-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
govenors control regions right? so when i assign an army to the govenor why does he not move the army to the invaded region he is in control of? ex: assigned army to magna grecia tarentum and was attacked in ager bruttius and governor did nothing so why would i do this if they do nothing with the soldiers
As far as I understand it, you (as the nation's leader) still control these units.
The governor takes command of the troops (so any of his martial and
charisma modifiers would apply as any general would) and these regional
troops are limited to the vicinity of that governor's region.
For example, if you assigned the 1st Legion to the governor of Gallia Cisalpina
the governor would be present in the Legate slot for the legion but would not
be able to enter any neighboring regions such as Italia.
The benefit of doing this is that each legion (unit) assigned to the region
adds a modifier to reduce the revolt percentage of each province in this
region.
There may be other advantages or disadvantages to this that someone else
can point out, but those are the ones I can think of off hand.
The governor takes command of the troops (so any of his martial and
charisma modifiers would apply as any general would) and these regional
troops are limited to the vicinity of that governor's region.
For example, if you assigned the 1st Legion to the governor of Gallia Cisalpina
the governor would be present in the Legate slot for the legion but would not
be able to enter any neighboring regions such as Italia.
The benefit of doing this is that each legion (unit) assigned to the region
adds a modifier to reduce the revolt percentage of each province in this
region.
There may be other advantages or disadvantages to this that someone else
can point out, but those are the ones I can think of off hand.
If you have a shortage of trustworthy potential legates it can be worth it, it takes less qualifications to be a Dux than a legate. I suppose if you can attack an army to your home province it would be under direct control of the current leader right? Might come in handy in case of civil war.
Because governors do not move troops automaticly between provinces.
Just like Legates do not move your troops automatically.
your Govenor is just a General in command.
i think that if you assign an army to a govenor that has three states that they should protect those three states with just a notification or something since i am usually off fighting in another part of the map. instead i have to stop what im doing and take the govenors army to the state right next to it which he governs and kick some rebel or barbarion butt
The biggest benefit of course is the aforementioned reduction to revolt risks. So in unstable times it really doesn't hurt to attach a couple cohorts of militia to the province to reduce the risk and possibly crush rebellions that crop up, freeing up your proffesional armies for other tasks. The same goes for newly colonized regions with lingering barbarian power, give the place a high martial governor and some decent troops to defend the board and quash any uprisings. The tertiary benefit to all this is that you don't have to stretch our main armies and you don't have to assign more generals (which can be dangerous in monarchies as they expect the position for life, and even in republics they can be hard to get rid of).
This sums it up pretty well!
In monarchies loyal characters tend to be scarce at times. It is then better (IMO) to make the loyal people governors and attach the units to them. Plus you have to bribe some fewer characters; instead of bribing all your governors, generals and advisors you have to bribe only governors and advisors
