Fascism and Feudalism - useless?

[Mario Feldberg]

I can't believe that the Civ3 designers were so stupid to include two (almost) useless governments. I browsed the forums a little and everyone seems to think that Feudalism is useless. Based on the in game description I would say it's damn great: no upkeep costs for city improvements! However someone said it doesn't actually work this way?
Are the Civ3 developers really this crappy: I mean changing the effects of a government without updating the in-game description?
As far as Fascism is concerned: This seems to be the worst government ever - again based on the in-game description. The culture penality is terrible, corruption sucks, etc. Communism is clearly the superiour conquerer gov. IMO.
Are things really this bad?
Is there a mod that replaces/rebalances these goverments?

 

[Ginger_Ale]

And the sad part is the AIs always go into Facism once they research it...

I'm not sure about Feudalism - never used it myself. It comes around a bad time - by then, most everybody has switched to Republic/Monarchy...and it gives benefits that aren't enough to make me switch. In Republic, with my extra gold, they pretty much pay for my improvements, so why should I use Feudalism?

 

[warpstorm]

Why use Feudalism? Don't if you've already switched out of despotism. Having said that there are good reasons to use it, if you plan around it. First off, you have to learn the tech as opposed to any other government. A dense pack build of small towns works very well with it. Build lots of towns (and don't let them grow big). This will allow you to have extremely large armies with no support. Use these armies to whomp on your neighbors. It has a short lifespan, though. By the end of the middle ages you will want to switch out as it becomes a burden then. The alternative is to use those armies to win during the Middle Ages.

I don't have much use for the implementation of Fascism, my games typically don't last that long and if they do, I prefer Communism.

 

[#1 Person]

I hace made a mod which makes Fastism and feudilism more useful but I cannot find it. I dislike Fastism since it is horide if you are taking enemy land, killing like half of the people isn't fun.

 

[Panzar75]

I used to think that Feudalism was completely pointless, I could see no benefit to it what so ever. It seemed to be Monarchy with war weariness and a bad free unit support system.

I have now changed my mind about this government.

I have played all three installments of Civilization since Civ1 was first released and in all this time I have had an aversion against placing my cities too close. I always play OCP (optimal city placing - no city overlap). In fact, in civ1 and civ2 I would not even tolerate a single square to overlap and if the terrain forced me to place a city with a shared square I would restart.

In Civ3 I got a little more tolerant and could accept a square here and there to overlap even though it was still a little annoying. I've read about how others placed their cities closer together and while I believed this could be more effective I never thought I could stomache so much overlap. I wanted the 20 squares for my city, thank you very much. Besides, I was doing just fine on Monarch, usually no problems at all.

Then I decided I had to try just once to play with a tighter placement. I decided on xoox, or two spaces between the cities in all directions. It was tough going in the beginning, almost quit since I did find the overlap most annoying. But I hung in there and eventually I saw the difference in my progress of the game.

Normally, I place a fair amount of cities, build almost all the improvements and only when attacked or out of 'civilian' stuff to build do I start building military in any serious way. This usually results in a couple of Knights taking a few cities in the Middle Ages and then another offensive later with Cavalry. Before that I would simply not have enough troops to do anything.

I am now on my third game with this placement and although I had a very good start this time I am doing so well that I simply cannot play on Monarch anymore. It's starting to feel like Warlord. I am Iroquois (always play large maps, default everything else) and with the help of a game for my capital and a wheat each for my next two cities I was able to have two four turn settler factories and one five turn.

Well before 0AD I had advanced through the Ancient Age and built up a significant force. Building no improvements other than courthouses in those cities with more than 50% corruption, I have built some 200 Mounted Warriors, 60 Workers and 45 Warriors. Not to mention countless of Settlers of course. I chose Monarchy this game and the upkeep is really hurting at this point.

I've taken out India and Japan with ease but since I started on the biggest continent I've ever seen, taking the entire continent may take some time (and probably suffice for a domination win).

Anyway, with the incredible tech pace, waiting for Feudalism would have taken very little extra time (especially if the AI would be able to stay close to my research rate on higher levels and have something to trade) and with the massive amounts of small cities I have, my free upkeep would be 2.5 times higher with Feudalism then Monarchy. This could be several hundred GPT. I will probably give Feudalism a try next time.

I still find the overlap annoying but when you see the results it's hard to go back... I never thought it would make such an incredible difference. It really is two or three difficulty levels of difference.

 

[Longasc]

Both governments are severely flawed.

The rare circumstance where Feudalism could be useful never ever happened to me, if you really could benefit from Feudalism you have probably done something wrong. To maximize your profits you would have to keep many cities below size 7, so this might be useful for an ICS style warmonger. This is like real life Communism, works only well in theory.

Facism is the ugly little brother of the big bad and really good communism, which kicks ass.

Monarchy, Republic, Communism. Nothing else is a really valid choice in 1.22.
And Monarchy is usually a not so good choice either...

 

[SirPleb]

Not only is Fascism bad, the AIs like it and often switch to it. The ironic thing is that Communism used to be that bad and the AIs used to switch to Communism when it was also that bad before Conquests.

 

[Illusion13]

Feudalism has a nice support per city... though it gets horrendus if you surpass that support...

 

[xane]

Monarchy, Republic, Communism. Nothing else is a really valid choice in 1.22.

Are you saying you normally switch from Republic to Communism at some point ? If so, can you say when as I've been thinking of trying it.

 

[McManus]

I don't know you guys, I've had successes while mowing over other civs in Fascism.. But maybe communism would have always been better, I don't know, but when just trying to overrun all others I think fascism does the job...

McM

 

[budweiser]

As has been pointed out, I think you need to make a plan if you want to use feudalism. I'm not sure about fascism. I haven't seriously looked at it.

After I finish my current game, I plan on starting an emporer or possibly demigod game as Japan, milt and religious. I'm going to expand as much as possible and use a tight build cxxc. I'll keep the pop at 6 in each one to get max unit support. I'm going to build temples and barracks and when I get to samurai I'm going to make nothing but samurai.

I'm going to try and take over the world with just my samurai during the middle ages. I should have enough feudalistic cities producing hundreds of samurai that I hopefully will carry the day.

If not, I'm hoping to have enough cities with temples to carry a cultural win.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

Feudalism:
Try this map:
Standard, 70% continents, wet, cool, 3 billions, sedentary Barbs
Civs: Rome (human), 3 SEA Civs, 4 other
Seed-# 5377193

Of course, you can pick any other non-SEA Civ for yourself.

Now, try the map and tell me if you don't think Feudalism rocks here? (Won on Deity).

Fascism...never used it, don't plan to ever do so. Occasionally it helps the AI, at least it is better than pre-C3C Communism was.

 

[btaft]

I have found Feudalism to be useful in several games. The three happy faces from units is a big bonus if you are not into building temples, etc. The unit support for small cities is excellent. I have found it good for early middle age expansion through conquest due to:

1) Large unit support for small cities
2) Ability to pop rush in conquered cities to produce more units or workers. This works great to remove foriegn citizens from your cities quickly and without any cash. I find this helps out a lot in the mid-end game when you may find yourself back at war with the same civ (if you didn't wipe them out)

After the middle age expansion and as the cities start to get larger you should be ready to switch to democracy.

 

[Republica]

I've never used Feudalism nor fascism. That was one of my questions though, what benefit these might serve.

I usualy keep Monarchy throughout, actually.

cool site, btw.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Welcome to CFC!

Monarchy throughout? Playing always war? The consensus is that Republic is better than Monarchy even for warlike games, unless you're more-or-less constantly at war.

I can't think when Fascism might be a sensible option. I believe warpstorm and Doc Tsiolkovsky have dealt with the uses of Feudalism to satisfaction.

 

[JoeBas]

Found feudalism very useful in my current (almost over) game... as the Greeks, using CxxC placement for the most part on a huge map with all civs enabled, I was able to expand to the point of having gone through the city list about 1 1/2 times, without firing a shot. The only problem was, about 1/3 of my empire was in dense jungle... which will be good down the line when it's properly cleared/roaded/mined, but until then, I'm gonna have a LOT of small cities for a VERY long time, along with a huge force of workers cutting the weeds. So, thinking about a gov't that has large free unit support, for small cities... hmmm...

 

[Longasc]

xane, as soon as industrialization starts and you get communism. Because you can then built factories quickly even in far away, usually corrupt cities. Then a snowballing effect of production kicks in and you will outproduce your opponents. The only detriment is slower and more expensive research, but you will have all of your cities at maximum productivity. This is of course in favor of a military approach, as you will still usually get more money for research in Republic, but the raw production power of Communism is awesome.

@DocT: Nice map! I might play it one day, but it seems likely that I will have switched to Republic or Monarchy before Feudalism... but well, lets see.

 

[InFlux5]

I find both these governments useful, at times, myself. Maybe it's just my playstyle.

The reason is the unit support. I am generally a peacful type player; when it comes to war, I get a bit overwhelmed at the cost of supporting a huge army, especially when it starts to cut into my research. I hate falling behind in research. I have to disagree with the person who says if you benefit from Feudalism you are doing something wrong. If you are expanding quickly and focusing on research, you will often find yourself in the Middle Ages with many cities that are still 6 population or lower. If you're not a Commerical civ (and especially if you are religious) this as an ideal situation for a period of Feudalism. You don't have to stay under this government for an extended period of time. The idea is to switch to Feudalism, then lash out at your neighbors. The unit support is extremely useful to me; again, maybe it's just my playstyle.

Fascism...well, obviously the consensus is that it's the worst government in the game. I don't know that I'd disagree, but I have found it useful in certain situations. 10 free units for a Metropolis is huge, but if you're a warmonger you probably won't make into the Industrial Age. Hence, Fascism is useful for peaceful players who find themselves forced into war in the Industrial Age. It seems that everyone prefers Communism solely for the corruption mitigation. But for waging war isn't Fascism more effective? With the military police and large number of free units, isn't Fascism a good wartime government?

Again, I'm not disagreeing that Fascism is the worst; doesn't mean I never use it. Sometimes I want to try something different. Fascism invites you to have a small empire with many large cities, which can sometimes be fun for a change of pace.

 

[The Last Conformist]

By the time Fascism becomes an option, I tend to ahve so many cities that unit support is a minimal issue under Republic.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

@DocT: Nice map! I might play it one day, but it seems likely that I will have switched to Republic or Monarchy before Feudalism... but well, lets see.

Note you are stuck at the end of a larger peninsula without fresh water and nearly entirely Plains, no food boni. So you simply cannot grow anything except the capital and one more city above town level without working entirely coastal tiles.
Aside from that, not a horrible position; definitely no "Worst Start".

Somthing else for Feudalism: A great Gov for 100k victories with REL Civs, especially for Celts (since those grow faster). Switch from Mon/Rep to Feudalism for a limited period, and pop-rush all those Temples/Cathedrals/Libraries. With the additional happiness, you won't even notice the happiness penalty.