Did you ever use the Governor to run your cities ?

[Heretic_Cata]

Well do you ?
I think it is completley useless - the governor cannot beat obsesive-compulsive micromanaging

 

[Matto the Hun]

I don't mainly because EVERY comment on here strongly recomends against it.

I also don't have many opportunities to play, so when I do I'd rather not test the uslessness of governors.

I also think I have more of an opportunity to learn more by doing things myself.

I also know better than to trust computers... Terminator, The Matrix, MS Office... what ELSE does it take to get people to wake up man!

 

[ac196nataku]

When I'm feeling lazy I let him control the happiness, even though I know it is inefficient. I forget to check the happiness between turns frequently, especially in the wee hours of the night.

 

[gmaharriet]

When I'm feeling lazy I let him control the happiness, even though I know it is inefficient. I forget to check the happiness between turns frequently, especially in the wee hours of the night.

Try using the CrpMapStat utility for that. It will alert you by making a "ding" sound and tell you which city(s) are about to go into disorder.

 

[Mathias]

I turn the governor on to manage moods when all tiles are being worked. This saves me the trouble of putting a citizen back to work after pollution has been cleared.

That said, I don't use the governor to run the city, so my vote is 'no'

 

[Deathwalker]

I never let him run a city, I just found he never built what I wanted

 

[Bluemofia]

Yeah, but only to maintain happiness.

 

[Creosote]

Maintaining happiness from mid game onwards. Though I check every so often that the governor hasn't done something daft, which invariable it has.

 

[Bartleby]

I tried to play a "decentralised" game, using govenors and full automation, but it was the pits.

 

[Mithadan]

I also know better than to trust computers... Terminator, The Matrix, MS Office... what ELSE does it take to get people to wake up man!

Thence the irony of playing a computer game, against AI no less!

 

[BCLG100]

Only use him to make sure my citizens dont get annoyed.

 

[Stormrage]

I played with the governor cos back when I used to play on chieftain, and got over 50 cities pretty easy, it was damn borring making sure everything is allright. How bout going to war, and then turning around 2 or 3 hundred laborers to entertainers, and then when the war is over, turning them back. And then your so-called allies backstab you, and there you are, at war again. With 50 messages of rioting in your cities per turn, till you make 300 entertainers. Again. Playing with governor and auto-workers on higher (normal, forgot the name. Regent? Monarch?) difficulty is suicide

 

[zerksees]

Yes - manage citizen moods, emphasize food and production. All the way up through emperor level. Even use it on higher levels where appropriate.

Governor does not control what my cities build.

 

[Smart]

I never use governor, exception is "manage citizen moods" after period of anarchy, or after getting some luxuries. AI get starting advantage on high levels, and you shouldn't do the same what AI does.

 

[ac196nataku]

Try using the CrpMapStat utility for that. It will alert you by making a "ding" sound and tell you which city(s) are about to go into disorder.

I run Mac OS X.

 

[Twig]

Never got a Governor run city to produce what I want.
If you have a lot of cities Governor is useful to manage moods.

 

[Swiss Bezerker]

Never. simple

 

[johnnyjal]

I think it is completley useless - the governor cannot beat obsesive-compulsive micromanaging

lol, I agree to that.
I don't use it.

 

[azzaman333]

I never use that idiotic governing guy, who has no idea what he is doing.

 

[Supa]

I use the Governor after a while, even if I often correct his choices. I'm here to play, not micromanaging 20+ cities every turns.