Re: negative traits
Originally Posted by
Loki_999
This is why I don't bother having generals in cities. I know the financial advantages, but its just too much micro management which would kill the game for me. Every turn having to check every settlement and change the tax rate where necessary (which really doesn't fit with RP and kills immersion - "Yeah about to finish building that armoury, best bleed the peasants dry for a few months" - huh? How on earth should that give you good traits?). And then also having to pop your generals our of the towns every few turns so they don't get fat or whatever traits they can get from being stuck in a town for too long.
Its the worst feature of TATW/Med2 for me.
concur
I usually pay attention to only two or maximum three generals to become good governors (provided they already have some good basic traits/features) per each campaign, and they will spend their lifes in big and rich cities (MT or Pelargir for Gondor, Mistrand for Rhun, Umbar for Harad, etc), basically I invest a small part of my time to train them to be used only where they will make the difference in mid and long term, for the rest is useless and will only ruin the atmosphere.
I think that having a couple of very good governors/administators for a successful faction is quite realistic and lorish in some extention, but truly, once you got to understand how things goes in TATW for economy and you learn your path through development (for some hard faction like Gondor maybe you have to make some tries before you succeed ), there is no true need for trained governors (in any case you can get by adoption some decent governors) and generally if you don't turtle you can get over economy issues after 40/80 turns depending on your faction.