Over the last couple of days I've used my play time to start and keep detailed track of a Julii campaign's economic status. I kept track of farm, tax, trade, and admin income, as well as population, the management score of the governor, start and completion dates of buildings (especially and including ports, roads, traders, markets, etc).
After running this campaign for fourteen years (through 256 BC), I entered all the data into a spreadsheet, graphed it both across cities and comparatively inside cities.
What I found was both expected and unexpected...
1. Expected: the management score of the governor has a huge impact on all sectors of income - farm, tax, trade, and admin.
For example, I pulled a 4-Management governor out of Segesta to go relieve a seige on Mediolanium, and Segesta's income dropped by 10% within two turns.
2. Unexpected: building traders and trader upgrades in neighbouring provinces ups trade income.
Out of all four trader completions and market upgrades I was able to do, the province building the upgrade or adding the trader did not see a major increase in trade income. Instead, a single neighbouring province saw a spike in their trade income.
For example, in the summer of 267 I finished a trader in Ariminum. Ariminum's income from trade went from 580 to 586 (+6). In the same turn, Arretium's trade income went from 344 to 544 (+200!), and remained at that level or greater for the rest of the game.
3. Unexpected: tax income does not parallel population, total income, or any combination of population and income.
There are other factors at work here. I kept track of governor management skill, and factored in all sorts of combinations of management, income and population, but I've exhausted all the possible combinations without finding a formula that defines tax income. This will need additional info to be "cracked".
Bookmarks