How do you solve a problem like Tanais?

[williamsiddell]

Luckily I can guess what P.I.T.A means :)

I get the point and understand your logic for using ZPG but I also note 3 of those cities are losing money. That's my problem. I'm fond of the filthy lucre and the best way to get it is via large cities. Tanais above required 20 peasants to keep it happy even before 24000 and, to give you an idea, even at 30000+ with 20 peasants it is still making 700 a turn after 1300 corruption. I'm hoping somebody out there has some magic bullet I don't know about for getting rid of those annoying peasants - I'm never happy if I have to use more than 3.

I think governors are one of the few weaknesses of the game. Leave one in a city too long and the negative attributes it gains will eventually make it worse than useless.

[Vincent Butler]

Who stocks their towns with peasants? Better to leave real military units in, if you do get kicked out they can at least fight back, one legionary cohort is worth at least three peasants for fighting. If I train peasants at all it is to drain the population from a (huge) city to reduce population size, and I move them to a town that I want to grow, and disband them. Voila, you have just killed two birds with one stone. Tanais, Corduba, Londinium will kick you out anyway. Corduba is actually the worst of the lot, in my opinion. Try to get general with lots of influence and build your best temple for making people happy (check the building browser in your city window). Tanais does get a lot of plagues, so that helps reduce population, and the riots and subsequent retraining help with that as well. Usually Tanais riots some but will not be a source of continuous civil revolts, like Corduba is.

[ReluctantSamurai]

I also note 3 of those cities are losing money

No, they are not. The number you see on the screen has nothing to do with the income of a settlement. It reflects how the overall operating costs are distributed amongst all your settlements. If you open the settlement page, go to the first button in the lower left and open it. You will see a balance sheet stating the income from taxes, farming, trade, corruption, etc. This is the true income a settlement is making. A quote from a discussion here long ago by Guyus Germanicus.........................

the game distributes your carrying costs (the cost of your army, faction members, diplomats, spies, etc) according to its own internal formula. Your only coherent figure for your bottomline is in your faction icon's folder for your treasury. Of course, if you add all the money figures for all of your cities' icons from the mapboard, you can get your bottomline figure. But that's not very practical. M2TW works completely different. There your cities reflect on their city icon on the mapbaord the amount of money they're producing so you can more easily see what they're doing for your treasury. That's the downside of RTW's city icons. Unless you open up (double click) the city's icon and check the left-hand side detail window and look closely at where your profits are coming from, you don't know how the city is actually doing

I'm fond of the filthy lucre and the best way to get it is via large cities

If you looked at my treasury in the Brutii campaign (close to 4 million denarii), I'd say I'm doing pretty well

I'm hoping somebody out there has some magic bullet I don't know about for getting rid of those annoying peasants

I've already pointed you in the direction you need to go...take it or ignore it as you wish. The point you overlooked is that all of those cities in the screenies are at ZPG and will give you no trouble....EVER.

Same Brutii campaign as above:

http://i990.photobucket.com/albums/a...jpg?1293806361

Every single city in Greece, Macedonia, and beyond is at ZPG. The only city in that screenie with a governor is Athens, my current capital. He's just there because he isn't suited for the battlefield due to trait problems, but he isn't really necessary.

Same view, different factions:

http://s990.photobucket.com/user/aus...tml?1300833722

http://s990.photobucket.com/user/aus...tml?1300833722

Iberia as Carthage, capital in Carthage:

http://s990.photobucket.com/user/aus...tml?1300833722

Former Roman territory, same campaign:

http://s990.photobucket.com/user/aus...tml?1300833722

Tanais, Corduba, Londinium will kick you out anyway

If properly managed...they will not. Guys....do I have to post a screenie from every one of my recent campaigns to prove my point? ZPG is attainable even with barbarian factions. My last Germania campaign includes both Londinium and Corduba as part of my empire. Both are ZPG'ed, and neither will give me any problems for the rest of the campaign.

Try to get general with lots of influence and build your best temple for making people happy

Useful only so long as your family member is alive. My method will eventually require no governor, and you can then keep your family members out leading armies.

[williamsiddell]

Who stocks their towns with peasants?

Ha Ha - I do. My cities have only as many peasants as needed. Most have 1, some 2, some 3 and the irritating ones as many as necessary. Why? Cos they're cheap and the AI is eminently predictable. Think of that faction that has been at peace with you for decades (even allies) then suddenly a large army tiptoes over your border - they're gonna attack! Then you take steps to counter it and even if they besiege with only peasants inside they won't attack for many turns - especially if you've stopped their spies from entering.

If you've taken Antioch you don't need to be told the Egyptians will throw countless armies and spies at it - peasants are not a priority! But once you've moved on, a couple of peasants is enough.

Of course, if you add all the money figures for all of your cities' icons from the mapboard, you can get your bottomline figure.

I understand the way it works (my Tanais example contributes 200 to the pot) - my point is that those cities are not profitably paying their way cos you've limited growth. That's the way you like to play and it clearly works.

(close to 4 million denarii)

You tight git :) The most I make is 200k per turn and I spend it - not like some.

Both are ZPG'ed, and neither will give me any problems for the rest of the campaign.

My cities don't give me trouble - In the example above I control all the cites in the world except a few and no revolters. My guess is that it is an insurmountable problem, but I'd just like to cut the number of peasants needed in some cities.

Athens is a great city - way back, when I used a lot of generals in cities, I got 10000+ per turn with the right general, attributes and ancillaries.

[ReluctantSamurai]

my point is that those cities are not profitably paying their way cos you've limited growth

Does it really matter? How much money do you need? 4 million denarii is far more than enough to do whatever I want. I can recruit troops to my hearts desire...bribe armies or entire cities...dole out huge sums of money to my allies...

my point is that those cities are not profitably paying their way cos you've limited growth.

And my point is that after 24k for many factions (12k for the others) there's no point to further growth other than management headaches. You can't build any further improvements and you are making so much money that a somewhat bigger tax base is insignificant. Besides, you make more money from port trading than all other forms of income.....combined.

My cities don't give me trouble

Obviously they do or you wouldn't have started this thread. You stated it right in the header....Tanais is a "problem"

My guess is that it is an insurmountable problem

I've already shown you that it is not and so I will say no more. The old adage of you can lead a horse to water comes to mind....

[williamsiddell]

The problem with Tanais starts the minute you take it. As with others. I'm looking for a solution better than stuffing with units (and other than ZPG). Aye, landlocked cities can be a disappointment. Money makes the world go round - except in RTW that is.

[Vincent Butler]

As ReluctantSamurai has stated, whatever works for you. Usually it is the same cities that cause problems. The only one that regularly kicks me out is Corduba. I will keep in mind what Samurai said, I never really tried to achieve ZPG, just assumed there was no real way to stop population growth without increasing unrest, ie, raising taxes.

[ReluctantSamurai]

I'm looking for a solution better than stuffing with units (and other than ZPG)

There are only several ways to control unrest, AFAICS:

Manipulate the tax rate. This hits a dead end eventually when even at the lowest rate, loyalty continues to drop.

Have a family member with very high influence. This works until that member dies, and there are no guarantees you'll get another like him. Most of my field generals accumulate a pile of influence laurels...but I'd rather have them out expanding my empire than stuck in a city.

Increase your native cultural influence through the building queue. This works well if you can capture a city that has lots of building projects to do. But by mid to late game, many cities already have the maximum governors building (which is the building that has the greatest impact on loyalty). Upgrading other structures if possible helps, but it is the governing building that makes the biggest impact.

Allow revolt>exterminate...rinse and repeat as needed. This is counterproductive to your stated aim of achieving maximum income. Less people=less taxes. If you're getting revolts before the desired end-point in population numbers, then extermination is a very bad method to adopt. There are also inherent risks, as has already been mentioned. If the previous owners faction is still alive (and its not always possible to eliminate them before you start having loyalty problems) then you could see your entire garrison wiped out or at the least, badly mauled by the super units created by allowing the city to revolt.

Zero Population Growth. This is nearly foolproof, and can be done with just about every faction on the board...certainly by any of the "major" factions like Rome, the Greek factions, Egypt, Carthage, and just about every barbarian faction or eastern factions. When a city has reached its maximum potential (24k for major factions, 12k for all the others), there is no point to allowing further population growth. The few tax monies you gain from super-huge cities is not worth the aggravation of keeping those populations under control. Tax money pales in comparison to port trading anyways, so why bother squeezing for a few thousand extra denarii when your treasury contains hundreds of thousands or even millions of denarii??

Me....I'd rather do without the headaches, concentrate on expanding my empire through conquest, rake in the many thousands of denarii I'm already making, with the supreme confidence that I don't ever have to worry about one single revolt anywhere in the territories I've already conquered.

Now if you can figure out another system other than those I've mentioned for controlling population loyalty, then I'm all ears because noone I've ever been involved with in discussions about this, has figured out another way either. And I'm speaking of not resorting to modding to create a "loyalty" structure to get the job done. I've already proved that isn't necessary.

[guineawolf]

Luckily I can guess what P.I.T.A means :)

I get the point and understand your logic for using ZPG but I also note 3 of those cities are losing money. That's my problem. I'm fond of the filthy lucre and the best way to get it is via large cities. Tanais above required 20 peasants to keep it happy even before 24000 and, to give you an idea, even at 30000+ with 20 peasants it is still making 700 a turn after 1300 corruption. I'm hoping somebody out there has some magic bullet I don't know about for getting rid of those annoying peasants - I'm never happy if I have to use more than 3.

I think governors are one of the few weaknesses of the game. Leave one in a city too long and the negative attributes it gains will eventually make it worse than useless.

do you guys try not to upgrade your farm?the farm can earn you 60 to 80 denarii,but you will need more peasant upkeep to maintain it!!!

[Vincent Butler]

do you guys try not to upgrade your farm?the farm can earn you 60 to 80 denarii,but you will need more peasant upkeep to maintain it!!!

Does it really work that way? If you have advanced farms you need peasants in your towns? I almost never have peasants in towns, instead keeping a garrison in case I do get kicked out.

[ReluctantSamurai]

Upgrading farms is mostly situational. If you have many low population towns (<2000), then you want as much growth as possible, and therefore maximum farming. If you own cities in provinces with a grain bonus (Carthage, Memphis, Tanais, etc), then basic farming will be all you will ever need to build. Some cities are what I call 'slow-growers'. Sparta, Corinth, and most Middle East cities outside of Jerusalem and Tarsus fall into this category. If you are playing one of the "major" factions, getting these cities to 24k is going to be problematical. Even with max farms, they won't get there. You almost always need a governor with 'growth' traits (Good Farmer, Architect, etc) and one or two 'growth' ancillaries (Grain Merchant, etc) to push the population to 24k.

You can always ship in peasants from other cities, but this gets tedious unless the trip is a short local one. There is also the danger of getting the plague using this method, because squalor is not balanced with what the local food production can support, so it's a race to get the final governors building queued before the plague hits.

Many factions get a temple with growth properties built-in, and full advantage of them should be taken. Unlike farming, which cannot be undone, a temple can be razed once you've boosted the population to the desired level, and the growth bonus therefore cancelled.