Negative income cities

[rebelscum]

Yes, I know this has been covered before, but specifically cities where income is drained by unit salaries. Now when my armies are spread out all over the place. How do I know which ones came from that specific town/city? :inquisitive:

[Spartiate]

You can't.................as far as i am aware.The negative income merely means that this city is footing most of the bill for your war machine.You will note that it is probably one of your most populous cities.Hence they pay more of the taxes necessary to pay your armies.

[Alexanderofmacedon]

Depending on the happyness level, you could raise taxes. If they get angry you could always play the "give and slaughter" card.

(give the city to an enemy then reconquer and exterminate. They'll be happy or else!)

[Mr Frost]

Yes, I know this has been covered before, but specifically cities where income is drained by unit salaries. Now when my armies are spread out all over the place. How do I know which ones came from that specific town/city? :inquisitive:
You don't .






Unless you have a very good memory ofcourse .
I don't take notice of the basic reported income of a settlement after the first decade {sometimes even earlier} . Instead I look at their settlement details and note the basic breakdown {Governors management bonus , trade , harvest and taxes} then I open up their trade scrolls if trade is good and note whom they trade with {best keep the good trade partner ports/settlements free from blockade/siege} .

I'm quite sure the system doesn't charge the settlement a unit is recruited from directly for that units' upkeep , but rather spreads the burden over all {or as close to all as matters} the settlements , though how it decides how much from where I know not . I don't think it creates any unrest in a city that pays the most , only the level of tax you set there effects that {in money terms} .

Edit for clarification .

[Gustav II Adolf]

I've always been annoyed by this way of presenting the city finances. For me it is more important to see how profitable a city is when income is compared with garrison upkeep. As it is now the most uninteresting figures are presented most clearly. :dizzy2:

[rebelscum]

Depending on the happyness level, you could raise taxes. If they get angry you could always play the "give and slaughter" card.

(give the city to an enemy then reconquer and exterminate. They'll be happy or else!)
Yes I think I might do this. :wry:

[Kekvit Irae]

Personally, I think the next TW game should allow us more freedom in controlling the economic portion of the game (IE: setting which cities will contribute how much to upkeep). That way, you can concentrate less on increasing taxes in a paticular city and focus more on increasing population.

[Doug-Thompson]

I'm quite sure the system doesn't charge the settlement a unit is recruited from directly for that units' upkeep , but rather spreads the burden over all {or as close to all as matters} the settlements , though how it decides how much from where I know not . I don't think it creates any unrest in a city that pays the most , only the level of tax you set there effects that {in money terms}.

That's right. Army and agent pay comes out of taxes. Each city's share of the army and agent payroll is decided by it's percentage of the total population.

[rebelscum]

Yes I had 31k population in a city that had -5400 income. In the end I gave up trying to improve things and let the place rebel.
:embarassed:

[locked_thread]

All city income goes into a central treasury.
All expenses are paid from a central treasury.

The amount of income or loss shown on any particular city is irrelevant and misleading.

[edyzmedieval]

I hate the economical stuff of RTW.

Misleading. I can't manage the economics. I always bankrupt because I tend to make huge armies. ~D