[R&F] Governors IRL

[blackbutterfly]

I find it odd to place a Governor in my capital (Magnus 99% of the time).

Historically Governors have been put in distant colonies and almost unheard of in the cap. E.g: Lord Mountbatten. Many were retired generals or admirals. You can also add US Governors of historical significance to that list. E.g: Arnold Schwarzenegger

A much simplified solution than in R&F would've been to have great people (Generals & Admirals) retire to form governors. Maybe even a new category of GP? Great Leader (like in Civ Rev) who can be expended to act as a governor.

Instead of the current governor system a simpler/singular function of providing loyalty to a city. Maybe also automate its production like a Civ V puppet or SMAC/X (?)

IMO Governors in R&F are not balanced. They're OP. And they add yet another layer of micromanagement. Bad for multiplayer.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I would love it if your civ leader were a unique "governor" that could be placed in your capital for a bonus and extra loyalty or could be attached to a military unit and serve a Great General.

 

[criZp]

I think the governors are stupid too. Micro = blæh.

 

[Victoria]

Historically Governors have been put in distant colonies and almost unheard of in the cap.

A governor can just be a mayor.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

I think the governors are stupid too. Micro = blæh.

I hate micromanagement so I actually don't pay much attention to my governors. I do the obvious things of course, like put Magnus in a city with a lot of forests to chop, put Amani in a city state I care about, or put Pingala in a city with science and culture. But I don't optimize my governor's placement constantly. I find that governors are pretty inconsequential to winning the game. You can do just fine without them.

 

[blackbutterfly]

A governor can just be a mayor.

The Mayor of London is a very new thing. There have only been 3

I do the obvious things of course, like put Magnus in a city with a lot of forests to chop...

I rarely move Magnus from my cap b'cos with Monumentality (my fav Golden Age dedication) you can purchase settlers (with faith & gold) without pop loss. Also the other promotion that gives +20% growth and food for traders, means I can send traders from distant desert/snow cities to my cap for food (and my cap grows also).

Also I'm a bit of a tree-hugger: I like to keep my forests, jungle and even marsh (except perhaps at my cap). IMO it's a passive defence (against interloping cavalry).

 

[EgonSpengler]

I can't think of a single thing in this game that makes sense to me if I view it from a real-world or historical perspective. I don't think Governors are any weirder than anything else. As to micromanagement, I do find myself forgetting to move my governors around for optimal use, and getting lightly aggravated about it. Still not in my Top 10 list of complaints, but yeah.

 

[ZubieMaster]

I think the governors are stupid too. Micro = blæh.

Love this post since I hate micro, but it's interesting that people think governors -- out of all the other minutia and clicks in the game -- is "micro", when to me the governors are one of the least micro things. As others said, you can just leave them in a city and still get some advantages. I'll move Magnus to whatever city I'm chopping next, Pingala to a campus city, and move others into newly-acquired cities for loyalty help, etc. -- and I've never considered that "micro", I just figured that was the bare minimum use of them. To me "micro" is things like caring what tile your citizens work -- heck I never even open the city screen unless i need to swap a tile to a city that gets the chop. Or micro to me is having to actually waste time to click your builders every action -- yes, I'm the only one still here that misses the "set it and forget it" auto button perma-builders. Anyway, governors to me are one of the least offensive -- I actually wish there was more customization to them instead of the cookie-cutter clones we got.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

The Mayor of London is a very new thing. There have only been 3

Elected Mayors of London are a relatively new thing. Lord Mayors / Mayor of London have been a going from 1189AD.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Lord_Mayors_of_London

 

[acluewithout]

I can't think of a single thing in this game that makes sense to me if I view it from a real-world or historical perspective.

True, but everything in the game to do with people is connected to historically real people. I think not doing that with the governors is a bit of a missed opportunity. I guess they thought of the governors would be a bit like the advisors from previous Civs ... which would be fine if they actually did some advising....

 

[blackbutterfly]

Elected Mayors of London are a relatively new thing. Lord Mayors / Mayor of London have been a going from 1189AD.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Lord_Mayors_of_London

Lord Mayors are mostly ceremonial and honour titles (like the Duke of Cambridge or The Prince of Wales). They're not true city mayors like the newly elected Mayor of London

 

[Victoria]

Lord Mayors are mostly ceremonial and honour titles (like the Duke of Cambridge or The Prince of Wales). They're not true city mayors like the newly elected Mayor of London

all cities need management, whether called a mayor or a governor or a council. If you think about governors they are really a gestalt of a managerial position and a great person like Christopher Wren
The fact you have permanent ones through the game I dislike but it’s needed for loyalty I guess... but so many governor points?

 

[SammyKhalifa]

Lord Mayors are mostly ceremonial and honour titles (like the Duke of Cambridge or The Prince of Wales). They're not true city mayors like the newly elected Mayor of London

Wait, so did the city just run itself all this time?

 

[blackbutterfly]

Wait, so did the city just run itself all this time?

UK governance is very arcane and complicated. RN there are city councils that administer (and tax) cities and boroughs (in London). London is a huge city, so having a single Mayor never seemed feasible. It's a somewhat strange political seat that wields lots of clout. The last mayor is now Foreign Sec. who is in the middle of a huge scandal over a Russia tweet. (He's our Donald Trump). But he could possibly become next Tory party leader and Prime Minister.

Let's see if I'm actually psychic

 

[ezysquire]

New York's another one for the big mayor aka civ governor. Rudy Giuliani bossed it!

 

[Melliores]

Governor is just a word, it can be replaced anything - mayor, viceroy, commandant etc.

You should also consider cities as regions probably, as they can encompass a pretty large chunk of territory. I think they are fine and add another layer of customization to a city in CIV VI. It is also intended to get rid of them with the help of spies, hence why they opted to represent this layer via a single person instead of royal decrees for example.

 

[Temppu]

I think the governors are stupid too. Micro = blæh.

Love this post since I hate micro, but it's interesting that people think governors -- out of all the other minutia and clicks in the game -- is "micro", when to me the governors are one of the least micro things. As others said, you can just leave them in a city and still get some advantages. I'll move Magnus to whatever city I'm chopping next, Pingala to a campus city, and move others into newly-acquired cities for loyalty help, etc. -- and I've never considered that "micro", I just figured that was the bare minimum use of them. To me "micro" is things like caring what tile your citizens work -- heck I never even open the city screen unless i need to swap a tile to a city that gets the chop. Or micro to me is having to actually waste time to click your builders every action -- yes, I'm the only one still here that misses the "set it and forget it" auto button perma-builders. Anyway, governors to me are one of the least offensive -- I actually wish there was more customization to them instead of the cookie-cutter clones we got.

What is considered micromanagement, what is management, or what is macromanagement? In my opinion, more layers of impactful decision making in a sense decreases micromanagement and instead increases (macro)management. I would argue that micromanagement, or minmaxing, comprises the actions of maximizing all the little things that most players consider irrelevant. For example, minmaxing or micromanagement in Civ V would be to sell Strategic Resources to AIs one by one to get the best bang for the buck or to set the cities to Production focus because of the different timings of applying Food and Production yields w.r.t. Population growth. In Civ VI there is much less micromanagement, because there is so much more management. What is the point of focusing on getting each unit of Gold possible from selling a Luxury to an AI, if there are much more actually impactful decisions to make, such as moving Governors and changing Policies?

 

[criZp]

What is considered micromanagement, what is management, or what is macromanagement?

Almost every governor has some "+20% production to this and that". Reyna has the one where you buy districts with gold. Liang has the two that unlocks new tile improvements, that can only be placed in her city.

 

[Olleus]

What is considered micromanagement, what is management, or what is macromanagement? In my opinion, more layers of impactful decision making in a sense decreases micromanagement and instead increases (macro)management. I would argue that micromanagement, or minmaxing, comprises the actions of maximizing all the little things that most players consider irrelevant. For example, minmaxing or micromanagement in Civ V would be to sell Strategic Resources to AIs one by one to get the best bang for the buck or to set the cities to Production focus because of the different timings of applying Food and Production yields w.r.t. Population growth. In Civ VI there is much less micromanagement, because there is so much more management. What is the point of focusing on getting each unit of Gold possible from selling a Luxury to an AI, if there are much more actually impactful decisions to make, such as moving Governors and changing Policies?

One definition of micromanagement is how many repetitions of that decision/action are you doing? If you have to do something every turn or for every pop you have, it's terrible MM. If you do it rarely, then its not MM.

So going through your cities every turn and making sure that each pop is working the optimal tile is terrible MM. Not so much of that in Civ6 (just check when a city grows at most), but in older Civs it was terrible, having to assign entertainers every turn to prevent riots was a colossal waste of time.
Changing civics happens at the "empire" level - so no repetition there - but does have to be done every ~10 turns. Can get tiresome.
Assigning production to cities happens every ~20 turns, but is per city. In the large game this can become the most time consuming task each turn. Bad MM.
Moving units while at war is bad MM: it has to be done for every unit and every turn. However, when it comes to actual fighting (rather than moving to the front line) each action requires serious thought rather than bland repetition.
Picking techs and civics to research is no MM. You do each once every 10 turns, and almost every time its substantially different.

 

[Japper007]

What is considered micromanagement, what is management, or what is macromanagement? In my opinion, more layers of impactful decision making in a sense decreases micromanagement and instead increases (macro)management. I would argue that micromanagement, or minmaxing, comprises the actions of maximizing all the little things that most players consider irrelevant. For example, minmaxing or micromanagement in Civ V would be to sell Strategic Resources to AIs one by one to get the best bang for the buck or to set the cities to Production focus because of the different timings of applying Food and Production yields w.r.t. Population growth. In Civ VI there is much less micromanagement, because there is so much more management. What is the point of focusing on getting each unit of Gold possible from selling a Luxury to an AI, if there are much more actually impactful decisions to make, such as moving Governors and changing Policies?

Micromanagement IMHO is all the actions that require player input without requiring player thinking. Whether I build a Campus or a Holy Site is macro, calculating optimal overflow to chop it with maximum production modifiers is micro. On the topic of governors, they are indeed one of the more tedious examples of micro: all of them have mostly burst abilities (you move Magnus where you chop, Liang where you finish Builders or want to build fisheries, etc.) which means if you want to be optimal you are constantly calculating how you move them around and when they go off assignment cooldowns. None of this is a real "choice", just a matter of tedium vs efficiency, ergo micro. I'd like to see instead that they apply some global effect that is less strong, it would cut down a lot of the tedious nonsense you spend all the time doing now.