Is it necessary to have a governor in every city?

[Blanchflower]

OK, I have a question to ask. Is it necessary to have a governor in every city? Most of the time, I need the governors to be generals in my army.

What is the best way to go about it? Also, there is not enough people acting as governors. Are they important to be in the city?

[SavageFeat]

No you do not need but they help alot

[Blanchflower]

Thanks for the reply. In what ways is having a governor in the city more advantageous? Isn't it better for them to be generals?

[tudor93]

well, some of them have special traits that help to increase public order, public health etc. ; some of them help the tax income to increase, the farming output and so on ...
if they don't have this traits the will gain them in time by governing; well, it's more complex than this, I'm sure there's a guide here somewhere, you can wait for the 'veterans' to give you some advice

[Bull3pr00f de Bodemloze]

You should naturally put the family members with the best management skills and traits in the largest cities, as they will then greatly benefit that city's income. The family members with lots of "negative" management traits (+5 to unrest, -1 to public order, that sort of stuff) are best kept as generals -even when their command isn't that high- where they will probably gain some extra command stars if you have them fight a lot of battles.

[Marcus Oreillius]

Some governers are nessesary, some aren't. Some family members basically have good management traits and make great governors. But some have rubbish traits and cannot be relied on as a governor. But you can build Academys to help them become good governers but no they are not always nessasary..My empire was simply too big for every city to have a governer in.

[Genius of the Restoration]

Thanks for the reply. In what ways is having a governor in the city more advantageous? Isn't it better for them to be generals?

It depends. In the early game, it is generally better to have all your family members as generals because income is small so their percentage increase doesn't mean as much, but more importantly, the general's bodyguard unit is unmatched by any early cav. To start with, I'd use all generals as cavalry, even if they have good management stats. The way I see it, they will add more to my economy through conquests they help achieve than they will through sitting in a settlement for their entire lives. I've just never found the cash gain beneficial enough to justify leaving this hard-hitting and low-upkeep unit at home.

[Halie Satanus]

It depends. In the early game, it is generally better to have all your family members as generals because income is small so their percentage increase doesn't mean as much, but more importantly, the general's bodyguard unit is unmatched by any early cav. To start with, I'd use all generals as cavalry, even if they have good management stats. The way I see it, they will add more to my economy through conquests they help achieve than they will through sitting in a settlement for their entire lives. I've just never found the cash gain beneficial enough to justify leaving this hard-hitting and low-upkeep unit at home.

Their influence over a freshly conquered region can be imperative also. Especially if your invading a culture different to your own, keeping a number of generals on the front line lessens the chance of rebellion. Of course executing the population can help as well, at least in the short term..

[Genius of the Restoration]

Their influence over a freshly conquered region can be imperative also. Especially if your invading a culture different to your own, keeping a number of generals on the front line lessens the chance of rebellion. Of course executing the population can help as well, at least in the short term..

Spoken like a man who enjoys his Roman holiday. And very true to boot.

[CHIPS]

Only at the front lines. Almost none of my inner cities have a governor. Build arenas to keep them happy instead.

[Vindictus]

Extermination is fun.