Build farms!

[Patricius]

Peasant garrisons and monthly games, if needed, solved all problems. Deliberately provoking revolts is silly.

The city information contains two squalor meaurements: one related to health and the other sentiment? Which is the related to the squalor so much complained about?

[The_Emperor]

When you go into your city details screen, have a look at how many rats you can see... If theres a lot then you have one Squalid slum of a city!

[Oaty]

When you go into your city details screen, have a look at how many rats you can see... If theres a lot then you have one Squalid slum of a city!

You must be a slumlord as I have yet to see rats on that screen.

Also selling a city that rebels looks bad on you

[Dorkus]

Not so easy to give a province away. in most of my games, factions refuse to take provinces -- they say i'll take them back in a round anyways, or that they don't trust me.

I've even tried offering tens of thousands of denari to get them to take the city, but no go.

[Empedocles]

Just a quicknote:
I know I may be repeating opinions but I don't believe in all those tactis many players use to win the game.
I will not kill 8000 people (NOTE: I understand it's a game) just because I will have less squalor or more money.

I still didn't play RTW, but I will try no to eliminate civilians just because I conquered a city and need money (unless my situation is critic).
In MTW I nearly never killed prisioners and tried to mantain a historical way of playing the game (I will never attacked the Aragonese and ally with the Almohads as the Spanish).

It's just my way to play a game, I'm not sayins is the right one.

Bye

PS: I also believe that if building farms have such an inmese counter effect in squalor as everyone says then CA should fix it, because it's the first time I hear improving farmland can give big problems to a nation.

[Servius]

Nero did it, to Rome, to make room for his phat pad.

But who wants to be Nero. I want to be like Augustus.

Another, slightly more realistic option, settlers. Back in the day, when cities became overcrowded, many city-states would send out settlers to found a new city. This increased total revenue (because now you had two city's worth of farm revenue), solidified your people's hold on a chunk of land, and relieved squallor problems. In RTW you can't found new cities (at least not to my knowledge) but you can "redistribute" your population.

Step 1 - Jack up the tax rate in the over-populated city to bring down growth rate
Step 2 - Click on the over-populated city
Step 3 - Alt-Right click on the under-populated city
Step 4 - Cue up a bunch of Peasants (this will often increase happiness, allowing an even higher tax rate)
Step 5 - Disband the Peasants in the under-populated city when they arrive.

[Meneldil]

The most stupid thing is not that players exterminate their population, but that the game works in a way that exterminating your cities regularly is the best thing to do

[chemchok]

The most stupid thing is not that players exterminate their population, but that the game works in a way that exterminating your cities regularly is the best thing to do

Yeah. It doesn't make any sense that population has no influence on income. Changing that would completely alter how players deal with hostile populations.

[Vlad Tzepes]

The most stupid thing is not that players exterminate their population, but that the game works in a way that exterminating your cities regularly is the best thing to do

Yeah... imagine the guys at CA now realising how their concept of making the game a challenging experience turns into a "genocide is fun AND profitable" discovery among the teen-agers... AFAIK, it's the first game I play where exterminating whole cities is a great way of solving the economical problem. Romans completely destroyed Carthage, yes, but never assasinated whole populations. Gengis Khan is the one famous for that way of chasing boredom away...