Corruption problem

[konny]

i'll be sure to double check my govenors traits, but lots of times the towns don't have govenors. and ill build every law building i can afford.

my income to expenses ratio is about 42000:41500, but $7000 worth of expences is corruption and other.

Ah well, now I see clearer: without govenors you also have a not to low problem with unrest, is that right? And you have taxes on low and build all law and happiness building first? So, may be your economy is underdeveloped, or at least you are not making the money you should with your empire. Nevertheless, 7,000 in corruption is way to much.

After moving your capital, you should also place governors in all cities, if possible. Even a corrupt governor with much influence is better than none. The governor will reduce unrest, what will allow you to raise taxes. Let him have his share, and take the rest. I think that even a corrupt governor creates less corruption than none at all.

[quackingduck]

Ah well, now I see clearer: without govenors you also have a not to low problem with unrest, is that right? And you have taxes on low and build all law and happiness building first? So, may be your economy is underdeveloped, or at least you are not making the money you should with your empire. Nevertheless, 7,000 in corruption is way to much.

After moving your capital, you should also place governors in all cities, if possible. Even a corrupt governor with much influence is better than none. The governor will reduce unrest, what will allow you to raise taxes. Let him have his share, and take the rest. I think that even a corrupt governor creates less corruption than none at all.

so my generals with the "selfish" trait should go back to govenering the automanaged cities?

[Bootsiuv]

An excellent way to determine the answers to questions like these is to use the 'settlement details' scroll in the lower left hand corner of your building/recruiting browser.

With the menu open, walk your governor into the city, you should be able to see the change he creates in corruption, unrest, income, etc., etc., etc.

Now, just to be sure, walk him out of your city, and see how things change again.

This will give you a good idea of whether or not he's worthy of running the settlement.

[konny]

so my generals with the "selfish" trait should go back to govenering the automanaged cities?

Definitly. I don't think that "selfish" is a bad trait for a govenor at all, for example when it comes to raise taxes to "very high".

I am just playing a Roman campaign in which, due to heavy roleplaying, the govenors are not selected by their ability but by their influence and the influence of their relatives. And even though, with very few exceptions, the towns are doing much better if there is any govenor present - even a weak - than none. Also take a look at the ancilleries of your characters: they add tax income, trade, reduce unrest etcpp.