Money Problems

[Slon]

I read some of the tutorials on this site and found them helpful, especially in regard to city management. I am currently playing a Scipii campaign (long) on Medium/Medium because I read that Easy makes the battles unfair. I followed the advice of building farms/roads/aqueducts early and was alright for the first part of the game. I started to run into money problems upon capturing all of northwestern Africa (Carthaginians and Numidians destroyed, took a few spanish provinces). The reason why this happened is because of really low public order. In Carthage (Huge City), for example, I had to keep a huge garrison (that barely fit in the city), run monthly races and games, and set taxes to low just to avoid rebellions. I have completely upgraded farms and aqueducts there. The settlement has about 40000 population (just as most others do) and I have large fleets (blockading all egyptian, spanish and gallic ports). What pushed my income into the negative is a plague in Syracuse (captal, huge city). Much of my income comes from Rhodes and Crete, since Macedon (allies) took complete of Greece and Pontus (allies) are nearby. I have no other allies (other than romans) since the Senate made my blockade everyone and they no longer accept ceasefires. The odd thing is, the enemies that were around me were weakened to the point where they had virtually no navy (yes, Egypt actually had no ships) and completely stopped besieging my settlements. I had one huge army as my main attacking force (8 units of Praetorian Infantry, 3 praetorian cavalry, 2 repeating balistas, 2 catapults, 3 archers auxilia, 4-star faction heir as leader) and garrisons with auxilia and peasants. I was also working on a group of Urban Cohorts, but those never got finished. The plague in Syracuse hit my income so hard that I just left the newly-conquered Spanish province, gave it to Rome as a gift, and set boarded a ship that was blockading the port to go to Egypt in a last effort to just take the whole nation for cash.

I've been enslaving all conquered provinces. Is this the problem, should I have extermianted them? And yes, I demolished all the previous shrines and built my own.

Does anyone have any specific advice on city management? What kind of buildings should I build and in what order? What am I doing wrong? I heard that lots of people beat the game as roman factions on very hard/very hard with no trouble at all. Should I just play Egypt (better units?)?

[Alphidius]

From what you'd said, I think you're taking towns too fast & the plague is wearing the empire down. Capture one town at a time, build up then move on. For plague cities, isolate them. No unit goes in or out. IIRC there's a retinue of Doctors or something, it might speed things up alittle. Other then that, halt expansion and improve infrastructure & trade.

[Slon]

The cities that usually get the plague are the huge ones with fully-upgraded aqueducts, roads and trade buildings. I usually skip out on building army buildings, except in the huge cities that I plan to use to mass-produce good troops (such as Carthage). I find that if I just sit there and build up cities before moving on, I just spend a ton of years on that one city, with cash flowing in slowely, if at all. I only move my main army out of a city once it has a governor (if I have family members that aren't already doing something) and a garrison of about 4 units of auxilia (and some peasants too if the city needs a huge garrison to get to 80% garrison bonus). Also, what does fast expansion have to do with plagues? The only unit I move out of plagued cities (and keep him adjacent to it) is the governor if he hasn't caught the plague yet (I don't want to have disease family members). The major problem with my cities is squalor. It seems the more population I get, the more health buildings I build, the worse it gets. Also, other towns had problems with distance to capital (I kind of improved it by moving capital to Syracuse) and cultural difference (even after i made my own shrines). Is exterminate populace better in the long run than enslave populace? Also, some towns have "unrest", how do I fix it?

[YAKOBU]

Hi Slon

I've now managed to complete a campaign as Scipii on Medium/Medium and have now moved up to Hard/Hard. The 2 areas I see as the root of your problem are your current population levels and your enslaving policy when you take over towns. Once you reach the 24,000 population level that gives you your final level buildings you really don't want your population to go much further than that. I would move a large army near a city with 40,000 population, move the garrison out, and set taxes to the highest level. This should cause a revolt and you should then retake the city and exterminate the population. This will reduce the population to a manageable level and give you revenue from the extermination. Once retaken the lower level population will be much happier and you can manage to set the taxes at a higher level.

When taking new settlements enslaving is only adding to your population in your already over-crowded cities. Once you have reduced the populations in the problem cities you may be ok. Alternatively you could just exterminate or occupy when taking new settlements.

As a side note you may want to check that your generals with the highest influence and management skills are in your biggest cities.

Hope this helps

[Bhruic]

Ok, you are mainly doing two things "wrong", if you want to use that word. First off, building the farming improvements is generally a bad idea. While they will help your city grow faster, they also will make it grow larger. Large cities are rebellious cities, so it's best to avoid that as much as possible. I no longer build any of the farming improvements, they just aren't worth the hassle.

The other issue is enslavement. That's a double whammy. First you move population into cities that might not need it anymore. And second, you miss out on the extra denarii that extermination brings in. Early in the game, enslavement isn't a bad choice. But in mid-late stages, extermination is the way to go.

The other issue you need to keep track of is your military costs. You'll likely end up with a lot of 'backwater' cities that are in no real danger of getting attacked. Stationing a lot of expensive troops there is a waste. Move them to the front, and garrison the city with peasants. They are the biggest stack size you can get, and they have the cheapest upkeep for their size.

Bh

[Slon]

So should I only upgrade farms to crop rotation or comunal farming in my miscellaneous cities and upgrade it all the way in my troop production cities? Then, when my troop production city reaches full potential, just destroy the farms? Also, I like the rebellion idea. I actually thought of that once, but didn't know if it would really work. Also, once I exterminate the town, should I keep exterminating them only down to 24k or should I go lower? The town doesn't lose it's Huge City buildings if I go below 24k right? It's just that I'm training Urban Cohorts and I can only train so many of them and really don't require huge populations to do it.

If it's a Huge City and the population gets below 24,000, will the city still allow me to train new units/retrain old ones? Or will that option be disabled until the town reaches something over 24,000 (or whatever the current city needs) before I can draft civilians into the army?

[Jeanne d'arc]

So should I only upgrade farms to crop rotation or comunal farming in my miscellaneous cities and upgrade it all the way in my troop production cities? Then, when my troop production city reaches full potential, just destroy the farms? Also, I like the rebellion idea. I actually thought of that once, but didn't know if it would really work. Also, once I exterminate the town, should I keep exterminating them only down to 24k or should I go lower? The town doesn't lose it's Huge City buildings if I go below 24k right? It's just that I'm training Urban Cohorts and I can only train so many of them and really don't require huge populations to do it.

If it's a Huge City and the population gets below 24,000, will the city still allow me to train new units/retrain old ones? Or will that option be disabled until the town reaches something over 24,000 (or whatever the current city needs) before I can draft civilians into the army?

First off u cant destroy farms, thats why its actually useless to build any of the farmupgrades.I always buy land clearance and thats it.
If u exterminate your huge city u will end up with almost 5000 people i think and u dont loose the upgrades in your city.

[aw89]

as long as you got the governer building for a 24.000 -> city you can build all the buildings and stuff, so just exterminate away :)

EDIT: DAMN! jean postet before me!

[Slon]

Yes, but if the city requires 24000, will I be able to recruit units from that city even though it only has 5000?

[Tricky Lady]

Normally you will be able to continue recruiting, until your population drops to +- 400. I believe that's were your recruiting pool is going to run dry.

[Slon]

Wow, thanks! That extermination plan REALLY worked! There was a gladiator rebellion in Carthage after I did that, but they were kind of easy to defeat. I just broke down the wall, sent in some praetorian cohorts and massacred them. In the end, I lost a total of 11 soldiers. The income for the city also rose from -3000 to +5000! Time for the next city...

Also, when I use my build points, do they regenrate for the next siege or are they gone forever?

[HopAlongBunny]

Build points for siege stuff will be there next time you siege.

It seems to be a function of army size and the general's traits/retinue.

Welcome to the .org

[Bhruic]

The income for the city also rose from -3000 to +5000! Time for the next city...

Don't read too much into that number. The "income" of a city is actually the net income, not gross income. Which means that expenses are discounted. And the expenses of a city are directly tied to the population size. Your large cities pay for a larger percentage of your overall costs than your small cities. So while Carthage may have gone from -3000 to +5000, all of your other city's incomes decreased to compensate.

Bh

[Slon]

I don't completely understand that. By "net" you mean after reductions, so having it in the positive would be good and not bad because it means that the city is pulling its weight and more, as opposed to just slowing down the whole empire. I was under the impression that the "income" that is listed for a city is every expense that the city spends on itself, INCLUDING that city's garrison. You mean it has to do with the whole empire?

[Slon]

My popularity with the Senate just dropped to four! Is this because of the extermination? I was under the impression that they liked it when I kept my settlements in line. I haven't failed a single mission! Oh, and when does the game end (year?)? Do I have as long as I want to kill all the other factions?

[Bhruic]

I don't completely understand that. By "net" you mean after reductions, so having it in the positive would be good and not bad because it means that the city is pulling its weight and more, as opposed to just slowing down the whole empire. I was under the impression that the "income" that is listed for a city is every expense that the city spends on itself, INCLUDING that city's garrison. You mean it has to do with the whole empire?

Yes, your costs are divided up among all of your cities. But it is divided based on the population that each city has. As an example (not correct numbers, but just to give the idea), if you have two cities, one with 10000 population and one with 5000 population, the one with 10000 population is paying for 2/3rds of your costs, and the one with 5000 population is paying for 1/3rds of your costs. Now say the 10000 city revolts, and you retake and use 'exterminate'. The population of that city will now be 2500. So now that city is paying 1/3rd the total costs, and the other city is paying 2/3rds.

That means if you look at the income for the city, it will appear as if it went up. But that is only because it went from paying 2/3rds of the total to 1/3rd of the total.

Bh

[YAKOBU]

Hello again Slon

My popularity with the Senate just dropped to four! Is this because of the extermination? I was under the impression that they liked it when I kept my settlements in line. I haven't failed a single mission! Oh, and when does the game end (year?)? Do I have as long as I want to kill all the other factions?

The game is designed so that your popularity with the senate will eventually drop no matter what you do. This is so that the inevitable civil war happens.

If I remember right the game ends in 14BC but there is a way to get past that date.

Read some of the guides in the Guide section on gameplay and they may answer more of your questions.

[Slon]

So, what would you consider to be the right number of people at which I should do an extermination? I am talking about Huge Cities, of course, with all of the aqueducts constructed. Or perhaps I should look at the squalor? What I mean to say is, when does a city become unable to carry its own weight, wether it be due to constant plagues, low taxes or the requirement for excessive garrisons or games?

[Bhruic]

I always exterminate cities that have more than 6000 population. Over 6000 means that the city will have advanced enough to be able to retrain most of my 'normal' units (or advanced enough I can build the necessary buildings). And since you kill 3/4ths, you will have over 1500 people left minimum, which is enough to recruit new troops without having to worry too much about running out of people.

Under 6000, I always occupy. I want the city to hit the next level ASAP, so killing people would be counter-productive.

Bh

[Slon]

I always exterminate cities that have more than 6000 population. Over 6000 means that the city will have advanced enough to be able to retrain most of my 'normal' units (or advanced enough I can build the necessary buildings). And since you kill 3/4ths, you will have over 1500 people left minimum, which is enough to recruit new troops without having to worry too much about running out of people.

Under 6000, I always occupy. I want the city to hit the next level ASAP, so killing people would be counter-productive.

Bh

I'm talking about cities that I already control. You know, the huge cities that inevitably revolt because they become too big (over 30,000) with huge squalor and garrisons. What about those?

[Bhruic]

Well, I never have cities that revolt, so I couldn't say. If you can't stop them from revolting, and have to take them back, absolutely exterminate every time. You eliminate a lot of population, which is causing you trouble, and you also get a lot of money for it.

Personally, I prefer infecting my cities with the plague. Kills off a nice number of civilians, and is easy to manage (just get a ship infected and keep it in a "safe" location).

Bh

[Slon]

Well, I never have cities that revolt, so I couldn't say. If you can't stop them from revolting, and have to take them back, absolutely exterminate every time. You eliminate a lot of population, which is causing you trouble, and you also get a lot of money for it.

Personally, I prefer infecting my cities with the plague. Kills off a nice number of civilians, and is easy to manage (just get a ship infected and keep it in a "safe" location).

Bh

Plague seems kind of messy because it makes people unhappy, unlike extermination. Plus, you risk getting a family member infected. I also read that improving farm land is bad. Is this really true? I mean, my Huge cities generally follow this:

1. Growth, happiness and prosperity
2. Decline in public order
3. Near-revolt status (even with low taxes and huge garrison)
4. Extermination
5. Go to step 1

If I build farms, and my cities increase in population quickly, wouldn't I actually profit from it because my cities would naturally revolt more often and I would exterminate them more often, which would get me money more often (not to mention huge income from farming)?

[Bhruic]

Exterminating brings you short term money, but you lose money in the long term. Cities with more population earn more money than cities with low population.

It comes down to personal preferences. I find the system of having to exterminate my own cities silly and exploitive, so I never manufacture it. If it happens to occur, I'll deal with it, but I'm not going to aim for it. If I can keep my cities happy, I do.

That's why I don't do farm improvements. At some point, your city is going to hit a 'balance' point, where squalor and growth rate are balanced. As long as your city isn't at revolt stage by that point, it's fine, you don't have to worry about it any more.

But if you want to play the "expand, revolt, exterminate" style, then yes, building the farm improvements would make sense.

Bh

[Slon]

Exterminating brings you short term money, but you lose money in the long term. Cities with more population earn more money than cities with low population.

It comes down to personal preferences. I find the system of having to exterminate my own cities silly and exploitive, so I never manufacture it. If it happens to occur, I'll deal with it, but I'm not going to aim for it. If I can keep my cities happy, I do.

That's why I don't do farm improvements. At some point, your city is going to hit a 'balance' point, where squalor and growth rate are balanced. As long as your city isn't at revolt stage by that point, it's fine, you don't have to worry about it any more.

But if you want to play the "expand, revolt, exterminate" style, then yes, building the farm improvements would make sense.

Bh

Ah, I see. And building farm improvements will simply make your population grow beyond that "balance" point, at which it will hit 0 pop growth. This would cause revolts because squalor will outweight the good effects, and revolts will be inevitable. But, if there are no farms, then the pop growth will hit 0 at that balance point where there is no revolt, taxes are fairly high, and income is alright. Also, according to this, is it better to have a 40,000 pop city with -2000 income rather than a 16,000 pop city with +4000 income (obviously numbers aren't accurate)?

[Barbarossa1221]

Ya I never build farms past the first or second tier the population simply grows to fast.
Another tip is when your conquering towns if you havent already dont enslave them, its good early in the game for cash and growth but when your towns are burgeoning later dont do it simply exterminate for cash and quiet.
Another tip when you conquer an enemy town is to destroy their temples and replace them with your own that will eliminate some culture difference and make them more quiet as well.

[PseRamesses]

I occupy in 80%, enslave in 15% and exterminate in 5% of the cases.

*I occupy in most cases if a settlement can be kept with 2-4 units at atleast low taxes. This way I get the pop to work for me instantly. I only raise the temple and keep building. In time I can remove buildings that adds to unrest if they are of another culture.
*Enslave to redirect pop to settlements that are "waiting" to get to the next level. Just move all gov´s out of every settlement that you don´t want to receive the additional pop boom. Only the ones with a govenor will recive slaves.
*Exterminate cities over 12.000 inhabitants to gain cash-boost and avoiding rebellion, rioting in the near future.

Since some cities have a really fast growth rate like 10% even with basic farms there´s no way to keep up with the growth. A 12.000 pop city grows with 1.200 people/ turn on that rate. This means that you´ll reach the next level (24k) within 8-9 turns. Most buildings on theese levels takes +6 turns to build. This is mission impossible, the settlement is growing faster than you can keep up with. Since the game is a bit "unrealistic" in this way a "unrealistic" method to deal with this situation is in order; give it to your enemy! Move your troops outside the town, give it to your enemy, retake it the same turn and exterminate or enslave if you need pop elsewere.
Ex: in my current camp as Seleukeia (EB) most of my 50 settlements are pending between 12-24k pop. When getting above 24k I give it to an enemy and retake it, enslaving it, directing its slaves to ONE settlement. This settlemet is then given away and exterminated. Last night I did this, directing slaves to Alexandreia that grew from 18k to 142K!!! by giving away and enslaving cities that was outgrowing me. I gave Alex away, retook it, gained 100k, gave it away again... and again until it reached 10-15k. Clensing complete. Ridiculous yes but what can we do with a "growth-system" that isn´t realistic. It would have been easier if a settlemet couldn´t grow past 2k on basic farms and trade right!?

I never build farms. My first priority in any settlement is to atleast maintain order (95%) on low taxes with 2 garrison units. Then I build roads, ports, markets, mines etc and all their upgrades. Playing mods with ZoR-systems (zone of recruitment) requires a different approach however.

When it comes to army upkeep I divide my empire into "zones" which each need an army to protect it. Usually the distance an army can move within two turns since the AI rarely assaults on the first turn available.
Ex: Playing Carthage from the start I want to build three armies; Sicily, Iberia and eventually in Africa and I won´t need the 4th army until way into the game. Playing Rome I only need two: south and north. Iberians only need one etc etc. I never build stack upon stack upon... I replace existing units with better ones within each army group when available and I use cavs sparsly in the beginning due to heavy upkeep. This way you can use you cash to work for you instead of dragging you down with heavy army upkeep.