settlement management question

[neoiq5719]

Maybe sameone could explain this to me. This settlement is in negative and it says that it comes from the forces but if you look at the pic , no arm forces have been produced since i havent built the barracks so where does this number come from?
thx
https://img154.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dibujoaf8.jpg]https://img154.imageshack.us/img154/7509/dibujoaf8.th.jpg[/URL]

[Mediolanicus]

All cities pay a certain amount of your armies's upkeep costs. Whether they can train troops themselves is of no importance.

[V.T. Marvin]

The city "income" is misleadingly represented. It shows the total income of the city minus X, where X=total cost of all your armies/share of the city´s popuation on your total population. So this resulting number could be safely disregarded as unpractical. If you want to know how much the city actually earns to you, just point over those little icons in the settlement details scroll showing income from taxes, trade, farming, etc. and use the sum of these as the real total income.

[neoiq5719]

Right but when i do that it says that the total comes from the arm forces( the big chunk of it) which are those white boxes and i didnt produce any forces there.

[SwissBarbar]

because it does not matter where you build those soldiers.

All soldiers across you empire cost lets say 10'000 mnai

you have 2 cities, Number one with 7500 inhabitants and Number two with 2500 inhabitants

you ONLY produced soldiers in city number 2 (thats the reason why it has so few inhabitants) and never ever in City number 1. Still the first city pays more for your army then city number 2. Thats how I understand it.

[Watchman]

The upkeep cost of units, ships, agents (spies etc.), FMs and so on is divvied up among your settlements on a strict per capita basis. It's just one of those irritating little things the engine does one learns to work around.