Communism vs Monarchy

[FrosTi]

What's the differences between those governments? I don't understand how that "Communal" corruption works: Is it better for small or big civs? Is it better than "Catastrophic" corruption?!

Thank you!

 

[-proletarian-]

Communal corruption spreads the corruption around evenly, so you don't have your capital with no corruption and other cities with lots......it sucks though, your capital needs to have every shield it can to build wonders, IMHO.

 

[chiefpaco]

I'll leave the judgement to the many opinionated people of the forum. Here is a full explanation & derivation of the Civ3 corruption model so you can make your judgement. It is hard to make a case which is better for all games, but this should give you a head start:

Do you think you understand corruption?

 

[SvenSlayer]

I used to think the Republic and Democracy were a waste of time, but I was wrong.

I use Despotism until I get Monarchy. I keep Monarchy until I get Communism. If my warmongering starts getting out of hand (e.g. my people start throwing too many things at me), I switch to the Republic (or to Democracy if I've already discovered it). I think this is a good strategy.

Anyway, I think Communism's better. The even corruption thing is not as bad as having too much of it (in my opinion (which you don't have to accept, Mr chiefpaco)).

 

[Amask]

IMHO, later in the game, when there are no essential wonders, you can switch to communism (unless your empire is huge), but before that keep on monarchy.