View Full Version : Farms - only a detriment?
Serious question here - is there any real reason to build farm upgrades?
It seems to me that expanding too quickly only leads to squalor and revolt. Once the city is huge the amount of farm income seems to be far overshadowed by the problems the additional population the farm upgrades allow. There is no way to destroy a farm upgrade once it is built.
The amount of money spent keeping down revolts just seems to be more than the income you would get from the farms. So the only reason to build them would be to increase population quickly, but since you can't get rid of them even in situations where you want to grow a city fast it still seems like it would not be worth it to build the farm, as in the end it will cause more problems than it provides benefits.
Having to import food doesn't seem to reduce income at all...
Am I just missing something here? If not, I will never buy the farm again (pun intended).
-Khel
Red Harvest
09-30-2004, 00:28
I don't know. I haven't tried it. But I've wondered if it made any difference as well. One would think that better farms would lead to a better fed population that would be healthier, happier, and more productive. However, I'm not seeing much evidence of this.
Having to import food doesn't seem to reduce income at all...
-Khel
If anything you should get income from it as it is trade, thus taxable.
Say no to farms, build a port and market. ::):
Thoros of Myr
09-30-2004, 00:58
In the eastern countries not only do you have ports and markets but you also have caravans/silk road to get income with. This will need further investigation...
In many cities, you won't be able to reach the later upgrades without farms. That's the only reason I build them and then, only enough so I can reach that magical 24,000 number.
Simple solution have an exterminator. Sure the town will grow quick but the simple solution is prepare for a revolt then extermiante them. Most of the income is still there but the population is'nt. Then retrain all those troops that got depleted and that city will be so small that it will take them 100 years to revolt again
Kraellin
09-30-2004, 05:33
farms produce income. how good the income depends on the conditions in the province. but, perhaps even more important is in the town details list. take a look at your food production and what that affects. i always build farms and always max out their production capacities with upgrades.
K.
Yes, I understand that farms produce income. Taking a look at one of my huge cities, a move to irrigation would add approximately 100 to my income for that city. There would also be a corresponding increase in increase in tax income as the max population increases.
However, the problem is that as the population grows, I now need to either 1) reduce taxes, 2) increase entertainment, or 3) add more troops to garrison (and this only works up to a point). All three options actually COST more money than the increase in population and farming income brings in.
Thus, my contention that farms are worthless for a huge city.
Thoros of Myr
09-30-2004, 07:16
It seems the real problem is the population not the farms. Some of the cures for squalor I have heard are ridiculous, I wonder if the game is supposed to be like that?
My experience is that once you get to huge city, you need around 2 peasant units to have a 5% increase in public order. Considering farms generally give around 100 at the best, that's not a good tradeoff, even after taxes are considered.
Why do large settlements have negative or little income?
The cost for you units is divided up according to town size.
So if you have a really large city with average production, it will have negative income even if it produces a lot of money.
The problem with SQUALOR is not tied to the farms at all. It is just tied to population. The higher the population, the more squalor.
Still, the overall productivity is higher even with that.
If your population grows quickly, you will see your income drop perhaps - as the funding of the army is divided up to the population size of the towns. A small town of 2000 souls can thus beat the displayed output of a -500 or so superlarge town.
Still, the superlarge town produces much more income in truth.
big cities have more income, but rev growth (which is very slow) is outpaced by pop growth -- thus the negative (proportional) net income.
personally, i felt farms were a waste in MTW, and are slightly better in rtw. Might be worth it to go for the first level upgrade for the 0.5% pop growth. And in some provinces with high base farming, the higher levels might be reasonable, at least compared to the other economic upgrades.
But that's more an indication of how cost ineffetive the other economic upgrades (mines take 10 years to pay for themselves, trade facilities are similarly poor) are. Getting a new province is the best way to boost base income. And the best way to get new provinces is to upgrade your troops.
On the other hand, if you use diplomacy, money becomes completely irrelevant.
If the issue is population growth wouldn't it be better to upgrade your farms but then raise taxes as high as unrest will allow? High taxes limit growth and you get to reap (sorry) the benefits of your improved farms.
Watch how you use enslavement as well. It does a great job making conquered cities manageable but the influx of population to your old cities can raise the squalor level to damaging levels.
Bob the Insane
09-30-2004, 14:14
Will not have RTW until tomorrow but I found in MTW farms where of use (IMHO) because they improved income in a province and their construction resulted in good VnV for the Governor (and the King if you built enough)... Did they not have some effect on happiness in the province too??
Lastly they give you something worthwhile to build in Provinces you are not building up for trade or unit production..
Do you still need farms level 1 to get cavalry structures in RTW????
Lastly they give you something worthwhile to build in Provinces you are not building up for trade or unit production..
Do you still need farms level 1 to get cavalry structures in RTW????
that's the problem. they're not worthwhile to build.
I just checked this. The second level farm costs 1200, and boosts your farm income by around 60-70 (base farm growth does not seem to matter, i.e. it's not a percentage boost. population also does not seem to matter. My carthage has pop 27k and gets 70 for communcal farming). The third level costs a whopping 2400 gives a similar 60-70 boost.
That means you need 20 turns to get your money back on your investment for the second level and a ridiculous 40 tunrs on the third level.
Only use for farms I see is to get low base growth cities out of the zero growth problem at high pop levels (so you can get to 24k). But if you choose your troop provinces wisely, this shouldn't be necssary.
I continute to say that income growth comes through expansion, not development.
The best way to make money in the early to mid game is still diplomacy though.
Eidt: no you don't need farms for stables.
hotingzilla
09-30-2004, 15:39
Inmy game with Scipii, I have many huge cities. The squalor simply is killing me. Carthage has to have full garrison in order prevent the slightest revolt. Now there is a plaque, which I am very very happy.
Now there is a plaque, which I am very very happy.
A plaque? What does it say? ~;p
Bob the Insane
09-30-2004, 16:12
A plaque? What does it say? ~;p
~:joker:
Maybe he means plaque in the teeth, which makes it harder for them to eat, which means they're dying from hunger if it's bad enough. It's a good way to reduce population. ~:)
The best income generating structure in the game is the port-dockyard tree. I built the trade tree also, since you need them for the health, ampitheatre, academy, armorer tree. The last trade structure doesn't give much increase in money but goes give 10% happiness so I build a few of them.
The problem with farms is this. They increase population growth by 0.5%, which means they increase maximum population by 1,000. Every 1,000 people above 24,000 is a waste since all that does is reduce public order by 5%. By the time you have 24,000, your public order due to squalor is quite low (barely around 100%).
In fact, I built the Ceres tree for many of my cities, promptly destroyed them after finishing Imperial Palace, then replacing them with Jupiter. I didn't bother building the Pantheon anywhere. Some of my huge cities are sitting nicely at 24,000 and some even under that.
40 turns may be ridiculous to repay a farm, but a) it repays itself, and b) it pays an amount equal to it's original cost every four years. If you're swimming in cash, it's not a problem, but if you had 10 cities with that farm producing 60 dinarii per turn, that's an extra 600/turn, which translates into another military unit per turn.
Another way to look at it is if you get that farm 100 turns into the game, over the next 400 turns, you will earn 24,000 dinarii more than you otherwise would.
It's not a huge amount, but it's something. Kinda like saving your change rather than throwing it away every time you buy groceries. Like starting a 401k plan, the earlier you get a farm going, the more money you will make over the course of the game.
Hoof, it isn't just a matter of increasing income. You also increase the max population. Income goes up, but squalor also increases. At some point this becomes a real issue, because to deal with the squalor one needs to either keep a larger garrison (which costs -at least- 100 per turn per unit, byebye income from farming), lower taxes (bad, because now population grows in addition to the lost revenue), or pay more for entertainment (usually in the neighborhood of 500 per turn, or more).
The costs associated with raising population are -far- higher than the income gained from the farm.
khelvan, just consider you might be wrong. Write down income/expenditure of a settlement of your choice and see what happens when it increases in size, write down the changes regularly and also what buildings / garrisons you added. Best done in an inland city.
You can compensate unhappiness and in this way Squalor with garrison troops. But not Squalor directly - built sewers and public bath for that e.g.
You are also somewhat fixed on FARMS - you should talk about the problems related to a large population instead of this.
You want smaller cities, not more than 6000 people perhaps? To get more money you want them to grow slower?
This will not work, you do miss the high-end units related to larger city sizes and your overall productivity is NOT HIGHER.
You will always get more net money out of a 11.000 pop city then of a 4.000-6.000 city. Even with huge trade boni the smaller city will never net you so much money.
It will cost you more troops to take care of the larger city, but you also get more.
To put it bluntly: Your impression that quickly growing population due to farm upgrades costs you money is simply wrong. You probably fall to the display of negative numbers and decreasing income from larger cities, but this is only because the costs for your troops are broken down to settlements according to size.
DisruptorX
10-01-2004, 12:53
In my game with as the Armenians I was barely scraping by with positive income due to the hugely expensive double front against egypt and pontus. Then I captured the Hanging Gardens.... +6000 gold per turn because of all the farms I controlled. Also cities can't grow beyond a certain point if you do not have farms, in which case the population will start to shrink and the people will become unhappy.
On poorer provinces, I delay farm upgrades due its population effect and additional squalor. You can just build other structures while you delay farm upgrades. Building other upgrades reduce need for garrison anyways so you can send them to the front lines. However, once, I have nothing left to build, I build it.
Here's the logic:
1. On poor farm provinces, when you ran out of building options (except military buildings), that means you are waiting for the next Tech Level.
2. Building the farm increases population growth for that next level. Thus, it all works out if you delay. You also get the additional income.
3. On major provinces, with large population pool, and influx of new slaves, you offset population growth by training troops.
~D
As for farms just becoming revolt factories... I say LET THEM! As the Julii I kept most of my towns walls battered after I took them over, and never repaired them (why should I? My goal was to make north/west europe my "backyard" that few enemies would be able to reach anyhow. Though in each "Area" of provinces (like spain, or "france") I would have ONE fully upgraded (and smartly garrisoned with a small siege army) town with all the works. Then when folks start to revolt, I just pull that towns garrison out, set them to high taxes, and wait a turn. Sure enough, they riot and form an army. I march up there and put them all to the cross. All the while saying in my best Imperator voice, "We Julii are not your baby sitters.. and we demand you cow before our might."
So in my games, the revolts MAKE me money from LETTING them uprise, then teaching them why they shouldnt :) If it's big enough, you can get around 20,000 for executing them all.
Then that siege army retrains, puts a few chevrons on their sleeves, and drinks wine!
That "area army" also has the benifit of being a "tough as nails" unit that ends up completely crusing any nation who decides to be tricky and sneak an invasion party in your backdoor on a boat.
Anyones thoughts on that?
*edit: and to make life a little easier, don't build build colosseums in those provences either, as I think they invite those gladiator units to appear in revolts... and you don't want that. As an asside, I experimented with an "all dog" army led by two arcani (or whatever theyre called.. the small tough stealth unit) then just "unleash the hounds" on any revolters... it was pretty satisfying, and if you didn't send the handelers into the fray, the dogs automatically replinish themselves after the battle.
*edit2: You may also try still building up walls, and just keeping well trained spys to open gates for you, but then you've only got one point of entry and more casualties. I tried this method and didn't like it as much. I'd avoid just building walls and using siege engines to pummel them back down... just wasting money and time (and they slow down your army).
Longsac, I disagree. The reason you get much higher income from 12,000 compared to 6,000 is mainly because of the dockyard. You should only use farms if you can't reach the magical 12,000 or 24,000 number, and barely enough for that. In fact, you don't need them at all, since I don't see any cities that can't reach 12,000 without farms. Farms will get you there faster but it will cause more problems with public order in the long run. The move from 12,000 to 24,000 doesn't increase income much but increases squalor a lot.
For me, 24,000 is the magical number for my main troop producing cities and 12,000 elsewhere. In my Julii campaign, I built up the Ceres tree, got to 24,000 then demolished them and replaced them with Jupiter. My public order is so much better that I have less than 24,000 in many cities with the imperial palace.
Look at your garrison size. 4 peasant units can easily impose 80% (the max) public order in smaller cities. Once you get to 24,000, it drops all the way to 15-20%. Your squalor will be around 75% at that point. Having farms at that point will do nothing than increase squalor unhappiness by 5% per point and you'll run out of happiness upgrades soon. Moving to monthly games cost 400 per turn and that's quite expensive.
As for farms just becoming revolt factories... I say LET THEM! As the Julii I kept most of my towns walls battered after I took them over, and never repaired them (why should I? My goal was to make north/west europe my "backyard" that few enemies would be able to reach anyhow. Though in each "Area" of provinces (like spain, or "france") I would have ONE fully upgraded (and smartly garrisoned with a small siege army) town with all the works. Then when folks start to revolt, I just pull that towns garrison out, set them to high taxes, and wait a turn. Sure enough, they riot and form an army. I march up there and put them all to the cross. All the while saying in my best Imperator voice, "We Julii are not your baby sitters.. and we demand you cow before our might."
So in my games, the revolts MAKE me money from LETTING them uprise, then teaching them why they shouldnt :) If it's big enough, you can get around 20,000 for executing them all.
Then that siege army retrains, puts a few chevrons on their sleeves, and drinks wine!
That "area army" also has the benifit of being a "tough as nails" unit that ends up completely crusing any nation who decides to be tricky and sneak an invasion party in your backdoor on a boat.
Anyones thoughts on that?
*edit: and to make life a little easier, don't build build colosseums in those provences either, as I think they invite those gladiator units to appear in revolts... and you don't want that. As an asside, I experimented with an "all dog" army led by two arcani (or whatever theyre called.. the small tough stealth unit) then just "unleash the hounds" on any revolters... it was pretty satisfying, and if you didn't send the handelers into the fray, the dogs automatically replinish themselves after the battle.
*edit2: You may also try still building up walls, and just keeping well trained spys to open gates for you, but then you've only got one point of entry and more casualties. I tried this method and didn't like it as much. I'd avoid just building walls and using siege engines to pummel them back down... just wasting money and time (and they slow down your army).
This is evil genius. I've already started the habit of keeping troops in my back regions 'just in case', but hadn't come to how to train them. Someone posted something similar to this regarding Medieval: TW. But what makes this truly special is the comments about 'putting them to the cross' and 'We Julii'. Thank you .. this is the most entertaining post I've read in a while!
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.