Appoint a mayor from the settlement interface
The researched appointment process starts with the settlement and its mayor portrait. Open the settlement you intend to manage, select the portrait and choose the leader whose bonuses you want to examine for that location. Keeping the settlement visible as the starting point helps you compare the appointment with the local industry instead of treating the mayor list as a detached collection of abstract upgrades.
Read the selected leader's current information before confirming the choice. The useful question is how the displayed bonus relates to production in this settlement, rather than whether the mayor appears impressive in an unrelated context. This gives an appointment a specific economic purpose without assuming that one candidate must be the strongest choice for every type of settlement or for every stage of the county's development.
Match bonuses to the settlement's work
The dedicated mayor research recommends matching production bonuses to local industry. That means understanding what the settlement actually produces before deciding which leader belongs there, especially when different settlements specialize in different parts of a production chain. A bonus that fits one location's purpose is more informative than an unsupported general ranking that ignores what the receiving settlement is supposed to contribute.
Start with the industry, then compare the available mayor descriptions against that role. If the settlement's production has changed, revisit the appointment rather than assuming the original match remains the best explanation of the local setup. This is a planning method based on documented specialization and bonuses, not a claim about a particular numerical improvement or a universally optimal combination of buildings and characters.
Use the combined selection window
The Mayors Rebalance announcement describes a combined window for new and existing mayors. This matters when you are comparing an available appointment with a leader already serving elsewhere, because the interface brings those possibilities into the same selection process. Use the current window to compare candidates rather than relying on a historical guide that treats the lists as separate steps with different old restrictions.
The combined presentation helps you review the county's appointments alongside a new local need. It does not mean that every leader is equivalent or that the economic role of the receiving settlement has stopped mattering. Continue reading the actual bonuses while making the comparison, so the convenience of one window supports the decision rather than replacing the need to understand why a candidate fits that settlement.
Apply the updated swap rules
The rebalance removes the penalty for swapping mayors between settlements. That change makes it important to distinguish current appointment planning from an older demonstration that discourages changes because of a penalty shown in the earlier build. When reviewing your own county, use the current rules described by the rebalance and reiterated in the October feedback diary, rather than treating the old penalty as a reason to leave a mismatched appointment untouched.
A penalty-free swap is still a choice about which settlement receives which bonus. Compare the roles of both locations before assuming that improving one appointment leaves the rest of the county's economic plan unaffected. The verified rule removes the swap penalty; it does not establish that every possible reassignment is equally useful or supply a numerical formula for choosing between all candidates.
Do not import the old negative-bonus system
The same rebalance removes negative mayor bonuses. This directly affects how an older video or guide should be read, because a downside visible in that material may belong to rules that were changed before the current demo. The October developer diary repeats the rebalanced approach, giving you a more recent source for the appointment rules than a clip recorded during an earlier testing period.
Check the date and version context when an explanation seems to contradict the selection window you are seeing. A historical screenshot can document what an older build displayed without establishing that the same penalty still applies now. Keeping that distinction clear is more useful than trying to compensate for an unverified drawback that the current official explanation says has been removed from the mayor system.
Include noble-house ties in the decision
Mayors belong to noble houses, which connects local leadership with the county's political layer. The research therefore treats an appointment as more than a production decision, even when a useful industry bonus is what first brings a candidate to your attention. Read the noble houses guide to understand why house relationships and the concentration of political power deserve attention alongside the local economic match.
Keep the two questions visible without inventing an exact conversion between them. A production bonus describes the economic role you are matching, while house affiliation connects that leader to wider regional politics. The collected sources do not establish a complete numerical ranking that combines every bonus and political consequence into one universal score, so compare the actual circumstances instead of relying on an unsupported best-mayor list.
Revisit appointments as the county changes
Settlement specialization gives you a practical reason to review leadership when the production network develops. If a settlement's role is now different from the one that guided its original appointment, compare the current industry with the current mayor options again. The updated selection and swap rules make that review part of normal planning rather than something you must avoid because an earlier build imposed a penalty.
Use the production chains guide if the settlement's economic role itself is unclear. Understanding whether a location supplies raw materials, processes an input or serves a particular equipment need gives the bonus comparison a concrete subject. Once that role is clear, the mayor decision can be evaluated alongside it without assuming that a leader's name alone explains what the settlement should produce.
Keep your next appointment focused
A useful appointment check identifies the settlement, its industry, the candidate's displayed bonus and the candidate's house connection. Then compare the current leader with the alternatives in the combined window using the updated rules about negative bonuses and swapping. This provides a clear basis for the decision without inventing a roster, a tier list or bonus percentages that the supplied research did not verify.
For the wider political consequence, continue with the Assembly guide, where noble houses propose privileges and regional stewards vote. For the opening county, the beginner guide explains the production foundation that makes matching bonuses easier to understand. Together these topics keep mayor management connected to actual settlement work and regional decisions, rather than presenting appointments as an isolated optimization puzzle with one answer for every county.
Official sources
Information checked November 4, 2026. Send a correction.