Confused, Govenor - General

**G.Seimore** · February 07, 2009, 07:21 AM

Hi all, I'm new to this mod but I like it quite a lot so far. Thanks for the great work!

I'm just reading through the manual and the biginners guide, but there seems to be a conflict on how to choose the path of a general vs govenor.

In the manual it says, your character has to be outside a settlemen by the end of his first turn to become a General. To become govenor he has to be in a town or castle (so any settlement) by the end of the first turn.

Whereas in the beginners guide it says, to be in a castle for becoming a general and to be in a town to become govenor :hmmm: So what is it now?
What happens if you are outside by the end of the first turn in the latter case?

Thanks a bunch folks!

**Aeon`** · February 07, 2009, 07:23 AM

Outside/inside is for the very FIRST turn of a campaign.

When a character comes of age it is castle/city.

**G.Seimore** · February 07, 2009, 07:28 AM

Originally Posted by Aeon`

Outside/inside is for the very FIRST turn of a campaign.

When a character comes of age it is castle/city.

Ahh thank you so much much Aeon, that explains why I have a lack of governors!

So basically for every new child coming to age, I have time to choose; as long as they do not enter a settlement the path will not be set? Only if they enter a castle or town the path will be chosen. So this is also where the character can get the negative traits if he doesen't enter a settlement? how many turns do I have to choose, before such negative traits appear?

**Aeon`** · February 07, 2009, 07:44 AM

Leaving them out of a settlement means they become uneducated after 5 turns which is not good.

So yes, you have to decide every time if you want to bring him into a castle to become a general or into a city to become a governor.
The longer they are outside a settlement, the chance is higher that they get negative traits.

**Barendz** · February 07, 2009, 08:39 AM

Originally Posted by Aeon`

Leaving them out of a settlement means they become uneducated after 5 turns which is not good.

Its not nececarilly bad, its just a third option. When you leave your fresh character outside a city or castle they get no education and become 'wild' or 'brute' or something. I find them usefull for dirty jobs like extermenating an entire muslim city which would otherwise cost chivalry for your normal general.

**Aeon`** · February 07, 2009, 09:29 AM

Well yes, they get +5 dread then but are neither good generals nor governors.

**Taiji** · February 07, 2009, 07:27 AM

The only way to have a general in the early stages of the game is to leave one of your family either in a castle or out in the countryside at the end of the first turn.

Family left in a village/town/city in the first turn will become governers.

Later you can build a fortress with a drill square to be able to train generals or a town with a school to train governers.

**hotcobbler** · February 07, 2009, 09:56 AM

It can be useful, especially if you're a small faction with no castles at the start, and have to aggressively defend your homeland. When you have less troops at your disposal I find having a high dread general more useful than high chivalry, as the enemy is more likely to rout sooner.

But maybe that's just my play style.

**Omar Nelson B.** · February 07, 2009, 12:35 PM

High dread generals are good for executin and doing other bad things that you don't really want you nicey nice guys doing. Somebody always has to be the bad guy.....

**Taiji** · February 07, 2009, 01:11 PM

I just thought: it would be really cool if using a high chiv general to massacre a city would give him a chance of going mad or rebel

**Xtiaan72** · February 07, 2009, 01:49 PM

Brutes can turn into really good characters in my experience. If you keep them out of towns and constantly fighting.

Really useful in a bloody war to keep your more important characters 'hands clean'. ( executing prisoners/ exterminating cites)

They also develop really insane trait combos that are pretty entertaining to read through

**hotcobbler** · February 07, 2009, 01:41 PM

I think that would be cool, but sacking a city should not incur the same penalty. It was so common at the time I think it wouldn't weigh too heavily on a leader's mind, after all, it is how many armies were compensated at the time.

Maybe make the same sort of thing for the opposite side of the coin. That is, if your high dread general or brute chooses to spare a city, they may rebel because they aren't getting "paid" (whatever the currency may be

) It makes sense historically.

I think it makes sense, but like I was saying before, sacking a city should be neutral.

**Taiji** · February 07, 2009, 02:36 PM

Nice idea hotcobbler, with high dread generals you could risk bad traits for not sacking or exterminating, with brutes perhaps a loyalty drop for not sacking.

Beginning to wish I could script