Costs unbalanced?

[Malachus]

Is it me, or does it seem that the costs for buildings and units in this game are quite high. For example, I'm playing as the Julii and slowly but surely taking land from the Gauls, but I need to keep sending in reinforcements to my armies in Gaul seeing as the Gauls have so many god damned soldiers. But, by doing so, I can barely afford, if at all, the most basic buildings. So, for me, it's always, should I build up my cities or send in more troops.... I need both, but can't afford them both. Anybody else agree, or perhaps I'm just complaining too much?

[Dorkus]

higher level non-troop buildings are largely a waste, in the sense that they take a decade -- soemtimes decades, to earn back the money you pay to build them. (at least until you get to huge city size, and need every 5% ordre boost you can get)

mines, traders, farms, roads... all a waste of money. Just focus on the troops, troop producing buildings, and maybe some ports (the one buildng that actually generates a reasonable return).

Is it me, or does it seem that the costs for buildings and units in this game are quite high. For example, I'm playing as the Julii and slowly but surely taking land from the Gauls, but I need to keep sending in reinforcements to my armies in Gaul seeing as the Gauls have so many god damned soldiers. But, by doing so, I can barely afford, if at all, the most basic buildings. So, for me, it's always, should I build up my cities or send in more troops.... I need both, but can't afford them both. Anybody else agree, or perhaps I'm just complaining too much?

[Akka]

If you're playing at Medium difficulty, then you are definitely doing something wrong.
In my two campaigns, I'm litterally drowning in Denarii (more than 500 000 when playing Julii and discovering the game, more than 2 500 000 when playing Greeks and knowing what to do, and I'm only in 195 BC, with a steady +20 000 to +40 000 each turn).

To reach this position, I simply build all the "money" buildings (traders, road, ports, etc.) with the exception of farms (never build farms, never), sign a lot of trade agreement, and then see the denarii cashing in. When I conquer a new city, I start to build the militia unit for the faction I'm playing (town watch for Romans, Hoplite Militia for Greeks, etc.). It makes a good and cheap police, and it can even work for repelling small-scale invasions.
Never had to bother about money at any time. If you upgrade your economy, and keep cheap garrisons, conserving your expensive and specialized troops for battles only, you won't have any problems.

[Doug-Thompson]

A lot of people are going broke playing the Julii, judging by the posts.

That's the trouble with fighting the Gauls: No Greece, no Carthage, no money.

[Akka]

Well, as I said, I was playing the Julii in my very first campaign, and despite discovering the game, I still managed to have a steady 500 000 denarii treasury during the game...

[Inuyasha12]

WHY SHOULDN'T I BUILD FARMS??

I've been doing that alot lately...ooops!

[Hurin_Rules]

Yes, could someone please explain why you shouldn't build farms?

[Dorkus]

They're a complete waste of money. They add like 50 to yearly income and cost thousands to build (and waste production time to boot).

First level isn't TOO bad, especailly in the early game when you want pop to grow. (I'd still take it as a last choice) But beyond that farms are a really bad choice.

[Tyrac]

Farms increase population growth. Larger populations are difficult to manage. Some people feel that the gains from a large population city do not outweigh the costs of maintanance and control you have to do. See all the many posts about revolts and squalor and unrest problems etc. That is why many people do not build farms. In order to slow population growth.

[Warmaker]

I just finished my first campaign with the Julii (Med/Med). I will agree that money is hard to come by with the lack of riches in Western Europe.

In the "mid-game" for me, I had practically all of Central & Western Europe under my control. The Scipii were finishing off Carthage and were starting to wear down Egypt (who had alot of the Mid.East). The Brutii had Eastern Europe and almost all of Greece (I had Corinth and Sparta from an Expeditionary Army I sent).

At that time, I sent several veteran armies by sail and took some of the nice cities from Egypt... Antioch, Sidon, Damascus, and a risky land grab for Memphis. I also sent other armies to take Asia Minor (took a while, it was a side show).

In short, I discovered that the riches of the Mid.East and its surrounding areas was insanely nice. A handful of those cities gave me more dinarii than most of my Western European holdings put together. Also, with the taking of Memphis, I had the Pyramids which made Egyptian citizens quite content with my Roman out-of-towners. I would imagine the Brutii would have quite a nice economic potential if they push East hard enough. The same with the Scipii, but they have to play with the Carthaginians in the desert first.

[Quietus]

Same here, I'm still in my first campaign as Julii: currently 214 BC, ~800,000 denari, nonstop building, normal to low tax. I'm now taking in 40,000 denari per turn clean (minus the costs).

Perhaps you want to read my Julii argument in the RTW Guides section (I've just posted part 3 too).

[therother]

They're a complete waste of money. They add like 50 to yearly income and cost thousands to build (and waste production time to boot).

I don't know you about you, but for the first couple of Governor’s residences, I usually have more than enough production time to build everything I want.

As you say, if you are building farms to get your money back from farming income, then you'll be very disappointed. The amortisation on the more advanced upgrades is formidable. IMO, their principal function is to increase population growth, thereby increasing the size that your city will eventually reach, shorting the time until you can reach higher tech levels, and increasing tax and trade revenue.

Those first two levels can make a significant difference to the time it takes to reach the next population level required to upgrade your Governor’s residence, especially in provinces with low basic farm rates. For instance, at 2% growth, it will take 35 turns to increase population from 6k to 12k, but only 24 turns at 3%. Plus your Governors won't get the bad farmer traits, not that make that much difference!

I always build farms in my core settlements early on in the game, and in selected regions later on.

[Thoros of Myr]

Basic roads are worth it. why? becuase they allow your troops to move farther.

[Grifman]

I always take Rhodes regardless of my faction as it gives a 40% boost to trade. The first responder here is off base, you can't make any money with "a few ports". His strategy will leave your bankrupt. Ports and trade - and as many trade agreements as possible - are the key, but the others help.

Grifman

[andrewt]

1. I build all port upgrades ASAP. They pay for themselves easily.

2. Don't underestimate mining income. They show up as goods in the trading screen as well though I don't know how much they add to trade.

3. Markets not only increase trade income in the settlement you built it on, it also raises trade income in all the other settlements trading with that settlement. It has a good rate of return when you look at it that way.

4. The increase of each farm upgrade is 80. That's not too bad. The first few upgrades have a good rate of return. Their main purpose, especially the later ones, is to increase population growth and the maximum population allowed. Many cities won't reach 24,000 or even 12,000 without farms. That's the same rationale for the 1st and 4th market upgrades, though the 1st is cheap, anyway.

I built all the port, market and trade caravan upgrades I could as Parthia. Antioch, Tarsus, Salamis and Jerusalem are all earning 5,000+ and Sidon is earning 4,000+. Most of that is trade income.

[therother]

2. Don't underestimate mining income. They show up as goods in the trading screen as well though I don't know how much they add to trade.

Trade goes up markedly, as you can trade gold and silver as a trade resource. Strangely you don't need a mine to start.

Mines also add to your Admin Income, but only if you have a Governor with some management ability of course. It’s not a great deal per scroll, but it all adds up. BTW, farming does not add to admin.

[You get 1/50 of your mining income per management scroll, so a 6 scroll governor will get 24 denarii in Admin for a basic silver mine.]

I think it's worth mentioning that when things get hairy, and you're under pressure from the enemy, you might lose a fair proportion of your trading income. In such cases, it’s good to have something to fall back upon. Farms, mines, and to some extent at least, taxes, are not dependent on anything outside your settlement.

[andrewt]

So, do you mean mines make the trading income from gold and silver larger or do they not affect it at all?

[Spartiate]

In my first campaign as the Julii i had to keep conquering new cities every 5/10 turns just to slaughter the pop for the cash to keep ahead of my debts.I never got a hold of the economics in that first campaign and so every once in a while i would encourage my largest cities to revolt just so i could kill the pop for cash.Talk about arace against time.

[metatron]

Is it me, or does it seem that the costs for buildings and units in this game are quite high. For example, I'm playing as the Julii and slowly but surely taking land from the Gauls, but I need to keep sending in reinforcements to my armies in Gaul seeing as the Gauls have so many god damned soldiers. But, by doing so, I can barely afford, if at all, the most basic buildings. So, for me, it's always, should I build up my cities or send in more troops.... I need both, but can't afford them both. Anybody else agree, or perhaps I'm just complaining too much?

It's because you play with huge sizes. The game corrects itself based on the unit sizes you play with, therefore, your units will cost more.

The more you know...

[Spartiate]

Ahh my friend............there you are wrong.
Well maybe you are
I play with unit sizes of 80 men as a Roman century had 80 fighting men(the rest being cooks,smiths and general logistical support).I don't have the game in front of me right now but i didn't think that was the huge unit setting.

[metatron]

I know newage irl, he always plays with huge.

[Dorkus]

I always take Rhodes regardless of my faction as it gives a 40% boost to trade. The first responder here is off base, you can't make any money with "a few ports". His strategy will leave your bankrupt. Ports and trade - and as many trade agreements as possible - are the key, but the others help.

Grifman

Ports and trade are not "THE key." there are a lot of ways you can make money in this game. I principally make money through diplomacy and conquering. Adding an additional province almost always beats adding a port or port level. Especially if you're planning to exterminate.

To be sure, if you're a less aggressive player than me, ports are the way to go. I didn't say otherwise. I'm biased toward expansive strategies, so I'll concede that my advice probably has less value for someone who takes a more patient approach to the game.

[therother]

So, do you mean mines make the trading income from gold and silver larger or do they not affect it at all?

Upgrading mines does indeed seem to make trading income from silver & gold larger. I've just upgraded from shallow to deep in Sardis and it trade income went up by 8.33% for each of my overseas exports. How much of that is due to the silver is an open matter - there are two other goods, and it's feasible that they increased as well.

[therother]

I'm biased toward expansive strategies, so I'll concede that my advice probably has less value for someone who takes a more patient approach to the game.

Which, as I'm the very model of such a player, is probably why we have such differing views on population expansion. For me, one of the things I aim for is having the most populated, richest, and advanced civilisation. I monitor the profit I make per turn, and try to maximise it with the settlements that I have. I then move on expanding slowly, methodically, where I'm allowed to by treaty, or where my strategic situation says would be best, using subterfuge if necessary it the settlement belongs to an ally or neutral. I never break an alliance, and only rarely declare war on a neutral, except at the Senate's direct behest.

I prefer to use diplomacy over brute force, spies and assassins over swords and cavalry. I enjoy the odd battle, to be sure, but it's the overall strategy that draws me to TW.

[Grifman]

Ports and trade are not "THE key." there are a lot of ways you can make money in this game. I principally make money through diplomacy and conquering. Adding an additional province almost always beats adding a port or port level. Especially if you're planning to exterminate.

To be sure, if you're a less aggressive player than me, ports are the way to go. I didn't say otherwise. I'm biased toward expansive strategies, so I'll concede that my advice probably has less value for someone who takes a more patient approach to the game.

Funny, why limit yourself so much? I make money ALL three ways :)

Grifman

[Dorkus]

I agree with you. That's why I would have said "A key" rather than "THE key."

I also wouldn't have said that the other person was "off base" for prioritizing troop buildings over ports. :P

Funny, why limit yourself so much? I make money ALL three ways :)

Grifman

[andrewt]

Trade income is the biggest source of income, however, especially if you can control a bunch of cities in the Eastern Mediterranean or the Aegean Sea. It depends on the location of your territories. I have a 5-city core in my Parthian game. Jerusalem makes 6,000 denarii per turn. Antioch, Tarsus and Salamis make around 5,000 and Sidon slightly over 4,000. That's just trade income. Since Antioch is my capital, I have 0 corruption in all 5 cities, also.

[Dark_Magician]

I wish it would be possible to enslave routers for money. And ransome captured faction members

[Ulstan]

"So, for me, it's always, should I build up my cities or send in more troops.... I need both, but can't afford them both."

I think that is the idea. As the Juliii I can't afford to just keep cranking out buildings in every town *and* build all the troops I Need, so you have to make choices - which is good.

I think it means you can't just always roll onwards in a continuous tide sweeping all before you.

Launch a campaign, take some provinces, then rest a bit while you spend your funds in building up infrastructure, cultivating trade routes, etc, instead of pumping out legions.