Flaw: Fascism and Communism

[Admiral8Q]

Don't you find it that the unit support is backwards?

I mean, Communism can support large a millitary. Like the U.S.S.R. although commerce was low, they were able to support a large millitary because of a high population. Where as Nazi Germany in WW2 had trouble supporting a large army even after they expanded their population.

I think the unit support, 6,6,6 should be for Fascism, and Communism should be 4,7,10.

 

[Admiral8Q]

No arguments/comments eh?

I guess that it's settled. I'm 100% correct then.

 

[predesad]

No arguments/comments eh?

I guess that it's settled. I'm 100% correct then.

umm, next turn try waiting more than 55 minuites for a response

 

[Admiral8Q]

umm, next turn try waiting more than 55 minuites for a response

Yep.

So any comments, or have I just created a rant?

I believe Communism should have better support than Fascism with larger populations. But worse for smaller pop.

Maybe I just know too much history and should let imaginary stuff take over, eh?

 

[Zakharov]

Like many things in this game, the unit support values are there for game balance rather than historical accuracy. I would much rather play a game with good gameplay than one which is bad but follows history closely.

 

[CrackedCrystal]

Ah, but the facsist states of Italy and Germany were able to nearly conquer Europe in World War II with much less landmass than the USSR. uh huh, speachless I thought so...

Just kidding with you. Of course its game balance. After all, if this game was like reality, then the AI would not pay through the nose to learn the secrets of music theory. After all, they need those piano lessons more than a decent army.

 

[Admiral8Q]

Of course its game balance. After all, if this game was like reality, then the AI would not pay through the nose to learn the secrets of music theory. After all, they need those piano lessons more than a decent army.

Yes, gameplay. But I'm still free to whine!
Speaking of wine...

Ah, but the facsist states of Italy and Germany were able to nearly conquer Europe in World War II with much less landmass than the USSR. uh huh, speachless I thought so...

What you are pointing out here is the huge boom in production, not the support costs. Perhaps the high support costs was what doomed Germany (Fascist) in WW2. I mean they couldn't even supply enough fuel to the Panzers!
Yet Russia (Communist) had no problem supporting all the tanks that Germany had to abandon.

 

[Pfeffersack]

You can see it this way: If you have a large empire like the SU had, you will suffer less corruption because of communal corruption (compared with the amount of corruption you would suffer under any under corruption rule).This fact makes the strategy of city sprawling very effective; you can build a lot of smaller cities, which give you as much support as a metropolis.So you can create a huge unit support and it will even exceed the support of Fascism.Fascism is best for rather small empires with a big army.Few metros will give you huge support, but if you grow bigger you will run into corruption problems.I think thats not too unrealistic.

 

[dan14444]

What you are pointing out here is the huge boom in production, not the support costs. Perhaps the high support costs was what doomed Germany (Fascist) in WW2. I mean they couldn't even supply enough fuel to the Panzers!

Gee, compare production with Allies Germans even had very limited draft until 1945... I would raither give facists (or more accurate nazists) additional hitpoint and cheap barracs.

 

[morchuflex]

I disagree with Admiral8Q.

True, the USSR always supported a huge army; but at a cost: the cost of an insufficient infrastructure (railways, roads) and a very poor population. In the 70s, a "pauper" in the USA or western Europe had a much more confortable life than the average middle-class Russian.
At some times, it took the Soviets up to 30% of the country's budget to keep on par with the USA in military power. I don't know the figure for the USA, but I don't expect it to be above 10%.
And about WW2, I think Germany supported a greater overall war effort than USSR if you compare the figures to the countries' population (about 2.5 to 1). Also, don't forget that much of Russian military equipment was in fact provided by Ally convoys. And remember that German war effort was somewhat hampered by the lack of strategic resources (it is the lack of oil more than anything else that doomed Rommel's Afrika Korps or the Bulge counter-attack).

And anyway, a fascist state will always outproduce a communist one (of comparable size), because there is still some capitalism and initiative in it. And will be outproduced by a democratic, capitalistic one. Or course, totalitarian govs will occasionnally be able to make huge efforts but at the cost of crippling everything else.

 

[Princeps]

I disagree with Admiral8Q.

True, the USSR always supported a huge army; but at a cost: the cost of an insufficient infrastructure (railways, roads) and a very poor population. In the 70s, a "pauper" in the USA or western Europe had a much more confortable life than the average middle-class Russian.
At some times, it took the Soviets up to 30% of the country's budget to keep on par with the USA in military power. I don't know the figure for the USA, but I don't expect it to be above 10%.
And about WW2, I think Germany supported a greater overall war effort than USSR if you compare the figures to the countries' population (about 2.5 to 1). Also, don't forget that much of Russian military equipment was in fact provided by Ally convoys. And remember that German war effort was somewhat hampered by the lack of strategic resources (it is the lack of oil more than anything else that doomed Rommel's Afrika Korps or the Bulge counter-attack).

And anyway, a fascist state will always outproduce a communist one (of comparable size), because there is still some capitalism and initiative in it. And will be outproduced by a democratic, capitalistic one. Or course, totalitarian govs will occasionnally be able to make huge efforts but at the cost of crippling everything else.

You are absolutley right... you saved me from a ton writing.

I think fascism should have cheaper Barracks, Less unhappiness caused by drafting and production bonus. But fascism would suffer from peace weariness caused by the xenophobia.

 

[morchuflex]

fascism would suffer from peace weariness caused by the xenophobia.

That's an interesting concept! Would be nice to see it implemented.
Or perhaps fascist states should be forced to keep at war with all other nations at all times, except other fascist ones.

 

[Reno]

What you are pointing out here is the huge boom in production, not the support costs. Perhaps the high support costs was what doomed Germany (Fascist) in WW2. I mean they couldn't even supply enough fuel to the Panzers!
Yet Russia (Communist) had no problem supporting all the tanks that Germany had to abandon.

two things...

1) Germany could not supply their troops in the eastern front because of poor infastructure in Russia and constant allied bombings to their industries and oil refenieries, plus partisans.

2) and Russia could support their tanks because they had oil in the caucasus and their industry was in Siberia, and they were not under constant bombing, plus they were supplied with armaments by the Western Allies.


and besides that kind of argument should be in the history part of CFC.

 

[Admiral8Q]

I disagree with Admiral8Q.
And about WW2, I think Germany supported a greater overall war effort than USSR if you compare the figures to the countries' population (about 2.5 to 1).

That's exactly the point I'm trying to make. A larger population in communist Russia was able to support far more troops that a fascist Germany. Germany lost many many troops to lack of support.

As for production...
That's a different story.

And anyway, a fascist state will always outproduce a communist one (of comparable size), because there is still some capitalism and initiative in it. And will be outproduced by a democratic, capitalistic one. Or course, totalitarian govs will occasionnally be able to make huge efforts but at the cost of crippling everything else.

Definately, production is increadible in a Fascist state, but history shows it was not good at support/upkeep.

 

[Admiral8Q]

two things...

1) Germany could not supply their troops in the eastern front because of poor infastructure in Russia and constant allied bombings to their industries and oil refenieries, plus partisans.

But the Fascist fascism had the mentality of the government on destroying rather than support

2) and Russia could support their tanks because they had oil in the caucasus and their industry was in Siberia, and they were not under constant bombing, plus they were supplied with armaments by the Western Allies.

Hmm, who screwed up and allowed irrational emotion to take over millitary strategy? The Fascists. It's what it's based on. Think for the moment, a blitz, but a long siege is devestating. This is why I think a Fascist state and a Communist one should have their stats reversed.

and besides that kind of argument should be in the history part of CFC.

I'm not trying to argue any political stuff, I'm arguing how a gov should be in Civ3

 

[Gato Loco]

How about letting Fascists cash-rush like Monarchs? Sort of makes sense since there's still some private enterprise left, and it would probably make Fascism equal to Communism. I mean, what's the use of a bigger economy than Monarchy if you can't spend the gold on anything?

 

[Admiral8Q]

How about letting Fascists cash-rush like Monarchs?

I disagree, it's pop-rushing. An industrial "slave-labor" death camp.

 

[warpstorm]

Real life aside, why would you want to make the strongest (by far) government form in the game even stronger by giving them even more free units?

 

[Pfeffersack]

Would be really interesting to have a government option in the editor which allows both kinds of rushing for a government.