i need help i always land myself with settlements getting zero returns from my settlements
Printable View
i need help i always land myself with settlements getting zero returns from my settlements
Oh.... not to fret. A settlement always makes money. It's just that the 'income' you see already has troop upkeep deducted from it. Your army upkeep is split proportionately between your cities-- the higher the population, the more it pays. Conversely, the smaller it is, the less it pays. That's why you always see big cities with 'negative' income while small settlements can rake in positive income. A larger settlement almost always makes more money, it's just that they also shoulder a larger part of army upkeep.
Regarding finances, it often can be wise to crank up your tax rate to as high as it will go without causing "red" public order, below 60%.
Moving the capital closer to low income cities will also aid your income, although primarily through decreasing the income penalties caused by corruption. Building buildings with a law bonus can also help lower this factor - law both removes corruption, and increases happiness at the same time making it the best possible bonus available in R:TW. Temples are generally the best for this purpose since their higher levels can reduce corruption by a huge amount. If you don't have temples dedicated to law bonuses, you may wish to destroy the ones you have to construct them. Ensure that public order is stable first, or you may have rebellious problems while you build them though.
A final note, as Quirinus has said, no city is ever losing you money, regardless of what the display says. Every city contributes to your funds, even if it does seem to be losing money every turn. This is because the game subtracts military upkeep from every settlement before showing its details to you.
Due to this problem, a more accurate depiction of your empire's finances can be seen on the end of turn report. A more accurate depiction of individual cities financial contribution can also be seen, although this requires manual work.
Quite simply, open up the the settlement details scroll, and look at the financial summery. Add up all the items in the "+" section, and then subtract all the items in the "-" section excluding military upkeep. Your result is your city's financial contribution to your empire.
This function can also be used to work out the economic viability of projects in the settlement. Items in the "+" section which are faded out are benefits which will be granted to you by buildings currently in the build que. Items which are gradually fading out constantly in the "-" section are negatives which will be removed by the construction of buildings currently in the build que.
Use this, combined with the cost of each building, to work out which projects are worthwhile for boosting income, and which ones are best left till later.
~:)
This factor is important in the game, for the grand strategy.
For instance economically it's probably better not to capture some settlements, the conflicts you get dragged into aren't worth the hasssle. So for instance, sticking a fort on border with Luvavum and then scramble with mercs, and newly raised army, when an attack southwards is spotted by a spy, is probably financially better than fighting a 3 front war, with Germans, Gauls, Spain & Britains simultaneously.
As Jullii, I've tended to try to grow capitol rapidly, but tax 2nd city higher, so I'm not hit by expensive public buildings all at same time, at the 6,000 level. Early on, small populations need growth more than, short term funds you raise by tax, so there's no right setting for all settlements.
The financial faction situation is what matters, not that some large settlements appear to be loss makers. If the financial situation deteriates, it's probably because you over built army or navy, and should have paid more attention to economic developments, like farm improvements, ports, roads and trading structures.
The biggest expendisure of your denarius is army upkeep, there's no need to keep 10+ units of Hastatis and principes in your cities, peasants and Town Watch make just as fine garrisons with a much less pay. Disaband units if nessary. Always build ports first, as they're most of the time the most lucrative way of making revenue, trade centres after. Using army efficently will be the key to your income.
I've been playing BI and if you have settlements that export overseas upgrade those ports, they can bring in a lot of money, also upgrading roads that trade over land can significantly increase money. And like mentioned above, anything that increases law is excellent.
One problem I am having in BI is that everytime a general sits in a settlement he starts to get negative traits, esp. income penalty. I understand these traits build up when you leave your general in a settlement. I remember reading about a mod where you no longer need to move your general constantly to keep this from happening, does anyone know where i can find that mod? Is there any other way to keep your generals from aquiring bad income traits without a mod? Always pay close attention to your generals, i rarely seem to have a general thats worth a damn for managing a settlement for long due to this!
Definately trade. Taxes make the town unhappy,however exterminating an enemy town gives you tons of money depending on the size of the slaughtered but reduces the population. Ports,roads and trade buildings make good income.
Extermination population might bring vast amount of cash for the short term but could be damaging for the long term since you collect more tax if the population is significantly bigger. I rarely exterminate settlements that have the same culture as me. As I already said the sea is paved with money, especially the Agean.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkvicer98
Taxation does not raise linearly with population - past a certain level of population, it levels off dramatically, so exterminating a city of, say, 30,000 population doesn't gimp its revenue all that much. I believe that calculations have been run as to how big a city has to be for allowing it to rebel and then exterminating it to be more economically effective than leaving it high pop, but I can't for the life of me remember the exact result. I do know that if the city is hard to control and grows fast, it is likely to be more economically viable to exterminate it just because of the upkeep on the massive garrison it requires - not to mention the fact that you can't really defend a city garrisoned by a full stack of 20 peasants from enemy assault.Quote:
Originally Posted by QuintusJulius-Cicero
In that case, you could allow this troublesome city to fall to enemy, then re-capture with plan of enslaving 1/2 of a vastly reduced population.
Early in the game, Occupation, or Enslavement (of fast growers) tends to be best, helping you shift population about, and boost trade finances. Extermination fixes short term finances, but earns less in medium term than slave economy boost.
Wonder if anyone's persued a rampaging army strategy, sacking and destroying every building in enemy territory, then moving on to the next target, leaving only weak self-generated garrison to delay recapture. That would weaken a distant enemy, gaining funds for development of core cities, without tying your army to defending against counter-attack.
But, some factions suffer huge corruption problems due to excess riches, so looting strategies would be a bad idea for them.
I'm always losing money. I was Carthage and i conquered all of northern africa,libya,egypt,half of spain,sicily and southern italy. Pontus was at war with me in egypt but no matter what i did there was plagues,pontus,rebels so i couldn't do anything. I went into debt soon after i lost alexandria. That was the end of my hard-working campaign. I spend quite a lot of money so it didn't help.
When you have that much lands and still losing money then something isn't right. Normally you should be buried in denarii at that stage, what's the campaign difficulty?Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkvicer98
Your army is almost certainly too big, unless you're just not building trade improving buildings like ports and makets.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkvicer98
It's easy to get into a "must keep building units" mindset, which works in the early game, but leaves you with way too many military units later on. This is especially true since it looks like you're fighting on at least 3 fronts - Italy, Spain, and the middle east. Work to quiet things down on at least one or, preferably two fronts, and disband or expend some of your armies, that should get you in the black soon enough.
Probably because you got Iberian and Ponei Infantry setting in cities doing nothing. Use Town Militia or Peasant as town garrison is the most effcient way of saving denarii. That way at least you won't go bankrupt.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkvicer98
I'll add, a fort with a militia or peasant unit can also suppress annoying rebels, so you can spare upkeep on an army to fight them, in heartland troop production areas.
Actually, not dealing with rebels might also lead to financial troubles, they may stymie trade, and also be doing damage through devastation if they are left unmolested.
Well, once you capture a settlement which is in your religion or culture, dont exterminate it, occupy it so you can tech up quickly, and building roads, ports and other trade buildings is a must, as to your problem, towards the start of the game this may happen, but in my current campaign as Britannia, my two largest cities, londonium and the M2TW city of Caen, they are both making 1100 each, and this was with me at war with Gauls and Germania, and my city of M2TW Caen with a full stack of troops in...
I have just recently aquired some trade rights with the Italian factions, so my money is going through the roof, if your money continues to go down, disband unwanted soldiers, ships and other things.
EDIT: Also taxes are good for making money when you have no trade buildings, i usually keep my taxes at high, so they are making a bit of money, but not making enough to incite a rebellion or something serious...
I had poeni and their phalanx unit(not sacred band)in most towns so that didn't help. I had plagues in egypt,corduba and caralis. Unhappy towns in africa. So that didn't help much.
Ponei and Sacred Band are your elitest infantry. They cost loads to recruit and even more upkeep. Keeping them as town garrisons is best way to drain your treasury. My advice is either take them to the front line and use them to fight or disaband them althougher so you don't have to pay for their expensive upkeeps anymore.
Using Town Militia as garrison have the same effect as Sacred Band infantry on town happiness (I think). except that they cost about 200 denarii less each unit per turn.
The Plagues can't be helped, as Carthage can not build any health building beyound the basic public baths. And Punic cities have a tendency of getting over-crowded all the time. The only way is make them really angry so they'd rebel against you then take back the city and masscre the population, this way they'll be really contend untill the population reaches the point where squalor will take over again then do the same (exterminate the poplance).Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkvicer98
The obvious solution to unhappy towns is to increase the garrison and decrease the tax rate. or else you could make the city that's right in the centre of your empire the capital. This will reduce unhappiness, culture penalty and corruption. If all of it fails then let them rebel and exterminate the population once you regain it.
I vastly prefer the former alternative. It feels like a waste of denarii to disband them after all that sky-high upkeep-- not to mention, it suddenly frees up a lot of military potential. It's always nice to find yourself with an extra half-stack or two of elite units to kill lying Romans with. =DQuote:
Originally Posted by QuintusJulius-Cicero
Yeah. At that stage of the game the whole army could be made of Sacred Band Infantry, SB cavalry and Armoured Dumbos if the player wishes to. But I tend to keep my army well balanced, like with Carthage I like my army to be made of Ponei Infantry as core units, and longshield cavalry. And with Romans It's legionaries all the way. This is more historically accrute and more fun, it's kinda of boring it you turn up with full-stack of Urban Corhots and Sacred Band Infantry and just over-whelm the enemy easily. However the treasury need to be controled, I like to employed Urban Cohorts as city garrison to avoid general corruption throughout my empire. Even though I'm able to keep my treasury just under 50K most of my FM are still corroupt. The Romans likes gambling and games while the Carthagians are just pure courrpt, that's what happens when you leave a bunch of merchants running your empire.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quirinus
There are still Romans to kill when you're building Poeni and Sacred Band? What is wrong with you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Quirinus
Or maybe the question is "What is right with you?" because honestly, if you can survive as Carthage without obliterating the Romans first thing, you're obviously better at weathering an unrelenting attack than I am.
Is that sarcasm I hear? :grin: But nah. Playing as the Carthaginians, first priority for me is to kick the Romans out of Sicily, and then land a stack near Rome/Capua. Everything else comes later. One of the reasons the Carthaginians are not my favourite faction-- you have to fight the Romans very early on, or else. Not that the other factions are overly flexible: for Pontus, Armenia and Egypt it's dismantling the Seleucid Empire, for Thrace it's the Macedonians, etc. I just detest fighting the Romans. I'd even fight Egyptians, than fight Romans.
I fought the Romans when I got my Sacred Band and Ponei Infantry. Carthage don't have take on all of the Roman straight away. In fact they could even let Scipii to rot in Capua if they feel like it. That's what I did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quirinus
Basically Kicking the Roman out of Sicily is a must. Landing in Capua early on is optional (I tried and got battered by a SPQR army 3 times the size of me), a strong Punic navy patrolling the Tyrrhenian Sea is enough to stop any Roman Army landing in Sicily. They'll have to sink about it twice before landing in my backyard. Corduba is abandonable, Caralis isn't worth fighting for. After the Sicilian house cleaning I tend to focus on taking care of Numidia with my early, weaker army. They're capable of that. While my military power-houses will concentrate on producing troops. with Carthage's growth rate it will reach huge city in no time and open the recruitment pool of Sacred Band and Ponei Infantry. And War elephants also. Then it's the time to teach the Romans a lesson they will not forget.
Awful. :shame:Quote:
Originally Posted by QuintusJulius-Cicero
Best way to keep economy up is to have ports in the Aegean and sea inbetween east italy and west greece/macedonia. They give you rocket high income. With roman brutii i've got over 350,000 denarii. By owning greece and south east italy.
You do know I did that on purpose. It was meant to be a pun, if they try to invade they'll sink on ships. maybe a bad pun though.:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodge_272
My experience as Carthage is that I can kick them out of Italy, or they can kick me out of the game, and there's not much gray area between. Any time I try to just glom onto Sicily and then do something else (I prefer conquering Iberia to Numidia, because Iberia is far wealthier) I get drowned by the flood of Romans assaulting Sicily. So anybody who can just hold Sicily and build up as Carthage has my respect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Quirinus
I can. With the help of the best navy in the world.:beam:Quote:
Originally Posted by Praetor Rick
I have but scipii's capital capua had been taken over by rebels so no wonder i held it.
You mean a Roman faction had been destroyed by rebels:inquisitive: . I'd never seen such as thing, anyway aren't the Senate meant to protect them, and also Capua being the closest city to Rome should be untouchable with the Senate's protection.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darkvicer98
There is a valid reason. The Scipii lost all their family members, and they city become rebel, it was not taken by rebels because they don't tend to do that.Quote:
Originally Posted by QuintusJulius-Cicero
Yeah, but Sicily is only less than a turn's hop away from Italy by boat.... I just find it not worth it to have to always be on edge and having to watch my back in Sicily while I go spelunking in Iberia or wherever. One trick that I found pretty nice is, once you exterminate the Romans, just let them rebel-- instead bogging you down with all that cultural unrest and a new front with Gaul, you have an empty Italy-- since our main concern is the Romans, not the Italians. I just can't stand to see a Carthaginian Italy, for some reason, even if I'm playing Carthage.Quote:
Originally Posted by QuintusJulius-Cicero