A question about Seleucid economy
In my Seleucid campaign, I see that although I control vast territories (even including 90% of Egypt), build mines where it's possible, build harbors where I can, I build garrisons to reduce corruption, etc, etc. But the economy is still pretty basic. I don't have that overwhelming income I had with the Romans or Macedonians. I still have trouble funding expensive barracks and other high level structures, while as Romani I was literary throwing money away. What is the reason? Is Seleucid economy scripted to be less sophisticated than mainland Greek or Roman, or I'm doing something wrong?
Re: A question about Seleucid economy
hello,
the seleucid economy isn´t to bad. but you´ve got a wide country and you have a lot of enemies (= less or no trade) than others.
try to check your corruption. usually it´s about 15.000 mnai per turn. building mines and trade-buildings is a good strategy, but a slowly process. try to keep your borders straight or establish so many protectorats as possible, which bring you a lot of cash.
Re: A question about Seleucid economy
it's meant to be like that, the empire was huge and over stretched, not to mention unstable. Just consolidate the east and wipe out the incestous ptolemies...doing a sister is one thing, marrying them is plain wrong. Control eastern mediterranian and you'll see the cash flowing in. A few settlements in teh east have mines so don't lose them to the barbaroi. You may consider giving the most unstable eastern satrapies to baktra, just be careful not to grow a monster...
Re: A question about Seleucid economy
Okay heres the deal:
Most seleulid Trading is on land. Sea trading brings way more money,
Huge country= Huge corrption. Build law boni buildings.
Greece is way richer than the seleukid homeland.
Anyway it would be nice to see some pictures of your empire and your income screen to help you.
PS: Historicly the Seleuks had only tempel taxation and some royal estates so their income wasnt to high, but most of the buildings were payed by the local goverments.
Re: A question about Seleucid economy
Yeah in my Seleukid campaign which I've just about completed (Just need Corinth and Thermon unless of course Gerrha decides to rebel. My family member there had so many good governer traits he raised the population of this small desert province to almost 40,000 and now he died sowing rebellion among its many overheated inhabitants. And -6.5% growth at the same time!) my economy did not start truely flowing until I finally eliminated Parthia and Baktria from the east. Sadly enough, you need large garrisons in your far flung towns, multiple armies to fight on multiple borders, your trade is hampered by enemies, and too many inland provinces or small ports. All of this hurts your economy. Oh and Greek units are expensive too.
I noticed that capturing Egypt helped, but not how I was expecting it too. Instead I got caught up in a war with Carthage which again drained the treasury. However, when I finally gained an upper hand in the North East against Parthia and then went on the offensive against Baktria and finally beat them off, I started making a good surplus. And after Asia Minor became mine I was rolling in dough. Now I have anywhere from 700,000 to 900,000 in my treasury depending on how much I'm building or how much I decide to pay off Carthage to stop attacking or the Sweboz to stop the Lusotann from rolling over everything West of the Hellespont.
Actually I'm mildly interested in fighting the Lusotann now. They just took Ebernorum from the crazy rebel stacks and with Carthage losing all of Italy from one lousy Roman province which rebelled and me turning Macedon into a solely central european power with armies full of celtic levies and thracian levies, i think they might be able to fight to me in Greece. The Sweboz are the dutch boy's finger in the dike.
Re: A question about Seleucid economy
That's my Empire:
I'm not saying that the situation is desperate, but it still looks that I get less than it seems, taking into account that vast chunk of land that I control.
Re: A question about Seleucid economy
Finish off the Ptolies, get Palmyra and maybe you can try to invade the Indus valley, really rich cities found there.Maybe finish off a few other eastern enemies, but watch out for the Saka.
Capturing the Aegean can also bring a lot of wealth but I dont think you want to betray your faithful Mak allies. And last but not least, you will have to conquer the Hayasdan sooner or later.
~Fluvius
Re: A question about Seleucid economy
Have anyone played a Seleucid game where they gift away all the areas in the East and Asia Minor so they control just Syria and Mesopotamia? I would think that would be a fun game to play out. I've never really liked playing a huge empire in the begining...
Re: A question about Seleucid economy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fluvius Camillus
Finish off the Ptolies, get Palmyra and maybe you can try to invade the Indus valley, really rich cities found there.Maybe finish off a few other eastern enemies, but watch out for the Saka.
Capturing the Aegean can also bring a lot of wealth but I dont think you want to betray your faithful Mak allies. And last but not least, you will have to conquer the Hayasdan sooner or later.
~Fluvius
Plamyra indeed should be taken. I was postponing this due to unending wars on all frontiers, but now I should have time to do that. Invasion of Hindus valley is planned, but a lot of preparations need to be done first. I don't have anything resembling an invasion army there at this time. Ptolies are reduced to two small towns and are a buffer between me and the Carthage who do not have any other place to expand except east. Pontos is going to be wiped out soon, they are very annoying - send one two fullstacks of crappy levies to my eastern Anatolia towns. Hayasdan will go after that. They didn't bother me because they are fighting their endless war with Sarmatians, but that area will have to be secured. \Invading Aegean is not an option now. Macs (they are not my ally, I had to kick them out of Micra Asia after they've betrayed me) are throwing some heavy stuff at Greeks and Epirotes; it looks like Getae will join the fun soon. To invade there I will need several good armies and I can scrape one or two average ones at this moment.
Re: A question about Seleucid economy
you made a few mistakes
as the seulecids you should imediatly gather up whatever you can in asia minor and kick the ptolies out of side while gathering everything you can in the levant and kick them out of the city next to antioch those new harbours will make a big diference
then go for the mines either in bostra (tricky thing tough you will soon enough be fighting off the ptolies over it and it can rebel at any time over to the sabe) or then hit the armenians hard with everything that you can it´s a kill or be killed mission but the caucasian mines can make a trully big diference in a very short notice
destroy the pontus as fast as you can and place forts on the land entrances to asia minor and you can take your time conquering those cities developing those mines and markets and building nice harbours
if you want a more defensive aproach give up sogdiana and parthia and start building stone walls to stop the horse archers and start developing a proper army of slingers archers pantadipoi phalangites and archer spearman and then go on the offenssive against the parthians
every single one of your neighbours as seulecids will eventually try to destroy you so beteween risking an army against rebels or the chance to destroy an enemie pick the enemie and if possible leave ankyra for last (it´s hell fighting off the arverni) when and if you can destroy phalava baktria pontus and the hai as fast as possible
Re: A question about Seleucid economy
in my ptolie game (yeah here are people playing them!) core of my economy are the rich towns in the levante (tarsos, antioch, side and salamis). you could may conquer kophen (or do you already got it, its near north-east of india) it is very valuable mines which are at least necessary to play as baktria. your prob is the really too low income, no too high expenditures. are you at war with the faction controling athens? since many sea routes go there rhis is really a loss of wealth. war doesnt only costs armies, but really decreases income! i had to feel this when starting my invasion of greece as ptolie... suddenly my income decreased steeply by 10 or something k mnai PER TURN. so maybe settling peace would be another way. i may could check the finances in my ptolie game tomorrow ( there i am swimming in money with a smaller empire and definetely higerh army upkeep.
Re: A question about Seleucid economy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Marcus Ulpius
That's my Empire:
I'm not saying that the situation is desperate, but it still looks that I get less than it seems, taking into account that vast chunk of land that I control.
Ok, I know your problem.
You have less trade income than taxes. Something Ive never seen in my EB career.You need more sea trade. First you need to get the eastern arabian cities. They can trade with your provinces along the persian cost. Second: Get crete. Third: Make trading packts with greece.
You know the provinces in the east are some of the poorest provinces there are in EB. Some have mining, which you need, but most only drain money. No matter how awesome they sound^^.
Your richest provinces by know should be in minor Asia, but they are fare away from your center, so maybe they have some corruption and are less developed?
Last but not least:
Build ports and granaries.
AND! Only use a few Allied generals or governours in Type IV Govermnet. They drain your money like crazy. :wall:
I managed to atack minor asia with 5 fullstackes of elite units in my makedon campain, by owning greece, sicily,thrace and some islands. Athens alone made more than 15.000mnai a turn.
Re: A question about Seleucid economy
Your biggest problem is going to be Carthage soon though. They've been kicked out of spain and sicily so they will gun for your Egyptian provinces soon. Expect fullstacks full of elites (generally the pikemen or sacred band), Maure Infantry and Garamantines, they love to throw those at you.
Capture Cyrene before they go to war with you just because it is a given that they will. Defend it with stone walls, some toxotai, Peltasti, klerechoi phalangitai, and thorakitai. That should mean you won't need a field army to defend that border. If you don't take Cyrene then Carthage can attack 2 cities. Paratoinon is alright but Ammonion gets terrible recruitment options (just Machimoi and Pantodapoi I believe) which would then leave the Nile region open to them.
With the African border secure and not needing an army, those forces can go somewhere else useful and save you quite a bit of money. I suggest eliminating Parthia and Pontos asap and then taking eastern arabian provinces to add to your trade income in the Persian gulf.
Also @ seinechin its not unusual for AS to get more taxes than trade. Same in my campaign and I own almost all of Greece. Reason for this is large Mesopotamian and Persian cities which roll in taxation money but supply little to no sea trade.
Re: A question about Seleucid economy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
seienchin
AND! Only use a few Allied generals or governours in Type IV Govermnet. They drain your money like crazy. :wall:
Actually I can strongly recommend using them as governors. In my last Seleucid game which I played under the impression of a Sweboz and a Romani game when I had tons of money in either one, I wanted to find out exactly why it had always been so difficult to become rich as a Seleucid player. Corruption is only a minor reason as you can see in Marcus' financial summary, but upkeep costs for the army are insanely high. So what I did in my last game was installing Type 4-governors in about half of the provinces. I chose those provinces where foreign barracks allowed for much more units than the factional barracks (including Ekbatana and Susa for example, where I switched back to type 1-governments later for the cataphracts). The governors can also replace much of the usual garrison you keep in the provinces far away from the centre of the empire.
It really makes a huge difference if you recruit only as much units as you really need! A type 4 governor himself gets
Effect Influence 5
Effect Law 4
Effect Defence 1
in any case, so he will easily both eliminate corruption and keep a city content even if he is your only garrison. Furthermore, his bodyguard with its great number and his ability to get traits and ancillaries will make him valuable not only as an administrator but as a military force, too.
Re: A question about Seleucid economy
If you capture the Gulf States (For Sea Trade), Hayastan and India for Mining moneys, you should yourself in a lot more comfortable position.
Maybe some investment in farming as well, as yours seems quite low.
Re: A question about Seleucid economy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lysandros
Actually I can strongly recommend using them as governors. In my last Seleucid game which I played under the impression of a Sweboz and a Romani game when I had tons of money in either one, I wanted to find out exactly why it had always been so difficult to become rich as a Seleucid player. Corruption is only a minor reason as you can see in Marcus' financial summary, but upkeep costs for the army are insanely high. So what I did in my last game was installing Type 4-governors in about half of the provinces. I chose those provinces where foreign barracks allowed for much more units than the factional barracks (including Ekbatana and Susa for example, where I switched back to type 1-governments later for the cataphracts). The governors can also replace much of the usual garrison you keep in the provinces far away from the centre of the empire.
It really makes a huge difference if you recruit only as much units as you really need! A type 4 governor himself gets
Effect Influence 5
Effect Law 4
Effect Defence 1
in any case, so he will easily both eliminate corruption and keep a city content even if he is your only garrison. Furthermore, his bodyguard with its great number and his ability to get traits and ancillaries will make him valuable not only as an administrator but as a military force, too.
On the other hand thet can be as expensive as 2000mnai a turn in the east. One of your own FMs plus some levies never drain that much money.
I ruined a baktrian campain with level 4 govermnents.:furious3:
But again. I highly recommend him to increase sea trade with arabia and greece. :yes:
Re: A question about Seleucid economy
I think I have trade agreements with both Greece and Macedonia. I probably underestimated the granaries as I didn't build them at all, that's something I should start doing. At one point I had more lvl 4 governors that I have now. I did it for roleplaying reasons in most Eastern towns. Eventually I had to get rid of them. As they died, I destroyed lvl 4 government and replaced it with lvl 2 or lvl 1. Those governors were ruining my income.
The only reason the Ptolies yet exist is that they cover some of my border with Carthage, so there's only one town that can be attacked by the Carthaginians. I plan the destruction of Pontus, attack on Palmyra, then I'll probably annex Saba as they are already at war with me, and then I'll take all of the Arabian peninsula. There will be no need to keep strong garrisons there as that regions have no border with anyone.
Re: A question about Seleucid economy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Marcus Ulpius
I think I have trade agreements with both Greece and Macedonia. I probably underestimated the granaries as I didn't build them at all, that's something I should start doing. At one point I had more lvl 4 governors that I have now. I did it for roleplaying reasons in most Eastern towns. Eventually I had to get rid of them. As they died, I destroyed lvl 4 government and replaced it with lvl 2 or lvl 1. Those governors were ruining my income.
The only reason the Ptolies yet exist is that they cover some of my border with Carthage, so there's only one town that can be attacked by the Carthaginians. I plan the destruction of Pontus, attack on Palmyra, then I'll probably annex Saba as they are already at war with me, and then I'll take all of the Arabian peninsula. There will be no need to keep strong garrisons there as that regions have no border with anyone.
Yeah get the arabian peninnsula. At least the north of it.
I always give Kyrene to the koinon hellenon, so the carthagenians cant atack me. It works very well :egypt:
Re: A question about Seleucid economy
What type of temples are you building? If you build temples of Atargatis everywhere you get a good law bonus (reduces corruption), a good happiness bonus and a decent trade bonus. The law and the trade should help your economy.
Re: A question about Seleucid economy
I started a new campaign on H/M, one of straightforward conquest and I'm swimming in money. I keep the minimum military in the field, but not so minimum that they can't win battles. Once I'm past the start I set all taxes to low and develop economically except for fundamental military infrastructure at key points. Lots of low level trade docks, farms, basic granary, and then estates and highways. I build the first level of mines after basic sanitation, farms, and trade docks are constructed. Strong coastal trading areas use Type IV governments until they have basic development; exception is of course Antioch which in addition to being already highly developed is the main military base of the west. And Alexandria, now that I've conquered it :). The eastern frontier is switched all to type 2 governments.
Now, keep in mind that despite its vast territory, the number of cities in Arche Seleukeia is not especially high. A Rome that is expanding out of Italy and a Getai that controls northern Greece and western mikra Asia can already rival in number of cities. And Greece and western mikra Asia are especially lucrative.
For peace of mind you can wall off the northeast with Baktria. Attack Pahlava first to keep Baktria as allies and make them break with Pahlava. It's possible to have relatively peaceful borders in the west without expanding much beyond initial starting position; I recommend taking coastal regions at least for economy. However straight up conquest of Ptolemies, mikra Asia etc works out well as you may know.
Re: A question about Seleucid economy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Marcus Ulpius
I think I have trade agreements with both Greece and Macedonia. I probably underestimated the granaries as I didn't build them at all, that's something I should start doing. At one point I had more lvl 4 governors that I have now. I did it for roleplaying reasons in most Eastern towns. Eventually I had to get rid of them. As they died, I destroyed lvl 4 government and replaced it with lvl 2 or lvl 1. Those governors were ruining my income.
The only reason the Ptolies yet exist is that they cover some of my border with Carthage, so there's only one town that can be attacked by the Carthaginians. I plan the destruction of Pontus, attack on Palmyra, then I'll probably annex Saba as they are already at war with me, and then I'll take all of the Arabian peninsula. There will be no need to keep strong garrisons there as that regions have no border with anyone.
Umm granaries give growth and the large one hapiness and a trade penalty..
In my furthest large/huge cities I sometimes destroy them, cities like Kirtan and Ippone grow extremely fast, requiring me to put 20 units as garisson + a lot of squalor.
~Fluvius
Re: A question about Seleucid economy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
antisocialmunky
Have anyone played a Seleucid game where they gift away all the areas in the East and Asia Minor so they control just Syria and Mesopotamia? I would think that would be a fun game to play out. I've never really liked playing a huge empire in the begining...
It works out well. I keep Media and Susiana and the western coasts. This is the historical core of the empire.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Marcus Ulpius
That's my Empire:
I'm not saying that the situation is desperate, but it still looks that I get less than it seems, taking into account that vast chunk of land that I control.
Your income looks fine to me. seienchin's early response has covered the key points already.
The Arche has very few cities for its size. Most of it is land. Sea trade > land trade. You will never have "proportionate" income. Ignore all that territory and focus on how many cities you have, and of those how many have ports on the ocean. There is the reason for the income discrepancy. Problem solved
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Lysandros
In my last Seleucid game which I played under the impression of a Sweboz and a Romani game when I had tons of money in either one, I wanted to find out exactly why it had always been so difficult to become rich as a Seleucid player. Corruption is only a minor reason as you can see in Marcus' financial summary, but upkeep costs for the army are insanely high. So what I did in my last game was installing Type 4-governors in about half of the provinces. I chose those provinces where foreign barracks allowed for much more units than the factional barracks (including Ekbatana and Susa for example, where I switched back to type 1-governments later for the cataphracts). The governors can also replace much of the usual garrison you keep in the provinces far away from the centre of the empire.
It really makes a huge difference if you recruit only as much units as you really need! A type 4 governor himself gets
Effect Influence 5
Effect Law 4
Effect Defence 1
in any case, so he will easily both eliminate corruption and keep a city content even if he is your only garrison. Furthermore, his bodyguard with its great number and his ability to get traits and ancillaries will make him valuable not only as an administrator but as a military force, too.
See above. I've also never been bothered by corruption. I bet the costs of the level 4 governors probably exceed the cost of corruption. It goes without saying you only recruit the troops you need.
Pantodapoi phalangitai + lots of thanvare parsig or toxotai syriakoi are sufficient against pahlava and nomads. No cavalry is needed as this is not real life where the nomads can run away. Klerouchoi phalangitai and heavy cavalry in the west.
Re: A question about Seleucid economy
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fluvius Camillus
Umm granaries give growth and the large one hapiness and a trade penalty..
In my furthest large/huge cities I sometimes destroy them, cities like Kirtan and Ippone grow extremely fast, requiring me to put 20 units as garisson + a lot of squalor.
~Fluvius
Which is the one which gives a boost to farming income then?
