Questions about the economy

Salve,

I am currently playing a Romani campaign (very hard/very hard). While reading this forum i noticed thad most peole playing as Romans wrote that they get very rich quickly, while in my case it is quite the countrary - I suffer of a constant lack of money :embarassed:

I don't build granaries since when the population grows i need more soldiers to keep order in my settlements (i use cheap units such as accensi or slingers for that), and i also need better governors (that is nt a problem however, i am able to creat family members who are good in management rather quickly).

What is the way to have more cash in EB? And i don't wanna cheat or exploit the diplomatic stupidity of tha AI factions for that, just wanna know what is best to be build in the cities.

And one more question, I don't have riots in my towns baut all the "romanized province" and "roman homeland" buildings are damaged, repairing them doesn't work since the get damaged again next turn. Is this normal or is this a bug?

To clarify the situation, i enclose the screens which show my situation:

This is my financial scroll

https://img205.imageshack.us/img205/6471/0007.png

Now the diplomacy scroll

https://img411.imageshack.us/img411/1503/0006w.png

I have 3 major armies and there is NO WAY that i disband any of them or move them elsewhere:
First in spain, fighting the Carthaginians

https://img149.imageshack.us/img149/2221/0002l.png

Second in Transalpine/Cisalpine Gaul, repelling Aedui constant massive invasions and lunching punitive expeditions againdst them

https://img244.imageshack.us/img244/1231/0003x.png

Third in Greece, capturing Macedonian cities one by one and gaurding my settlements from The Hellenes

https://img510.imageshack.us/img510/6933/0005.png

The simplest is put your taxes on max, or if you really need cash, try selling map information to factions for 1000 each (or more, but it is not taking advantage of AI diplomacy).

You should finish off the final carthaginians in Iberia, a few cities left and Gader is extremely rich if the mines and ports are built.:2thumbsup: Then you have one active front less and rich cities are yours!

Also I think more than a half of Iberia can build mines, which cost a lot to build, but will boost your economy and pay back soon! I know that you are allied with the lusotana, but keep in mind if you get into a war with them, those mines are a must!

If I remember well, the only Iberian cities who dont have mines are:
Arse, Emporion and Numantia. (I think, perhaps another).

Sacking carthage and destroying the barracks will probably give 30000 mnai, same goes for Atiqa, but perhaps that is a too bold move (balance/history/roleplay).

Aegean trade in nice too, try to finish off the Maks.

At building options I would suggest mines/markets and ports (not the over-expensive).

Good luck with your campaign! Looks nice!:2thumbsup:

Btw, am I right that you are getting Polybians in 240BC?:beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yarema

And one more question, I don't have riots in my towns baut all the "romanized province" and "roman homeland" buildings are damaged, repairing them doesn't work since the get damaged again next turn. Is this normal or is this a bug?

---

Arr, a nasty bug which the EB team can do nothing about if I am right. Do you have two campaigns running?

Example:
If you play Ptolemaioi and you activate the script, then get bored and you switch to the Romans. When you are done loading you activate the script again, the government buildings get damaged.

If something like this example happens I know what you mean, it is a nasty bug which can be extremely annoying if you dont have much cash.

~Fluvius

I would say your armies are extemely expensive as well. You have a lot of Triarrii and cavalry. Your city garrisons are also quite large. Army upkeep is always the biggest drain on the income. I'd put the taxes on auto, and then disband all unnecessary units, and reform my military.

Any income you get should be spent on farms, mines, ports etc, so you can build up your economy.

Make sure your navy isn't too big. I'd say maybe one or two fleets just to keep your Iberian and Greek theatres supplied.

I'll agree with the above poster...why do you need such large garrisons in Greece? The cities are fairly well-built up, with plenty of happiness and law bonuses. And they are quite close to Roma, so you have no Distance to Capital to worry about. Reducing all those garrisons to, say, two Roarii or something similarly cheap would help your economy greatly. Even if the stacks are for defense, why do you need such a large defence in Segestica and Dalminion? They are quite well-buffered by rebel settlements. (And I've never seen the Getai get past Singindium's garrison.) At least those could be disbanded....they are probably taking up a couple thousand mnai each!

Similarily, I agree with everyone who said you have to take Spain. The war there will probably be quite costly unless you decisively end it and seize the Carthaginians' rich mines.

I don't want to say you've expanded too fast, but then you probably have ...but congrats on the fighting effort :)

In EB armies are expensive, and even more so is continuous warring. Normally as Rome, I find that I take Italy (including Sicily) quite quickly, then sit back and let my cities grow, and FMs get good at managing the provinces. By 240BC, I'm very rarely out of Italy, and generally have a couple of 100 K in the bank..

By blitzing as much territory as you have already, but not allowing the cities time to grow....to me THAT'S why your running on empty. Newly conquered provinces need reasonable garrisons for a while until they "cool down" on the conquer resentment. This is exasperated by having to fight wars all the time too.

I have 3 golden rules on cities (especially as the nations that have full building economy trees)...

1) Low taxes to 2000 pop
2) Normal taxes to 6000
3) Then as high as you can go without revolt and still minimal growth.

By taxing tiny cities at a high rate, you're killing yourself in the long run, by stopping them from growing.

In your case, once all your cities are decently managed, and have grown a bit, you'll suddenly start raking in the mnai. You're probably best playing defensively for a while though, until that happens. More conquest is only a quick fix, as is sacking everywhere in general.

Phah he is slow compared to me! I disagree with Drewski, when I conquer the world I swim in cash...

Also I never disband when I have too much units, I just conquer more!:smash:

Don't let them convince you that you went too fast... I think you have a nice republic there!

I'm at a similar stage in my Romani campaign, except that I've got Massalia, and I don't have Mastia. however can still manage to upkeep 9 legions (here, 1 legion is a halfstack, consisting of 1 accensi, rorarii, hastati, principes and triarii, and 1 allied skirmisher, 2 allied infantry, 1 pedites/hoplites and 1 allied cavalry, with 1 or 2 generals) and 2 consular legions (which is twice a normal legion), and I'm getting a base of 15000 mnai income per turn.
I think the problem is that your troops cost more than the troops I use. perhaps, you could raise taxes, decrease the amount of buildings you build (I see you have spent around 10000 on construction) for a few turns, restructure your legions, temporarily halt the war, reduce garrisons, create new legions from your garrisons (if they're not all made of akontistai).
actually, public order should be easy to maintain, and an increased population leads to more taxes paid, although it doesn't appear to be, since an increasing population causes the city's income to appear as negative.

Quote:

---

Fluvius Camillus: The simplest is put your taxes on max

---

- Done that already. As for conqureing Spain and Greece, i am moving slowly which is caused by monetary problems:beam:

Quote:

---

Fluvius Camillus: Btw, am I right that you are getting Polybians in 240BC?

---

Yeah, you are right. I got them in late 242 or early 241 i think.

Quote:

---

Fluvius Camillus: Arr, a nasty bug which the EB team can do nothing about if I am right. Do you have two campaigns running?

---

Yes i do, i play Baktria.

Quote:

---

retep219: I'll agree with the above poster...why do you need such large garrisons in Greece? The cities are fairly well-built up, with plenty of happiness and law bonuses. And they are quite close to Roma, so you have no Distance to Capital to worry about. Reducing all those garrisons to, say, two Roarii or something similarly cheap would help your economy greatly. Even if the stacks are for defense, why do you need such a large defence in Segestica and Dalminion?

---

i'm gonna use those guys as garrison troops in the next provinces on my "to conquer and enslave" list:skull:

Quote:

---

Drewski: By blitzing as much territory as you have already, but not allowing the cities time to grow....to me THAT'S why your running on empty

---

that's exactly what i've been doing, but now i can't lower the taxes because:
1. I won't be able to afford to resupply my armies in Spain and Greece which is vital for the survival of my provinces there ( especially in Spain, i destroyed 3 Cart armies and they keep sending more)
2. If i lower the taxes in some settlements the cities population will grow too fast. I'll have less Mnai and i won't be able to pay for new buildings and garrison to keep order.
3. looting and enslaving captured cities makes money, and reducing their population helps in keeping order after the conquest

i'll just go on conquering spain and greece, and bulid more mining centers for 32k mnai (i' ll have to save money :laugh4: )
Btw, i just captured Athens and the Balearic Isles, my next targets are Chalcis and Gadir :2thumbsup: it's 240 before christ now.
And yes, this is my first campaign in EB, thats why i'm so green:clown:

Thx for the advice everyone. :balloon2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fluvius Camillus

Phah he is slow compared to me! I disagree with Drewski, when I conquer the world I swim in cash...

Also I never disband when I have too much units, I just conquer more!:smash:

Don't let them convince you that you went too fast... I think you have a nice republic there!

---

Well if You want to flat out non-stop blitz, and go on a despotic conquest, where you sack every town you capture, then I suppose that works too. And why not once in a while?

But you'll end up at war with everyone, have tiny cities, and then your only course is to go and sack more and more cities....fine if you like to play that way..

Everyone blitzes the first few campaigns. Then they usually even out. I've been playing EB for getting on 3 years now, and I have come to loath blitzing. But everyones entitled to their own opinion, and I won't yell at people who do blitz. I hate the AI for it too. If you leave the AI alone, then theres only about half the factions left by 200 BC. If you look at where everyone was at this point, you'll understand what I mean.

Frankly spoken, you have way too many units guarding your cities. They cost a lot of cash. Rather disband 2 units and put the taxes down.:book:

We all have our own opinions how to play best. And to play best is to play how you like it.:beam:

I just wouldn't know what to do if you in a turn while roleplaying, beating back fullstack after fullstack with rarely any terrain gain seems not so much fun to me...:dizzy2:

Drewski, by disagreeing with you I was not talking about Blitz in general, but about the fact that blitzing leaves your economy weak.

Ok, who invited the parrot that can't read? :clown:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fluvius Camillus

Drewski, by disagreeing with you I was not talking about Blitz in general, but about the fact that blitzing leaves your economy weak.

---

In general: Blitzkrieg makes your economy weak, you are going "all in" after all. If you make a small mistake, this will pay back with interest. You are relying on speed and victories. (see German economy while WW2)

In game: As long as you are victorious their is no real problem, but if you lose one of your main armies, you have to set up another one, which is not easy if you only rely on sacking (but still possible). But sure, if your empire has reached a certain size, you can compensate such loses easier. Ceterum censeo Romam esse delendam.

Up against the wall.

Have read thread and thank players for pointers. ROME: I'm way over garrisoned (came to this on my own but comments here useful for focus), yet occasional landings let those mega-bodies respond to and defeat the landing with ease and no need for central govt relief. except 1x on Sardinia. Rome is massively open to seaborne attack as has no inland cities.

However my problem is "the other guys" if not hard pressed I'd have slowly expanded (220BC owned Italy, Sicily, Corsica, Sardinia and Baleric Is: no Blitz)Everytime I expanded I noted my money improved, sitting around building garrisons and it grew worse. However the Spanish arrived with 2 full armies and 5 small ones. This morphed over 10 years to a dozen full armies and 20 some little ones. I cut them to pieces and am still getting over run. forced to cheat money and after spending easily a million bucks am still in same position with a few extra troops (109,000 in maintenance) yet Sp owns Port, Sp, Fr and Alps. Aedui gone to 1 Hungarian city, other Gaul seems wiped out. No matter how many defeats Sp returns over and over hitting me now from 5 directions. Where does it get this limitless manpower from?

Epirotes also on rampage but no sign of limitless armies, though they have alot. They went elsewhere and ignore Rome after 2 small wars.

Playing through BI as R:TW unstable with CTD. AI makes peace then re-attacks on same or next turn which is annoying.

Tried as Epirotes once but Taras started as -5000 bucks a turn. I evacuated city, got armies killed and still was negative and couldn't get enemies to take the black hole city off my hands for free!

So anymore Economic 101 comments or tips on unstopable factions?

@Easterner: What difficulty levels are you playing on?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Easterner

Have read thread and thank players for pointers. ROME: I'm way over garrisoned (came to this on my own but comments here useful for focus), yet occasional landings let those mega-bodies respond to and defeat the landing with ease and no need for central govt relief. except 1x on Sardinia. Rome is massively open to seaborne attack as has no inland cities.

---

I'd say you do need a central quick-response force (or two) so you can dispense with those oversized garrisons. In EB garrisons often do not make up for the increased taxes you can levy, so you should use the minimum (and cheapest) possible garrison. Use spies to anticipate enemy troop movements and fleets to block your lanes so your quick-response force is already moving towards the invaders before they have even landed (but be aware of the enormous upkeep on ships).

The problem is that the A.I. of R:TW is dumb. Do not expect reasonable diplomacy: it hates the player and will often ignore everything in order to get you. It also recruits way too many units, so it gets cash bonuses and population discounts to prevent it from crippling itself. Don't get into a war of attrition with the A.I., as it can easily win that. Go back on the offensive and take out their economical and recruitment centers. You may want to consider a naval invasion in Iberia (modern Spain and Portugal) itself. Pay special attention to provinces with mines: these are the most easy source of income in EB.

Welcome to the .Org, and to EB.
~:wave:

I'm going to chime in and agree with those who say your armies and garrisons are too big (and too focused on cavalry and expensive heavy infantry). More lighter infantry and skirmishers, and less cavalry in your main armies would save a lot of money. Local levies for garrisons (a couple of infantry, a couple of skirmishers is usually sufficient).

Both for added difficulty (since you have to send armies to trouble-spots) and cost-savings (smaller garrisons and fewer troops all round), I never use my field armies as garrisons, they are always a separate and distinct force. I have one or two per administrative region, with garrisons made of local troops who never do anything. If a settlement is attacked, I mobilise a proper army to defend it.

Along with slower development so you can get the money-producing facets of each province working. Unless you've got roads, markets and ports as a minimum in a province, then it's too soon to move on to conquering the next.

You also might try to utilize your family members ( FM ) efficiently, letting them govern your settlements with perhaps 1 additional "light infantry" unit ( like "Leves" = 120 men, low upkeep ), if needed, to boost up public order and profit from their management abilities, their positive influence effect, and, of course, their traits and ancillaries, wich can bring you lot´s of money. Example: your mining income would grow with a FM as governor in a while due to their "miner" = 10% and. later, "superior miner" = 20% ( so if a mine brings you 600 income, you´d get 660/720 instead; and imagine this with real rich mines upgraded to the second tier, with additional % of "Inventor" or/and "Mining Engineer" ancillaries ).
And do not pay attention at the "nominal" income of a settlement, instead take a look into the settlements details and see that it´s your armies, who those rich cities are paying maintance for, that´s why they seem to generate negative income.

Spain and Southern France are full of mines, wich explains the economical powerhouse Lusotania! They also control the whole trade on the coasts, so you might blockade their ports to cripple it and, at the same time, profit from those "rides" ( see it in your financial scroll once you start using piracy to your advantage :) ).
You can also use spies to incourage some unrest and force the AI to lower the taxes, and also keep track of enemy armies movements, so you can spot some pour defended towns and raid them with you troops, looting their cities and destroying the infrastructure. A plague is always a funny thing to cause some economical drawbacks on your foes.
You might retake some celtic settlements and give them back to the remaining gauls, forging an alliance with them, or try and involve Germans into a bloody war with Lusotanians.

The options are plenty, but it is a doom of the player, if one lets the AI really develop and steamroll it´s neighbors. Then you have to deal with one or two superpowers, like Lusos in your campaign definetly are, instead of several smaller factions, waisting their resources on fighting each other. Btw: it was a roman policy per exellance to devide and then counquer the weakened oponents, not to let a mighty empire on its boarders emerge and fear the extinction ;)

Good luck!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vollorix

You also might try to utilize your family members ( FM ) efficiently, letting them govern your settlements with perhaps 1 additional "light infantry" unit ( like "Leves" = 120 men, low upkeep ), if needed, to boost up public order and profit from their management abilities, their positive influence effect, and, of course, their traits and ancillaries, wich can bring you lot´s of money. Example: your mining income would grow with a FM as governor in a while due to their "miner" = 10% and. later, "superior miner" = 20% ( so if a mine brings you 600 income, you´d get 660/720 instead; and imagine this with real rich mines upgraded to the second tier, with additional % of "Inventor" or/and "Mining Engineer" ancillaries ).

---

I was wondering about this: He holds Dalminion and Pella, yet his mining income is less than stellar.

Stick a young FM in a city with a temple of Minerva. He will gain mine boosting retinues there. Give him a good education in a developed city. In my Romani campains, Athenai usually gets a fully developed academy, plus it has the Minerva temple line. Perfect. Now, I don't know the OP's feelings about shifting retinues between FM's, but I'm not too strickt with characters I deem to be professionals. As a result, retinues alone can increase mining income with 50 %.

Difficulty is at default so Average I believe.

I was pondering on this and remembered the Romans leaped into Spain early causing 2nd Punic War. So moving there early and Balkans too might keep Sp & Epies down though leaving Gauls as possible problem as Northern Italy will have to wait.

Mobile response force seems like good idea.

I used locals as garrisons but left 1 Leg each in Segestica and Syracuse as counters to Eps & Carthage.

Oh, all my FM are INTERLOPERS!!!

Let me guess: you´ve built Gov Type IV and put your FM to govern those settlements, instead of recruiting a local "Client Ruler"? ^^

I've mixed govt and assign FM randomly. Did send a mine exper to Rheguim. But have not paid attention to FM as so few to pass around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Easterner

I've mixed govt and assign FM randomly. Did send a mine exper to Rheguim. But have not paid attention to FM as so few to pass around.

---

Mixed gov is a major strategy failure. At least the way it sounds to me. Each gov type serves a purpose and you should choose the best gov type for each region. Far flung territories with either very good top level local units or large well developed towns are what should be assigned to Lvl 4 governments. Level 3's for all other 'Alliance' regions works well for me, especially considering that recruiting generals from type 4's are extremely expensive to maintain.

Also remember that you cannot put a family member into a type 4 gov and you cannot put a recruited client ruler into any other gov except for type 4.
Type 1's and 2's should be built wherever possible (except you are rome so before the marian reforms its worthwhile to build the other ones where you need the units).

Otherwise your economy doesn't appear to be too bad all things considered. You have a massive army but still have enough money for 10,000mnai of construction a turn before you start to lose money. If you want to afford more buildings then get rid of some army and build more. If you need a larger army (i doubt it) then build less. The game is designed to try and stop you swimming in money all the time like in vanilla rome. Once you buld up your towns more you will become richer than you can ever need to be anyway.

As Rome, I always build either Type III or Type IV governments to start with, just to get an effective government built as quickly as possible so I can get building other things like roads, ports and markets. Then later, when I'm not building anything else in that town and have thousands of mnai to spare, I destroy the Type III or IV and build Type I or II.

i'M UNAWARE OF the mixed Gov't leader rule. Probably from lack of manual. Don't even have R:TW......Thanks STEAM. That info alone worth gold.

Everybody is "complaining" about the high upkeep of client rulers, but let us take a look at the benefits and compare the costs:
1. Client rulers got the finest troops as bodyguards, especially the Celtic Lesser King, and since your are likely to encounter some enemy/rebel activity in this province, you probably would need those soldiers at least once to fight. What would it cost to put a unit of Neitos to garrison a town?
2. Client rulers are not family members, but often got good traits to lead an army, or to just defend the town; plus they can hire mercs from those territories, so you can use those as quick response to enemy activities there, to hire them, upgrade and send towards front line, and with a merc captain ancillary you save 10% for the units recruitment - the less you pay the better, eh? ;)
3. Especially in provinces with mines you can boost up your income at least by 20% or even more. You can also bump the growth, the farming and trade income of the settlement; and the most important thing is you become a significant law bonus, even more once that guy becomes a good administrator, and he probably will since you will be producing quite a few troops from that town.
4. And last but not least, through all those bonuses mentioned above once the population "calms down", you won´t need a single unit to help maintaining public order, especially interesting for larger settlements, where you´d need a bunch of soldiers to simply keep the people from rioting, and this without any single bonus you´d get from the client ruler. And at the same time your FM can move on leading your armies, or govern already developed towns of your own.

I love those guys, the only think is, its sometimes a pity to get a great allied general, just to keep him in that damn small town, while most of your FM kind of suck...^^

Client rulers are great. I would even say the celtic lesser kings are overpowered. You get a unit of warriors with the same stats as neitos that recover in field (though only to 120 men) for the same price per men, lead by a general. Used as client rulers they are cheap (400 upkeep) and give enough bonuses to easily make up for this upkeep. The more expensive greek or eastern versions also can bring in more money than they cost in regions with mines, high trade income, bad public order and a need for a big garrison and/or high corruption, as long as you don't have a FM for this, tough the client ruler trait has invisible law, influence and -unrest bonuses.
Used correctly the client rulers will even help your economy instead of costing money like many people seem to think.

I love client rulers, especially because I don't tend to use new settlements as troop centres with factional barracks anyway. I roleplay them as little client kingdoms who pay tribute to my faction, not provinces in their empire. Celtic Lesser Kings are good, though they sometimes necessitate recruiting cavalry where a Hellenistic Mercenary General or one of the others does not (since they are cavalry). Most of the time, I tend to do without, but if it's a settlement on the border with a regular foe, it's sometimes useful to have some horsemen you can send out a side gate during a siege.


On a related topic to the main, is there any rhyme or reason to how good or bad harvests are (and thus farming incomes, which seem very variable)?

Client rulers are good for ruling the bigger, more unruly cities. The reason I cautioned against them is that some newer players build the quickest gov type they can and just recruit client rulers in every town. They are not neccessary in every town, and building them for all your armies quickly leads to a real economic drain.

My post was all about planning out your government choice rather than randomly assigning them coz you don't understand what they do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blxz

Client rulers are good for ruling the bigger, more unruly cities. The reason I cautioned against them is that some newer players build the quickest gov type they can and just recruit client rulers in every town. They are not neccessary in every town, and building them for all your armies quickly leads to a real economic drain.

My post was all about planning out your government choice rather than randomly assigning them coz you don't understand what they do.

---

It does, but that's also part of the roleplaying of being a non-imperial power for me. These are independent places that pay tribute, but have to support their own government and garrisons. When your heartland is somewhere as rich as Asia Minor, it doesn't matter so much, but I'd imagine other regions are more problematic if you have a lot of client rulers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

It does, but that's also part of the roleplaying of being a non-imperial power for me. These are independent places that pay tribute, but have to support their own government and garrisons. When your heartland is somewhere as rich as Asia Minor, it doesn't matter so much, but I'd imagine other regions are more problematic if you have a lot of client rulers.

---

True, but the OP was mostly about having difficulty with finances. Roleplaying tends to be self inflicted limits normally so is best for a player with more skill in the game. I was explaining from a totally gamey perspective. But yes, some factions were very unlikely to expand territorially and would instead impose a sort of vassal state upon their conquered foes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by QuintusSertorius

On a related topic to the main, is there any rhyme or reason to how good or bad harvests are (and thus farming incomes, which seem very variable)?

---

It's a random number script. Just like irl (at the time at least).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rotten

It's a random number script. Just like irl (at the time at least).

---

Also farming incomes are so low in EB because income is linked to pop growth (which has been reduced). Therefore its not really a major variation in the early game and by mid to late game there is so much money available in terms of trade and mining and tax that farming still plays a relatively minor role, at least the variation won't do anything unless you are running so close to the line...but thats uncommon and possibly poor gameplay in the light of the randomness.

As a long-time lurker and occasional poster I wanted to thank Yarema for asking a good question and thank everyone else for giving up some good ideas. I seem to be in a similiar position of having expanded rapidly then felt the pinch of fiscal reality. When I start my next campaign I'll bare these suggestions in mind.
Thanks again.
CJ

Sounds like the Celtic Lesser king (and his bodyguard) should be able to deal with most typically small pop-up rebel brigand stacks all by himself, without any help from other garrison troops. If he can kill, say, 3 units of Celtic Levy Spearmen by himself, for instance - outnumbered 6 to 1 on the battlefield! - then he's a good investment.