · February 22, 2002, 15:18

First post, so bear with me if it all goes pear-shaped...

"As long as they are all balanced and one is not too powerful."

How true, I think this was a major problem with Civ 2 that Fundamentalism, although a good idea, was simply too powerful and unbalanced the game drastically. This may be why the makers of Civ 3 decided not to change the formula of governments too much and stick with what they knew worked. However, I agree that new types of government should be available as they allow a much greater diversity in the game and allow greater freedom to rule as you see appropriate.

As for the actual nitty-gritty of exactly what kind of bonuses and restrictions should be given for Fascism, I'm not sure. I liked Civ 2's idea that Fundamentalism had research halved, and I think that something like that could represent the rigid focus of Facism although I don't know if this can be done with editor.

What does everyone else think? What governments can be accurately modelled in Civ 3 using the editor? From what I've seen it's quite restrictive and this may pose a problem as I think its important not to have unrealistic govts. but to try to keep it true-to-life

sachmo71 · February 22, 2002, 15:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Grumbold

I don't personally see Fascism as a commercial success, more as an industrial one. The average German became no better off once the initial climb out of the depression and rebuilding of Germany was complete. If production rises then the 'wealth' option will become more lucrative. So a Fascist country building wealth is buoyant but when it turns to building tanks and bombers it tails off rapidly.

But the average German THOUGHT he was better off, and therein lies the beauty of fascism! If this government is created in the game, it should make it harder for cities to go into disorder...maybe a 1.5/1 ratio of unhappy for it to go into disorder.

SultanofATL · February 22, 2002, 15:34

Why can't we have sub-parts to the current governments. Like a Conservative democracy with military defense bonuses and stable economies and contentedness boost. Or a Liberal democracy that has military cost penalties, but offers more citizen happiness bonuses and is some what unstable. Little things like changing the science tax would have profound effects on your population.

aahz_capone · February 22, 2002, 15:43

scooby_doo, I think that something as drastic as halving research for fascism is (a) unrealistic as under fascism the germans developed rockets, jets and almost nukes before the americans and (b) you get the same unbalancing effect as in civ2: just wait until you have all techs and then change to fundamentalism do kill everyone.

I like sultanofATL's idea of sub-parts do govs. It makes loads of sence, brings the political intrigue of SMAC back in and allows you to change things without a full blown revolution.

Even though the sci/lux baqrs might represent how much of a welfare state you have, if under democracy you are forced to have an 'election' every 8 turns or so and according to how happy the people are they vote for one thing or another and that gives you a challenge in mass-psychology management.

hmmm... must think about this alot more... I think this thread has promise...

Grumbold · February 22, 2002, 15:44

Quote:

Originally posted by sachmo71
But the average German THOUGHT he was better off, and therein lies the beauty of fascism! If this government is created in the game, it should make it harder for cities to go into disorder...maybe a 1.5/1 ratio of unhappy for it to go into disorder.

Increased morale effect of temples and cathedrals but all foreign nationals are automatically unhappy?

aahz_capone · February 22, 2002, 15:46

even maybe sub-categories to governements like monarchy (constitutional monarchy like england or holland or autocratic monarchy like tsarist russia) and fascism (latin fascism like italy and spain or national-socialism like germany, the difference being one uses money and the other pop to speed production.)

Scooby_Doo · February 22, 2002, 15:57

I agree with you, aahz_capone that halving science would be too drastic a move, but the idea is, I think, a good one that certain governments have to contend with big drawbacks as a result of their way of doing things but in return reap huge benefits on certain aspects. I think that something like the halving science, not exactly this, but something on similar lines would help to distinguish between governments more and make the decison of switching much more interesting as there are clear-cut pros and cons. Instead, the differences between the current governments are, in my view, small. (There was a post somewhere that compared corruption rates for each government and the differences were so small as to be barely noticeable)
I agree again that something as drastic as the halving of science rates for a government would unbalance the game although I would like to see more clear cut differences other than "Well, corruption will be slightly less, science will probably be more and your peeps will be generally happier".

I think that this would definitely make the choice of governments far more interesting.

Also, on the realism note, I think that it would be wrong to claim that a government such as Fascism has the same freedom of speech and openness to changes that a more representative government has and so I think that it would be justified to cut down on the science rate of Fascism to reflect this.

If any history people are now going to prove me totally wrong, feel free, I welcome your opposing views and, who knows, I may learn something.

Willem · February 22, 2002, 16:17

Quote:

Originally posted by korn469
nationalist

personally i would like to see fascism or some other modern government be thrown into the mix, however without improvements in the editor it is difficult to properly distinguish between all of the governments while maintaining balance

Not anymore, the gov specific buildings now work properly. You can differentiate between govs by creating buildings with unique characteristics to each gov that only they can build and use. It would be nice to have more options in the government area itself, but at least there are more possibilities now.

Willem · February 22, 2002, 16:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Gramphos
The biggest problem with sush a government would be to get the rules work well for it.

As you say

Quote:

Fascists can only come to power when they have overwhelming popular support.

The peoble need tu be unhappy with the current government to be able to swich to fachism, and maybe also have been unhappy with any other government they can think of. Sush rules require mush programming, but that's the only way to get it working without debalancing the game.
I don't think Firaxis shoul focus on this yet, but maybe focus on adding more options to the governments in the editor.

That's why I think a more general term like Dictatorship would be more appropriate. There needs to be some modern replacement for Despotism and I think that would fit nicely. While looking at the preferred governments of each civ, I discovered that 3 of them have Despotism listed. To me that's not a viable option for a modern government, considering the tile and the trade restrictions. Those 3 govs are bound to be much stronger with some other form, more modern form.

nationalist · February 22, 2002, 16:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Kilroy_Alpha

Nonsense. Russia managed to industrialize in about half the time it took the United States. China pulled it off fairly quickly too. Compared Russia in 1900 and Russia in 1930 and tell me why you think they're "unproductive."

Unproductive doesn't have much to do with speed of industrialization. The reason that the U.S.S.R. was able to industrialize rapidly was due mostly to the fact that it was copying from what others had developed over the past 150 years. Russians didn't spend the time developing methods like the first industrializing nations did, they could just co-opt ideas. Their entire society changed from the years 1900-1930, and they moved from a feudal to an industrial society in those years (remember that Russia was a monarchy until 1917, and communism nearly collapsed in the mid 20's due to a failing economy) True, Stalin did push industrialization, but it would have taken a lot longer if they had to come up with their own techniques. German Industrialization provides a good parallel to this. Germany was able to industrialize and catch up with Great Britain, the world's economic leader, in a very short span of time. This is because Germany copied most of the techniques from existing U.S. and British models. The case of China is evn more striking.

But, as I was saying, rate of industrilization and productivity are two different things. Research the Communist work ethic and you'll find that countries of the former Soviet Union are having tough times adjusting to capitalism simply because they have to work harder. Before it didn't matter how hard they worked, they were paid the same wage. Couple this with the fact that black market hoarding of government materials designed for use on projects but stockpiled by factory foremans to sell for personal profit was rampant and crippling and you will have the reason why I say that Communism is very unproductive and wh the U.S.S.R couldn't compete over the long run with the west.

aahz_capone · February 22, 2002, 17:02

Willem, I think that Dictatorship is far too vague. Communism is already a "dictatorship of the proleteriat". Infact, dictatorial powers can come with almost any form of government, be it far left, far right or even monarchies in the form of a theocracy. This is why we need to expand on the govs in civ3.

scooby, quite true that freedom of speech accelerates research faster then less "free" communities.

I like grumbold's idea of making all foreign nationals unhappy under fascism, it could balance the fact that nationals "think" they are happy. Hell, just create buildings like a Ministry of Love, Ministry of Peace, Ministry of Truth and make an Orwellian dictatorship, like in 1984. Long live Engsoc, double plus good, duckspeak unslow tech. unnation unplus happy, double pop redux fast make.

Duckspeak unbad you? Fast know civlopedia, unknow lag work time good.

nationalist · February 22, 2002, 17:13

These are my ideas for the re-tooled government, Let me know what you think. Would they unbalance the game?

FASCISM

Benefits

- The same tile benefits as Democracy (Fascists are capitalists)

- Draft 3 "regular" units from each city to reflect militaristic and popular nature of Fascism. After that, each unit will need support.
Also, military has the same martial law benefits as Communism
Military improvements don't require support.

-Factories add 1 extra shield to each square where squares are produced. This reflects the emphasis on industrialism. Also, rush building should cost half as much to rush as in Democracy.

Drawbacks

-Other nations distrust Fascist governments. Therefore, the best relationship that you can have with other leaders is "cautious". Other Civs are far more likely to make alliances and embargoes against you no matter how powerful you are, and will not trade fairly with you.

-You cannot culturally assimilate foreign cities unless those cities are made up of more than 50% of your nationality. No foreign people would willingly join an intensely nationalistic fascist government. Foreign nationals in your cities are permantly unhappy.

-Corruption levels as bad as Communism, except not evenly spread out.

-All of your culture producing improvements will produce 25% less culture under Fascism, representing the emphasis of old ideas and the stifling of innovations (Jazz was banned in Nazi Germany, but Polka and Wagner were supported by the government.)

-Impossible to win a diplomatic victory until 25 turns after abandoning Fascism due to the stigma attached to Fascism.

Democracy

-cultral improvements produce 1.5 times more culture per turn than their assigned value, due to the freedom of Democracy.

-Other Democracies will treat you very kindly (no worse than polite) unless you have a bad reputation, no matter how powerful you are. They will ally and trade with you more readily, and will rarely attack you. (this is according to the theory of the democratic peace.)

-war weariness levels will be negligable when your democracy has been attacked by a fascist or communist governmet. People will co-operate because it is a just war against authoritarianism. Normal war weariness for aiding an attacked ally or initiating a war with Communism or Fascism. However, if you invade a democracy while under democracy you will have severe war weariness.

-easier to win a Diplomatic victory

Communism

-Draft "regular" units, like under Fascism

-If a city adjacent to your border has a factory, is under size ten, and has fewer than 1,000 culture points and no wonders goes into disorder for more than two turns, you automatically assimilate it. (This is according to the theory of worker's solidarity. The culture points of a city matter because, in my mind, culture points represent how strong nationalist feeling is in any particular city. If it is under 1,000 and has no wonders there is greater loyalty to class than to nation, and a far greater chance or a porletariat revolution that would be willing to join with its communist neighbor. Study the Bavarian revolution of 1920)

-Spy missions cost 1/8th as much as for the other types of governments, because there are ideological brethern and sympathizers in every nation.

-Other civs treat Communists better than Fascists, because there are working classes and leftists in every country. On the other hand, it is hard for other nations to be sympathetic to belligerant foreign nationalists.

-Culture penalty is 50%. Communist governments (specifically the U.S.S.R.) have been very anti-tradition and athiest. They destroy old culture and do not allow new culture to flourish unless it follows a specific doctrine. At least Fascist celebrate (some would say worship) their cultural history.

There would be no expansion limit for modern governments other than standard corruption, and that corruption could be battled by city improvements. There would be no super-corruption in modern governments.

GodKing · February 22, 2002, 17:33

Lots of good electrons flowing in this thread... Lots of good ideas. I particularly like the idea of sub-governments -conservitave, liberal, hawkish, radical, nerdie (scientific), greedy etc. etc. Great way to help refocus your government without having a revolution every time you go to war.

I think lots of governments should be added - BUT THEY MUST BE BALANCED FOR THE GAME. Variety is the stuff of life, so I say bring it on, the more the better.

aahz_capone · February 22, 2002, 17:37

I like your ideas nationalist, except I think that democracy get TOO much culture. If you add to a democracy AND take away from commies and fascists then winning culturally would only be available for democracies. There are enough well known monarchies that are culturally richer then democracies.

Also, even though I agree with lessening cultural effects for fascists, I don't think it should be halved. I think it should be maybe a third or quarter down. Commies in general REPRESS culture because they are athiest and culture goes against internation proleteriate solidarity doctrine, fascism however only STAGNATES culture. Looking at Mussolini's Italy, they reveled in Roman culture, and Nazi Germany tried to promote classical norms and values in their culture amongst the nationals (think of the increase in propaganda including the "classical ubermensch" and obsession with christian legends like the holy lance and that amongst the SS). But because of this surgical removal of anything culturaly new (think about the nazi's movement against jazz), culture doesn't develope, it stays the same in essence and content, and increases only in capacity. in a democracy it increases in capacity and essence. in communism it get repressed.

aahz_capone · February 22, 2002, 17:43

Oh, but for the goverment system in SMAC,
Would civ 3 be a game that takes no flack.
To mix and match like gods inflinitely,
It would bring out the Yang in me
and my social experiments!

I'm a poet and I didn't even know it!

Willem · February 22, 2002, 17:45

Quote:

Originally posted by aahz_capone
Willem, I think that Dictatorship is far too vague. Communism is already a "dictatorship of the proleteriat". Infact, dictatorial powers can come with almost any form of government, be it far left, far right or even monarchies in the form of a theocracy. This is why we need to expand on the govs in civ3.

And what's not vaque about Democracy? The US model is quite different than the English one, or the Japanese. Same with Communism. Are we talking about the Stainist version, the Maoist, or the Castro? Exactly which version of these two forms are being represented in the game? That's why I feel a broad term like Dictatorship would be much more appropriate. You can split hairs about the differences between Fascism, and the current government in Myanmar, but they both boil down to the same basic mechanism of running a country, the iron fist.

nationalist · February 22, 2002, 17:48

Quote:

Originally posted by aahz_capone
I like your ideas nationalist, except I think that democracy get TOO much culture. If you add to a democracy AND take away from commies and fascists then winning culturally would only be available for democracies. There are enough well known monarchies that are culturally richer then democracies...

I agree. If you want to win culturally, you probably shouldn't play as a communist or a fascist. But, under my system Monarchy and Republic would retain the current level of culture production. If you wanted to be militaristic and culutrally advanced, play as a monarch.

I see your point about cultural levels. This could possibly work: Fascists lose 25%, Despots lose 25%, Communists lose 50%

aahz_capone · February 22, 2002, 17:50

Hmmmm... you have a valid point there. Which is why we need non revolutionary options like liberalism, and parties and what not to destinguish this mess.

Still, if you boil down too much then you might as well miss out on monarchies and republics, as hell, The Republic of France is a democracy, and a constitutional monarchy is also a democracy. In fact thats a way to change from monarchy to democracy without a revolution: constitional evolution.

That aside though, not destinguishing between the dictatorial forms of communism and fascism is something I'd rather not do, seeing as both forms are so far from each other on the politcal spectrum.