governors and role playing

[beermugcarl]

there is an option so that you don't have control over construction + recruitment unless you have a governor.

who plays with this option on? seems to me like it would be make the game much more challenging and good from a role play perspective but i haven't had a chance to play it like that yet and so i'm openly asking people's opinions on it.

also, what other small role play things do you do that increases the difficulty and 'fun' ()

EDIT: I also posted this in the stainless steel thread. would this governor option be particularly worse for third age where most people use their generals in battle?

[SandraDevilGirl]

Makes it easier IMO as it cripples the already poor AI.

[beermugcarl]

it makes no difference to the ai... if you tick the option then it means that YOU get assigned the AI's recruitment (you can change the policy though) unless you have a governor.

[Coldfire88]

For me its kind of the opposite with role playing because usually with it plus VH/VH im so focused on getting units trained and buildings built that I find myself ignoring the RP part.

But yes I wouldnt play without it

[beermugcarl]

For me its kind of the opposite with role playing because usually with it plus VH/VH im so focused on getting units trained and buildings built that I find myself ignoring the RP part.

But yes I wouldnt play without it

so... you use this option? sorry i got a little confused by what you said.

that is the issue though, on VH/VH you need the full control but then the option means you can't have full control unless you manage your governors properly.
this means you can't make the OP stacks of generals (which i see far too many people do)

so that is basically the point of this thread. does that one option make the game better and more balanced?

[Emperor of Hell]

It all depends on how you use it. If you think you will use stacks of generals if you don't use this option this might be a good idea for you. I personally always select it as I don't like waiting for all those generals and prefer to be able to set taxes myself.

[beermugcarl]

It all depends on how you use it. If you think you will use stacks of generals if you don't use this option this might be a good idea for you. I personally always select it as I don't like waiting for all those generals and prefer to be able to set taxes myself.

I play a lot of hotseat campaigns (or rather, used to) and even though we have house rules there are still many people (and i have noticed this on the advice sections, screenshots and AAR's part of the forum) who use generals as a large force (especially at the beginning of the campaign) and even though the logical response is to say 'just because you could doesn't mean that you should' I believe this option could make the above appear much less lucrative?