Money Problems

[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.