Governors

Keeper of Hell · September 10, 2002, 20:56

This has probably been asked many times before, but in that case, there's probably a lot of knowledge about it. Are governors worth it? I use mine for manging happiness just because I really hate dealing with civil disorder, but I never really know if they're screwing up my production or something. So what's conventional wisdom? Are governors helpful or harmful?

Theseus · September 10, 2002, 22:06

99% of the time, happiness only. Every once in a great while, given a city with dramatic capabilities for either food or shield production, I will set the preference for shield production.

vmxa1 · September 11, 2002, 00:16

I set everything to never and no for all cities. I wonder if there is a way to allow this to be carried forward in all games.

jabberwockysr · September 11, 2002, 08:51

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
I set everything to never and no for all cities. I wonder if there is a way to allow this to be carried forward in all games.

Unless you have the governor managing happiness the governor only determines where new citizens work and which citizens will be selected as workers, not change which squares are worked.

I'm fairly certain that nothing can be done to prevent that, but the governor will only change which squares are worked if he is also managing happiness, and will only manage happiness if you specifically tell him to do so each game.

Personally, I find the governor manages happiness to the point that no city ever goes into disorder, which is invaluable. The difficulty is that the governor never cares about WLTKD.

By and large I try to have every square in my empire worked, so it doesn't make a difference except in cases where war weariness gets too high.

Meldor · September 11, 2002, 10:14

Governors are bad, fire them all and then shoot them so they can't creep back in.

Seriously, unless you play on huge maps and don't want to expend the time, never use them. Watch the city for it's next growth and the turn it grows go in and re-adjust the citizens to get the best food/shield ratio for your current build. Every time a city grows, comes out of disorder, supresses resistors, or starves, the Governor re-adjusts who is working were, even with all of the options turned off. Of course, a lot of people don't like that level of micro-management. When you play on the higher levels, it makes a huge differnce.

vmxa1 · September 11, 2002, 13:12

I would like a toggle to have no govs at all. I do not want to hae pop ups with them building some crap. I will concede they are better than they were. You can set it to build the previous item. I just want no extra interaction with them.

MeaCulpa · September 11, 2002, 14:35

I use them for managing hapiness from the beginning, and once my empire reachs a certain level (a few dozen cities), I let them do the production, too (I set them so they only build buildings and wealth, no units). If you need units, go to your best cities and queue them.

Drawbacks: he never seems to build coastal fortresses, and although I say "no units", he pumps out damm workers.

Dida · September 11, 2002, 14:43

City Governor is completely stupid. I can't remember how many times he produced Warriors while my civ is already using modern armor.
I just don't understand why the governors love warriors and privateers so much.

PS: I kind of know why. Let say you have a coastal city with no naval unit in it. The governor would suggest you build a naval unit to protect the city. Since the privateer is the cheapest ship, he will suggest building it. Same goes for land units.

Jawa Jocky · September 11, 2002, 14:43

Use the building cue and you don't have to check in so often.

Simple Example.

On a really corrupt sh*t town I will start a temple and cue a courthouse.

XOR · September 11, 2002, 17:02

I dont like governors, they seem to want to put some of my citizens as scientists and taxmen even if there is still workable tiles in the city radius.

As buiders, they suck, I dont like them.

I would like to have a setting in preferences so that I can tell the game "Continue queues without asking". This way I can set a long queue and foget about what the city will produce next until the queue is over and the city already has all the base buildings I want.

nbarclay · September 11, 2002, 20:21

The problem I have with using governors to manage happiness is that the only way they know how to deal with happiness problems is to create entertainers. Usually, my preferred techniques in the early game involve a combination of adjusting the luxury slider and drawing off would-be excess population as settlers and workers. At least if I get careless and let a city go into disorder, it alerts me that I have a situation I need to deal with rather than having a governor complacently leave the city at zero population growth. (Of course I also have a far-above-average tolerance for micromanagement in general.)

Nathan Barclay

Keeper of Hell · September 11, 2002, 21:02

Something I've never used. Is it worth it? What exactly are its effects? (Just a civ-wide happiness bonus for a certain amount of gpt, or what?)

Theseus · September 11, 2002, 23:47

Responding to both of the last posts, I would rather use the governor for happiness and monitor my F1 screen... if I see more than a desired number of entertainers, I slide luxuries up 10%.

KoH, your assumption is more or less correct... at any given point, one can reduce research or tax collection to add to happiness.

I've often said that to be an effective warmonger, be a great builder. Let me re-iterate, but focused on happiness: whether in the ancient era and thus given a lack of infrastructure, or in the modern era and in the midst of a never-ending world war, happiness gives the latitude to execute any strategy one would wish.

I once gave Arrian grief over planning an inter-continental attack to grab the 8th luxury... he was right, I was wrong.

vmxa1 · September 12, 2002, 01:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Dida
City Governor is completely stupid. I can't remember how many times he produced Warriors while my civ is already using modern armor.
I just don't understand why the governors love warriors and privateers so much.

They will build UU or privateers if you disbale them from selecting on their own. As Rome, they queue for Legion or Privateers as the game is nearly over and you have armies of MA and BB.

The Pioneer · September 12, 2002, 07:46

I make use of the governors for hapiness. I have never experienced an unhappy city since using them and that is very important. Sometimes later in the game and especially when I have invaded a different continent I give governors a lot of power on the original continent for the sake of speed. I know it's not efficient but I then I have to work in the morning and thus have to get a little sleep.

So long...

Arrian · September 12, 2002, 11:54

I almost never use the governors.

The only time I do is late in the game, when all I'm doing is maxing out my population. I tend to start irrigating more to boost the pop of my cities, and am usually running 20% or more luxury spending (hopefully with 7-8 luxuries). The "manage for happiness" setting does have one nice feature:

If one of your tiles becomes polluted, and you clean it up, the governor will automatically put a citizen back to work on that tile. Without the governor, you have to do that manually.

Quote:

I once gave Arrian grief over planning an inter-continental attack to grab the 8th luxury... he was right, I was wrong.

While you have helped convert me to the "Dark Side" I have helped show you the "light" w/regard to luxuries. It's doubly important for the raging warmonger. The builder can trade for luxuries. The warmonger often cannot (at least not at reasonable prices) or will not, on general principle.

-Arrian

Theseus · September 12, 2002, 15:54

So now we are "luxurymongers," with the associated impacts on game strategy!

Back on governors:

I am now so used to having it on for happiness, I get uncomfortable when it's off. In my recent commie poprushing and starvation incident, I had to check those cities every turn, as the starvation would cause automatic reassignment of workers, even to the point of revolt.

I wish there were a governor setting for "starve these foreign bastards until there's only one or two left!!"

Gastric ReFlux · September 12, 2002, 16:04

Quote:

I wish there were a governor setting for "starve these foreign bastards until there's only one or two left!!"

If there were such a governor, I would actually use one for the first time ever.

Dida · September 13, 2002, 01:20

It looks like the governer also decides which citizen to go when you build a settler or worker or draft a citizen. What I don't understand is why he doesn't pick the foreign bastards first.
There should be a genocide option in the game, where we can round up all the foreigners, and kill them in concentration camps, because they are really a pain in the neck.

Jaybe · September 13, 2002, 01:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Dida
It looks like the governer also decides which citizen to go when you build a settler or worker or draft a citizen. What I don't understand is why he doesn't pick the foreign bastards first.
...

Would you like to found a new city with those "foreign bastards," or have a worker that works only at half speed? That is what you would get if the worker/settler was taken from those foreigners!

Count your bleepin' blessings!