Do you play with "Manage all settlements"?

**afrit** · 12-19-2006, 02:16

I think the game was meant to be played with manage all settlements off (the default). It slows down the human player, and makes you pay attention to family members more.

**sapi** · 12-19-2006, 02:21

You raise a good point there, but nevertheless there's no way i'm letting the AI spend my money for me (especially as i run drastically short of family members and have large empires - playing with this on would force me to choose between homeland and frontier development.

**Merlin's Apprentice** · 12-19-2006, 02:26

last time I left this default was in RTW
Ended up with a city making more than 20 units before I realized what was happening

**Tuidjy** · 12-19-2006, 02:45

> there's no way i'm letting the AI spend my money for me

You do not have to let the AI spend your money. Just make sure that a
governor comes by every so often and leaves a list of what needs to be done.
In my France campaign I have about 25 provinces in France proper. I have
two active builders commissioning most construction and one hypohondriac
with an elite cavalry stack taking care of rebels. I seldom leave a city idle,
and when I do it is usually because an inquisitor wanders in.

My seven provinces in the Holy Lands are a pain, because I have had at most
three generals there at one time. Two are campaigning respectively against
the Moors and the Turk/Bisantium alliance(!) and the other one runs around
like crazy, trying to keep Jerusalem, Cairo, Alexandria, etc. happy.

**KARTLOS** · 12-19-2006, 03:58

the traits and vices are effectively "broken" becuase using generals as governors will result in them picking up a bunch of negative traits (which result in lower tax revenue etc).
yes you could move them out again, but i think its a bit much, i just tend to keep my generals out of cities all together unless the territory is freshly conquered and they are needed for supression.

**Snoil The Mighty** · 12-19-2006, 04:14

If leaving generals in cities didn't cause a nearly immediate breakdown of loyalty, common sense, and morality, I would consider it. As things currently stand, it seems the negative traits trigger quite easily, and beneficial ones never trigger for the most part (as far as being in a city anyway, even a highly developed city with academies and a University). So I manage em all til the system of using generals as mayors actually could benefit the ones assigned to building and empire management. In the meantime, generals are for fighting

**Hambut_bulge** · 12-19-2006, 13:39

Originally Posted by Tuidjy

> there's no way i'm letting the AI spend my money for me

You do not have to let the AI spend your money. Just make sure that a
governor comes by every so often and leaves a list of what needs to be done.

Also, I find that that moving the AI spend/save slider on the faction details tab all the way to 'save' (the default is 'spend') stops the AI trying to be helpful by recruiting stacks of peasants in the auto-managed settlements!!

Originally Posted by Dearmad

problem is you can turn it on and off in the game even after you start so it becomes meaningless as a "rule"

Discipline!!

**dismal** · 12-19-2006, 17:41

Yes, I manage all cities.

I think I played my first TW campaign years ago without realizing you could "manage all settlements". It drove me nuts. Learning it could be disabled with a single click was very nice.

BTW, I always thought part of why automanage was there was so newbs would not to have so much to worry about.

**RussianWinter** · 12-19-2006, 18:09

You do not have to let the AI spend your money. Just make sure that a
governor comes by every so often and leaves a list of what needs to be done.

Its just way, WAY too much micromanagement. Particularly when your playing as Russia, turks, or moors and it takes 4-5 turns to walk from one settlement to another.

**Lord Ovaat** · 12-19-2006, 18:33

I've heard several folks comment that they play the game to win. Well, that's fine, but not very satisfying to me. I honestly play the game just to play the game. I always micromanage--everything. I absolutely never use governors. They instantly become dolts when in garrison, and besides, they make excellent heavy cav! Actually, by the time one gets to 45 provinces, the game has long since been decided. I usually get bored before then, and move on to another faction or situation. Yeah, it takes me a long time to play a campaign, but ain't that the point? To play? And if I rush to win, then I'm still gonna start another campaign and do the same thing--play. However, I do have some incentive to continue now, but only because the Americas are obtainable so late in the game. And it's something different for a change. Also, the other valid point with AI management has already been stated: it makes a lousy governor and strategist. I like to think I'm a little smarter than the AI. At least for now. Reckon that will change in a few years with the way games are progressing. But for now, I do not like peasant armies, being bankrupt, and useless buildings.

EDIT:

Its just way, WAY too much micromanagement. Particularly when your playing as Russia, turks, or moors and it takes 4-5 turns to walk from one settlement to another.

Yeah, but I also use "don't show computer moves", and increase the speed in the preference file. Moves are pretty quick, except for mine, lol.