Taiwan Legion
02-20-2007, 06:12
The reason for this is because I assumed things were the same as it was in Rome. In Rome, the income displayed on Cities was the bottom line. However, I tihnk in MTWII the income displayed is gross profit instead of net income (before the allocation of country-wide costs such as army upkeep and salaries) So in Rome, just because a city was showing negative income, it doesn't mean you acutally should abandon it or something because it may be paying for your overhead.
Another thing is the whole auto calculation thing. In Rome, if you autocalc, you're always getting shafted. However, I've found in this one that if you autocalc on sieges you can relaly minimize loss. It's also helpful in later stages as you get sick of manually fighting sieges.
Third thing is the fact that population is no longer so bad. In Rome, there was a big problem with squalor. Therefore, I always exterminate cities with different prominent religion. I'm not sure if that's still a thing to do but it might make a difference.
p.s. some might argue that army upkeep is not truly country-wide as each city needs garrison to make it stable, but for simplicity sake, let's assume it is.
Another thing is the whole auto calculation thing. In Rome, if you autocalc, you're always getting shafted. However, I've found in this one that if you autocalc on sieges you can relaly minimize loss. It's also helpful in later stages as you get sick of manually fighting sieges.
Third thing is the fact that population is no longer so bad. In Rome, there was a big problem with squalor. Therefore, I always exterminate cities with different prominent religion. I'm not sure if that's still a thing to do but it might make a difference.
p.s. some might argue that army upkeep is not truly country-wide as each city needs garrison to make it stable, but for simplicity sake, let's assume it is.