Letting a Province go...

[Jagger]

I am playing as the Gauls. It is 2740 BC. I have a lot of troops in Northern Italia fighting off the Julian faction. Many battles, many victories, many casualties. Yet I just looked at Patavium. I am losing 1500 plus ducats a turn there. I am lucky if I make 3000 ducats profit a year for all of Gaul. I have around 900 troops there because Patavium is 75 percent squalor which keeps growing with the population. Since I don't have the money to upgrade facilities, I have to keep putting more and more troops into Patavium.

I think I am just going to abandon the province. My profit would go up by 1580 ducats a month. I have about 900 troops in Patavia, I could use for somewhere else....

I can't think of any reason to keep Patavium. Should I keep it?

[Morindin]

Be careful because the army cost is divided up among all your cities based on population.

So the larger cities end up paying more for your troops. If most of Patavium's expenses are military then letting the city go will only increase it somewhere else.

I have a few of my big cities making terrible loses, but they're propped up by the smaller cities that dont pay for much.

[Thon]

patavium is probably losing money because it's one of your largest cities, and pays a much bigger portion of your armies wages. if you abandoned it your other cities would have to pick up the bill, and you'd lose the income from patavium and end up with less profit.

at least that's my basic understanding of the economics in rtw

[Morindin]

patavium is probably losing money because it's one of your largest cities, and pays a much bigger portion of your armies wages. if you abandoned it your other cities would have to pick up the bill, and you'd lose the income from patavium and end up with less profit.

at least that's my basic understanding of the economics in rtw

Yup that's right.
Basically if city A makes up for 50% of your population then it pays for 50% of your military cost.

If he got rid of the province then the other cities would make less as they pick up the bill.

Study your settlement details screen carefully, at the end of the day it doesnt really matter which place is making money and which isnt, as long as your overall profit is higher than your overall expenses.

[Thon]

hehe you beat me by a minute on the post.

at first it confused and worried me that my 'core' cities in italy that should be raking in cash were all losing like 2000 a turn, while barbarian villages were making 1000+ a turn. but profit/loss on a per-city basis doesn't matter, cities can't go bankrupt, empires can. so just ignore it and check the financial scroll to make sure you arn't losing money overall.

[Colovion]

in MTW I had a really REALLY hard time letting provinces go. Here in RTW everythign is a lot more fluid that I don't have that big of a problem letting some Dacians take a province when I know that I can jsut raise an army to go and recapture it as well as invading their territory to punish them for their insolence

[Inuyasha12]

hehehe

Im having the same "problem"
Playing as julii(surprise!) ~:) And basically my largest cities, ariminum, patavium, mediolavium(not including the capital) are at the negatives.
Sometimes it even gets to -1000 +more.

However what u all failed to mention is that cities dont like having -1500 and they start hating u. Ive had 2 rebellions already, with taxes on low-normal and the city full of troops. After awhile the cities crack and revolt. And since im loosing a lot of money i can't build many buildings to make every city happy. Im afraid its going to be a dominoe effect, one city revolts, less taxes=less money=less happines=another revolt in another large city.

:help: :help:

[Morindin]

hehehe

Im having the same "problem"
Playing as julii(surprise!) ~:) And basically my largest cities, ariminum, patavium, mediolavium(not including the capital) are at the negatives.
Sometimes it even gets to -1000 +more.

However what u all failed to mention is that cities dont like having -1500 and they start hating u. Ive had 2 rebellions already, with taxes on low-normal and the city full of troops. After awhile the cities crack and revolt. And since im loosing a lot of money i can't build many buildings to make every city happy. Im afraid its going to be a dominoe effect, one city revolts, less taxes=less money=less happines=another revolt in another large city.

:help: :help:

I dont think they do, because Patavium has 30,000 people or so and making -5000!(Im still making about 10,000 a turn overall minus construction/recruitment costs).
They dont hate me there, although I do have a garrison of around 12 Milita units.

[Inuyasha12]

Maybe they just hated the governor :laugh4: :laugh4:

[Jagger]

OOppps, too late. I abandoned Patavium and it promptly went rebel. I didn't really see a change in my total income. So the minus 1500 ducats weren't a factor. But I did free up about 900 men.

I wonder what would happen if I recaptured the city and enslaved the population?

Has anyone noticed that when you create a unit in a city, the total income goes up slightly. It doesn't make sense to me because all cities should share some of the cost of support of that created unit.

[Inuyasha12]

U should take back that city, it has potential.
Enslave them and rebuild some buildings you'll see income go up..

[khelvan]

Has anyone noticed that when you create a unit in a city, the total income goes up slightly. It doesn't make sense to me because all cities should share some of the cost of support of that created unit.

The income does not go up, the profits do. The income stays relatively the same (depending on how much of the income for the province is based on trade and how much on taxes) but the number of people in the city has dropped, so the percentage of the total expenses paid by that city drops, making the profit number rise. If you had checked, you would see that your other cities each LOST a small amount of profit because they had to take on the burden the current city is giving up by giving up population.