Frequent cases in history where appointing a replacement governor was delayed. Though the explanation in the history books is never "didn't have enough civic points".

Frequent cases where some numbskull is in command rather than appointing a competent general. Historically, though generals (and admirals) would command large armies or fleets and not just a small part of the army.

From a game play perspective, if you prioritise training/civics it is not difficult to have enough to appoint governors/generals and do everything else. Often find myself needing to turn training into orders because have hit the 2000 limit. Or to turn civics into hurrying.

Thing though is if you set all your cities on building specialists/projects you find yourself short of global civic points or if you set all your cities building units run out of training.

I felt quite for a time the same way. However, after getting better a playing I realize that the problem was rather one of lacking "income" of training and civics. Since I focus a lot on building barracks and using the officer citizens, the problem has vanished for generals for me. Governors are abit more tricky, as getting huge amounts of state capital isn't that easy in the early game (a good source is picking dedicated event choices; a judge leader additionally can hold court). Here I tend to spare the civics to be able to install the first governors - with a strict focus on employing those who generate extra civics. However, going for a younger candidate is still wise here - governors earn exp each turn and you often can promote them towards bringing in more civics. Also abstain from enacting laws, unless you are sure that you need a certain one: They cost a ton of civics to enact and some even eat up civics oer turn. Rushing with civics is also something I rarely do.

Ultimately it's a game, not a history sim, so things like costs are simply there for mechanical reasons. We could debate every bit of minutia in the game about why a thing works the way it does and if it's "realistic" or not and the answer is mostly that eventually realism flies out the window because it's a game.

Ancient metropolis didn't have populations of a grand total of 20 people, either. Even if we were to decide that each citizen is representative of a scale of say, 1,000 people, that logic would then break down when we get to specialists; a City with 3,000 "poets" and 2,000 "officers" and nothing else? Theme certainly matters, but it's also just a game and there are mechanical implications to it. Such as different actions having resource costs and having those costs serve as a bottle-neck that informs player decision making.

In any case - like the above person mentioned, these currencies will become quite prolific when you become more familiar with the game. I regularly assign 30, 40, and 50 year old generals and governors.

By the mid-game, it's possible to generate several hundred civics per turn. This leads to stockpiles and regularly looking for ways to burn off your civic output through ways like rushing production.

Originally posted by mk11:

Frequent cases in history where appointing a replacement governor was delayed. Though the explanation in the history books is never "didn't have enough civic points".

It's weird that you would quote something I didn't say. Do you know what the word "capital" means? And "delayed" is adequately covered by the Orders system.

Originally posted by M. Havoc:

Originally posted by mk11:

Frequent cases in history where appointing a replacement governor was delayed. Though the explanation in the history books is never "didn't have enough civic points".

It's weird that you would quote something I didn't say. Do you know what the word "capital" means? And "delayed" is adequately covered by the Orders system.

I don't think they were putting words into your mouth. I took them to mean, using a humorous shorthand, that the real historical context is more complex than game mechanics.

Originally posted by M. Havoc:

Originally posted by mk11:

Frequent cases in history where appointing a replacement governor was delayed. Though the explanation in the history books is never "didn't have enough civic points".

It's weird that you would quote something I didn't say. Do you know what the word "capital" means? And "delayed" is adequately covered by the Orders system.

It is weird that you would read my sentence as including a quote of something you said when it does not indicate that. I also know what "capital" means in English and assumed your odd use was some sort of Americanism. Apologies for any confusion caused by the difference between English and American usage.