Should I leave governors in their province?

[Tough Guy]

Is there a problem with governors not being in their territory??

Most of my governors are chosen for accumen(4 is most common, 5+ is rare) and if they are 4 then they can be replaced so I have them out fighting. Does this lead to lower loyalty in the province?

[vexatious]

yup. I think that it's in the instruction book. Leaving a governor in a province effects loyalty...or happiness..or something important like that.

[chunkynut]

I think you may or may not get good or bad v&v for leaving them or letting them away from the teritory.

Eg The governor is there always and gets steward virtue (+ 10 happiness i think).

Eg The govenor is never there and gets absentie landlord vice (not sure of stat).

This is speculation tho so dont do it on my say so. And i have also seen some evidence to sink this one (governors who have never been to the teritory getting steward) .... but i do leave most govenors in their teritories unless they are good gens and/or good units and have seen alot of my governors gain these nice virtues.

[This message has been edited by chunkynut (edited 11-01-2002).]

[Teutonic Knight]

If a governor is away from his province for too long he will develop(spell) a vice called "Absentee Landlord", which causes -20 happiness in his province and -5 loyalty. Really vice.... avoid if possible.

[This message has been edited by Teutonic Knight (edited 11-01-2002).]

[Kraxis]

Hahaha... I have never gotten it, and I never leave the govenors at home, and I do get Steward at times. You get that by developing the farming.

------------------
BTW, Danish Crusades are true to history.

You may not care about war, but war cares about you!

[ShaiHulud]

I've gotten 'absentee landlord' from govs who never left the province.

Since some lands give a star so I often have my best leaders (who get the stars) far from their provinces. As far as my reading shows, only happiness is affected by their absence. The general still gets credited for things like freeing rebels, or killing them all, in his title province, even if he's not there for the fighting/killing.

------------------
O stranger, Go tell the Spartans that we lie here, obedient to their will.....

[Bowzerdawg]

I was playing as the Turks in a “Golden Horde like Army”. I never got this vice in the governors I appointed however, I made sure I appointed good Generals who had high acumen and/or high dread (preferably those who show no mercy) and those who are “good in numbers and trader” in charge of rich provinces. I also garrisoned a few companies to ensure the peasants’ loyalty. However, I wouldn’t want to leave my governors in their province because I need them in the front to conquer more lands and slaves for my empire since as I said before I only appoint good Generals to be governors.

[hoof]

Other than loyalty, is there any reason to give a non-command or non-dread title to a high-star general that has low acumen?

I always give my land titles to high acumen generals, and never give titles to pure generals, unless they have good acumen stats. This maximizes profits. Of course, if a title increases command, I'll use that title to boost a general.

Loyalty has never been an issue with any of my generals (until a civil war breaks out, of course). In fact, except for bribed and mercenary generals, I've never seen a loyalty rating less than half of full bar.