View Full Version : I wish we had an easier way to move governors around
Moving governors around by land/sea is tedious and busywork. It may be realistic, but it's not fun. I wish we had a universal governor screen with govs and their cities, where we could drag and drop them around. Sometimes I don't even bother moving them from my capital to some small burg on the edge of my empire - it's just too much of a pain keeping track of them and moving them each turn. A universal screen would be much better I think. Won't be in this game, but maybe they could implement something like this for the next version.
Grifman
MiniKiller
10-12-2004, 01:53
agreed and when u adopt a son (a captin whos done a bang up job) why in the blue hell do u send em back to ur capitol. Many times I need em where they came from (A big battle, earning adoption status but leaving to appear in my capitol...all my units are left leaderless out there again)
discovery1
10-12-2004, 02:05
I have a better idea: select the family member you what as gov and they will go there automatically, or atleast to a port. When he gets there a message will come up that says that the gov needs sea transport(you wouldn't want your ships moving on there own would you). After reaching far shore, he moves on his own again.
Murmandamus
10-12-2004, 02:17
You don't need to move units every turn, Grifman. You can select a govenor on one side of the map, right click on a town on the other side of the map (accessable by land) and the rest is automatic. His movement will be done for you at the end of each turn. The only bits you need to manage are the land-sea transitions. One click to send him to the coast, one click to get a ship to the same point. When they both get there, one click to get him on the ship and one click for the destination coast etc.
discovery1
10-12-2004, 02:22
Not if the distance is too great. As the selucids i can only order my new egyptians govs as far as jerusalems port.
Alexander the Pretty Good
10-12-2004, 02:50
Seriously. Governors is one of the things that bothers me in RTW.
In fact, I have the 'manage all settlements' activated to counter this.
But it is still better to have governors in the city than without them.
You don't need to move units every turn, Grifman. You can select a govenor on one side of the map, right click on a town on the other side of the map (accessable by land) and the rest is automatic. His movement will be done for you at the end of each turn. The only bits you need to manage are the land-sea transitions. One click to send him to the coast, one click to get a ship to the same point. When they both get there, one click to get him on the ship and one click for the destination coast etc.
I am aware of that, but as someone said, it only works over a certain difference. I certainly can't get someone from Carthage to Antioch doing that :) Still even a simple screen would be better than having to load/unload on ship and move them, even if what you said worked.
Grifman
the system we have now is not that bad. It makes it more realistic.
2 things that i don't like about it.
1) my capton faught it egypt and after getting promoted he travels to rome in 6 month. And then it takes him 3 years to get back.
2) my governor spend 40 years leaving in his city, he had a family, and all of his offspring live in Rome? It would be nice to have children apear in the same city as their father.
however, this system does allow for you to gain an advantage. Build up acadamies in your capital. and you will have better governors
DisruptorX
10-12-2004, 04:12
the system we have now is not that bad. It makes it more realistic.
2 things that i don't like about it.
1) my capton faught it egypt and after getting promoted he travels to rome in 6 month. And then it takes him 3 years to get back.
2) my governor spend 40 years leaving in his city, he had a family, and all of his offspring live in Rome? It would be nice to have children apear in the same city as their father.
however, this system does allow for you to gain an advantage. Build up acadamies in your capital. and you will have better governors
err...wait. You just said that is "realistic" then point out just few of the reasons why it isn't.
~;)
There is nothing unrealistic about having the game move the generals for us.
Excalibur Bane
10-12-2004, 04:19
Simply having a screen, where you can shift governors from town to town in X amount of turns would be the easiest solution. There is no need for us to have to do manually or even semi-manually (with the auto move). Select governer who is in City A, select city to transfer governor to, governor disappears and reappers in City B after X amount of turns in transit. Problem solved. Realism here is a moot point. Shifting governors around all the time adds nothing to the game. It's really a matter of convience.
chemchok
10-12-2004, 04:54
Well, making a garrison commander travel all the way to the capital to be adopted into the family doesn't seem like a stretch to me. Same thing for marriages, I mean what, the family daughter just happens to be in the same backwater province as the commander?
There are several ways that having to move people manually does add to the game... well, at least for me ;)
1) You're aware of how large and unwieldly your empire is becoming.
2) You have to worry about losing the new family member in an attack or providing him with a military escort (overseas provinces particularly come to mind here)
3) You risk him being bribed by other factions if he's unaccompanied during transit
metatron
10-12-2004, 05:50
Civ III had a great feature: there was a window to gave you a list of your cities to send a unit to. Said unit would proceede on it's own to its destination.
Excalibur Bane
10-12-2004, 06:10
Well, making a garrison commander travel all the way to the capital to be adopted into the family doesn't seem like a stretch to me. Same thing for marriages, I mean what, the family daughter just happens to be in the same backwater province as the commander?
There are several ways that having to move people manually does add to the game... well, at least for me ;)
1) You're aware of how large and unwieldly your empire is becoming.
2) You have to worry about losing the new family member in an attack or providing him with a military escort (overseas provinces particularly come to mind here)
3) You risk him being bribed by other factions if he's unaccompanied during transit
Well, I don't find #1 to be a very good reason. A quick glance at the mini-map gives you a good idea as to how big your empire is. ~D
#2 Well, he should be moving through mostly friendly territory if you have a sensible empire that doesn't have scattered provinces here and there. As for water, maybe make it a chance that he will be intercepted or something of the ilk.
#3 I've yet to see the AI bribe a governor, so I don't even know if they are bright enough to figure that one out or are programmed to be able too. If they can, more power to them I suppose. ~:)
Indylavi
10-12-2004, 06:38
Yeah, I wish there was an automated way to send them to one area as well. As somebody pointed out, just tell them where to go and then in so many turns they end up there. I also agree that having a Gov in one area and then having their children appear in the capital is just stupid. I can see having them go there to study but after a certain age they should just appear in the same province as their father.
However, I purpose an entirely different system. Why not allow us to setup regional capitals?
chemchok
10-12-2004, 07:14
Well, I don't find #1 to be a very good reason. A quick glance at the mini-map gives you a good idea as to how big your empire is. ~D
Heh, yeah. But you have to admit, nothing makes you realize how big your empire has grown until you start recieving those 40% + distance to the capital penalties.
#2 Well, he should be moving through mostly friendly territory if you have a sensible empire that doesn't have scattered provinces here and there. As for water, maybe make it a chance that he will be intercepted or something of the ilk.
#3 I've yet to see the AI bribe a governor, so I don't even know if they are bright enough to figure that one out or are programmed to be able too. If they can, more power to them I suppose. ~:)
On VH I've seen rich AI factions bribe governors, it can really upset your plans. On the other hand, I do the same to the AI. If I can send my governors around without them actually appearing on the map during transit, then the AI should do the same, which is the main flaw I see in the idea.
I wouldn't mind automating the whole process on the map. I find the way the game limits your planned routes annoying; especially when it comes to diplomats and spies, who I send on extended tours but forget about if they're not automatically moving on a set route. The only problem, once again, is sea travel.
Excalibur Bane
10-12-2004, 08:30
Heh, yeah. But you have to admit, nothing makes you realize how big your empire has grown until you start recieving those 40% + distance to the capital penalties.
On VH I've seen rich AI factions bribe governors, it can really upset your plans. On the other hand, I do the same to the AI. If I can send my governors around without them actually appearing on the map during transit, then the AI should do the same, which is the main flaw I see in the idea.
I wouldn't mind automating the whole process on the map. I find the way the game limits your planned routes annoying; especially when it comes to diplomats and spies, who I send on extended tours but forget about if they're not automatically moving on a set route. The only problem, once again, is sea travel.
Wow. I've never seen the bastards do that. I'll have to leave a particularly materialistic govenor standing around. Problem is, enemy and friendly diplomats all have this nasty tendency to keep dying before they get anywhere. My assassins are too good I guess ~:cool:
Hmmm. That's true about the AI using the same system. But on the bright side, at least we'd have generals for more then a few battles here and there. They really need to make better use of governors as generals.
I agree, some of the roads are laided out poorly, or specifically so they go through something easily defendable. The days of choke points are certainly gone even with the whole forts idea. I could swear they ripped some of these bad ideas straight out of Civ. I just don't like all this moving things around, I preferred movement treated at a territory level, not at the individual level. Next thing we know, we'll have to get out Roman Engineering units to build our roads, and Roman Farmers to build irrigation... :dizzy2:
It would make much more sense to me to have offspring of govs stay where they are born. Then, once they are grown up, you can move them around if needed. Say, they inherit their father's position. This seems to me the most realistic proposal of all.
Quid
The_Emperor
10-12-2004, 09:50
I think that offspring should appear in the city closest to their father figure in the family tree, so if that guy is on campaign somewhere in enemy territory they appear in a frontier province...
Likewise adopted sons should remain in the province where they are.
I don't like all this "distance to capital" loyalty penalty nonesense. I seriously doubt that people in LA or San Francisco would be rioting simply because they live a bit far from Washington DC. ~D
Jugurtha
10-12-2004, 10:09
I agree that moving familly members around should be made easier. As has been said you can right click a certain distance, this could be extended so that they take the most direct friendly route. This could include either stopping at ports and you get a message that they need a ship. At that point you could order them to wait for one of your ships, or, more risky, get them to board one of your automatically generated merchant ships. If an enemy then blockades a trade route your stiffed.
About offspring and adoptions. You could say that the offspring would appear where the mother is, which could well be in the capital since you would be anxious to have your familly in the centre of things - just like the Romans tried to. Adoptions I'm not too sure about, it seems a bit silly for a field commander to sudenly be adopted 1000's of miles away in the capital. On the other hand, you could imagine that he should appear where the faction leader is due to some adoption ceremony. Then again, he might pop up in the capital for similar reasons. And my point is.... It does put all your spare familly members in one spot rather than all over the map.
You don't need to move units every turn, Grifman. You can select a govenor on one side of the map, right click on a town on the other side of the map (accessable by land) and the rest is automatic. His movement will be done for you at the end of each turn. The only bits you need to manage are the land-sea transitions. One click to send him to the coast, one click to get a ship to the same point. When they both get there, one click to get him on the ship and one click for the destination coast etc.
Obviously you haven't played much of the campaign....it doesn't work for anything larger than say-west coast of france to east border/italy....anything further won't let you.
Count Fudgula
10-12-2004, 16:52
I think the thing with the kids could be explained by the fact that they have already been alive for 16 years before they are available to control. Plenty of time for them to be sent off to the capital for a bit of education, training etc. The captains that are adopted are a little trickier to explain. I like the idea of the ceremony, or being kitted out with the funky armour and the horsemen, and that they have to go to the capital for this to happen.
I do get a bit confused as to where the captain is coming from however, I don't know what his original unit was. Are they just disbanded or do they live on with a new captain?
Bob the Insane
10-12-2004, 16:59
Had a Captain/Governer get adopted in my Egyptian campaign after a good battle and he totally appeared as a new unit in the army that just fought the battle and not back at the Capital.....
I don't like all this "distance to capital" loyalty penalty nonesense. I seriously doubt that people in LA or San Francisco would be rioting simply because they live a bit far from Washington DC. ~D
LA and San Francisco are all a part of the general American culture and were not conquered recently and populated by a conquered population. Hence your example is inaccurate and irrelevant :)
Grifman
One solution that they definitely should NOT implement is the 'move your governor to another city in one turn' thing that has been suggested. This would allow for a 'Governor Rush' to defend a city in danger of falling. For some reason this just doesn't seem right.
I agree with TinCow. What I would like is a general increase in the movement of ships. If ships could move twice as far as they did now, I think that would balance things. In the ancient world by far the quickest means of travel was naval. By land it would take quite a while to get an army places. Sometimes a governor did have to go places fast by land, so a possible idea in my mind would be allow generals on their own to have 50% more movement points on land.
Red Harvest
10-13-2004, 01:40
In some circumstances at least, if the new adopted captain is in the field, he does not teleport to the capitol. Instead he shows up as a nice new additional unit in the same army. I think they teleport if they are in a settlement, but they don't always if they are in the field. I don't know if that is true 100% of the time or if there are other qualifiers such as: in unfriendly territory, no land/port link to capitol, etc. I suspect there is more to it, but have not started tracking it...yet. If we start tracking all the qualifiers, we can probably figure out the rules shortly. My best guess from what I've seen is that the non-teleported ones are in unfriendly territory or otherwise "cut-off" from the capitol.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.