ERE population control

[Prodigal]

Can't find the thread about ERE now, but I remeber someone saying they avoided markets to keep the pop. down.

I've started the ERE & am just about to get hit by Sam's Goths & Huns, lots of them all heading for Rome. Basically I don't stand a chance, I've got one decent army to field & most of them are under strength with no weap bonuses etc.

Now the reasons for this pitiful showing on my part & fairly evident with hindsight, I didn't invest in troops as I spent all my cash (a) trying to boost my economy, (b) wasting vast amounts of wonga on city upgrades to avoid revolts.

So has anyone any idea's about how I can avoid the pop problem, other than exterminating the cities populations after a revolt? While making ALOT of cash?

Ports to max upgrade, trader, then road upgrades to highway?

[dismal]

Now the reasons for this pitiful showing on my part & fairly evident with hindsight, I didn't invest in troops as I spent all my cash (a) trying to boost my economy, (b) wasting vast amounts of wonga on city upgrades to avoid revolts.

I would build the markets. Keep the economy humming, and use the money to keep at least 2-3 of your cities pumping out high quality troops.

You should be able to control your cities at high pop levels if you have no culture or religious penalties.

[Darius]

So long as you keep a nice beefy stack of your best units, along with a good deal of Eastern Archers astride the bridge that leads into the province of Thracia you should be able to hold back the tide of any hordes that are foolish enough to attempt a crossing. Be sure to hire a few of the horse archers in the area as well as they can come in handy.

Make sure to form a nice semi circle a decent distance from the bridge rather than making a huge clump around the very end of the bridge. The steppe hordes are VERY fond of their missile weapons, ESPECIALLY their horsearchers, but the Vandals and Goths BOTH have some long ranged archers that you want to stay well away from so that you can keep your casualty rate at an acceptable level. Seeing as the majority of any cavalry they bring will be able to ford, you'll want to make sure your semi-circle also faces a good deal of the water surrounding the bridge itself. Set your legions to defensive mode and fire at will and keep gaps to an absolute minimum. Place your Eastern Archers on the flanks so that they can fire on any who attempt to ford the river or cross the bridge but far enough away so that any archers on the opposite banks are unable to fire upon them. Keep your general right behind your legions and a unit of the heaviest available cavalry on each flank. Once they start contacting your legionary line you should see that the sheer amount of missile fire going around will even make some enemy units route before they make it to your side, but the majority will continue charging. Should they last long enough to start pushing, wrap your semi-circle around them so that they are surrounded, and charge your cavalry in around from the flanks into their rear.

The only time I have found it worth straying from that tactic is when facing the huns, you dont have to stay so far away as they lack any long range foot archers and so you are able to actually position both you lines closer and tighter and your archers close enough to rake the enemy horsearchers with missile fire without fear of return fire. In fact you'll even see a great deal of the enemy will lay dead before they reach the water, and many more will be drifting downstream before the fighting even begins.

[PseRamesses]

So has anyone any idea's about how I can avoid the pop problem, other than exterminating the cities populations after a revolt? While making ALOT of cash?

*First, on your northern front you only have two bridges to protect and you can actualy do it with 6 inf, 4 arch and 2 cav. Counting Dalmatia/ Illyria (WRE) you have two more to guard. On your second front in the east you have 3 crossings plus the ones in Arabia (2 I think).
*Secondly, there´s no way to keep up with population growth. Either let them rebel and retake it and massacre the inhabitants. This will generate a huge amount of cash, ex. Alexandria 40k just 10 years into the game. I´ve modded my game and cut all base farm levels in half to get a better game, works great, and no more uncontrollable growth rates.
*Thirdly, don´t let your good economy fool you. With ERE you can actually build yourself into debt. Focus on your fronts. This means basically 2-3 cities on each front that will supply the main bulk of your armies. I choose Thess/ Const and Anti/ Sidon/ Jerus (also supported Libyan front). In the end you´ll need some 8-10 stacks to defend and continue offensive campaigns. In the rest of the settlements just build the rest of the non-military buildings.

Do you play offense or defence?
1. Defence. Easy = guard bridges and strike out where the enemy is weak or you´re ready.
2. Offence. Usually I guard my northern front since there are no provinces there worth taking and focus on removing sassanids from the game. This puts your new border at the Caucasus maountain range in the north west with just 3 crossings to defend and in the Libyan/ Tripolitanian straits.
When you´ve troops to spare move on WRE at Salona and Lepcis Magna thus confronting them with a pincer manouvre and two fronts.

The power of peasants:
How unrealistic it might seem, but at a 14d. upkeep cost for a 120-unit, use them as garrison troops. I constantly build enough to keep my taxes at maximum and when your city dips below 95% with 19 garrioned peasants it´s time to pull them out and do some ethnic cleansing - just auto-calc. When you retakethe city disband all that´s left to keep tax at max. Good luck!

[HoreTore]

*Secondly, there´s no way to keep up with population growth. Either let them rebel and retake it and massacre the inhabitants. This will generate a huge amount of cash, ex. Alexandria 40k just 10 years into the game. I´ve modded my game and cut all base farm levels in half to get a better game, works great, and no more uncontrollable growth rates.

Just finished an ERE campaign, NEVER had a problem with big pops. Don't know why people keep obsessing over them...the 40k pop in alexandria is really no problem with a good governor(the one starting there), and a full garrison...

[Prodigal]

Thanks to all for the pointers, I've been considering the bridge scenario, but figured the tight formation at the bridgehead casualties was a decent pay off for keeping their attack numbers limited; while being able to attack them as the emerge from the water before they can form up. I'll try the semi circle strat. later :)

I'm playing the red Romans, but I think some of the comments relate to the purples, who I think are the WRE aren't they? Anyway the thing is, I wanted to try & avoid the rebel, exterminate scenario, as I'm trying to stick to some ironman rules. But it gets to the point where I've 2-3 cities expanding in one year, & this can use up to 2-3 years worth of cash...

[Prodigal]

I'm playing the red Romans, but I think some of the comments relate to the purples, who I think are the WRE aren't they?

Dumb, dumb, dumb...West's left right

[PseRamesses]

Just finished an ERE campaign, NEVER had a problem with big pops. Don't know why people keep obsessing over them...the 40k pop in alexandria is really no problem with a good governor(the one starting there), and a full garrison...

Hmm... I can see I was not very clear on this point. What I meant was that the amount of buildings you can build on each level, 2k 6k etc, can´t all be built before the settlement grows into the next level. This is what I mean with outgrowing. I agree that you, in most cases, can manage with good govenors and some decent garrisoning. I rather have a 40k pop howering on 95% loyalty at max tax with 19 peasants garrisoning it than pull them out and let it rebel. It makes a ton of cash - especially Alex, amongst others.

All of theese problems; build times, training times, costs, upkeeps, growth etc would be more manageble if you could have everything instantly buildable,
then the size of your treasury would be the only and real limit.
Anyway this is the main reason why I edited the base farm levels and cut them in half for all settlements.

Another note on growth. Hang in there and eventually the city will reach its maximum level and will not grow anymore. Also, by increasing taxes and thus decreasing loyalty, still with the gov and garrison inside, you can cause slight unrest which easily can cut down your pop with some 2-4k people for a big city. Varning! Your gov might actually get killed in the process though it has never happened to me yet.

@HoreTore,
Love your nick!

[Dorkus]

IMO, markets are a TERRIBLE idea. At least if your goal is "game success" rather than "game experience." They add trivial amounts to trade income. Check the settlement details screen to see for yourself.

At higher levels, it literally takes dozens of rounds just to earn back the expense on the building. At lower levels, it takes 10-15, even in high trade provinces. Moreover, the pop bonus the trade buildings give only hurts your order/squalor, and reduces the effectiveness of a garrison.

Build ports for income, and that's it. (perhaps with the exception of provinces with two mines, then build a first level mine too) The best way to make money in this game is to pillage, and if you're spending money on markets, public health builings, etc you won't have money to train troops and build blacksmiths, temples with exp bonuses, unit buildings, and of course the units themselves.

[dismal]

IMO, markets are a TERRIBLE idea. At least if your goal is "game success" rather than "game experience." They add trivial amounts to trade income. Check the settlement details screen to see for yourself.

I build markets religiously, and always win on VH, so they can't be that bad.

The more income you get from your provinces, the bigger the army you can support.

A ten turn payback on an investment is actually quite good. Certainly better than leaving the money lying around or building junk troops. Once I have my provinces upgraded enough, I can support a constant production of high quality troops and constant loading of my building queues. Eventually, I always hit a point where my economy is no longer an issue. I can buy whatever I want. I probably can also make high quality troops in 5 or 6 cities. At that point, you go win the game.

Overpopulation simply is not that big a problem for me except in a few cities since v1.2. Moreover, in most cities for most of the game, population growth is a good thing. If you are dealing with persistent population problems throughout your empire, I think the answer is probably focusing on converting your economic muscle to military advantage (aka winning the game) faster.

[player1]

IMO, markets are a TERRIBLE idea. At least if your goal is "game success" rather than "game experience." They add trivial amounts to trade income. Check the settlement details screen to see for yourself.

At higher levels, it literally takes dozens of rounds just to earn back the expense on the building. At lower levels, it takes 10-15, even in high trade provinces. Moreover, the pop bonus the trade buildings give only hurts your order/squalor, and reduces the effectiveness of a garrison.

Build ports for income, and that's it. (perhaps with the exception of provinces with two mines, then build a first level mine too) The best way to make money in this game is to pillage, and if you're spending money on markets, public health builings, etc you won't have money to train troops and build blacksmiths, temples with exp bonuses, unit buildings, and of course the units themselves.

Well, markets are useful in settlements that already have good naval trade. Then combined with ports/docks they can add a lot of income.

On the other hand, in inland cities where trade is poor I usually build just trader and sometimes a market, since anything else will give trivial income. Inland cities earn more money by building some farm upgrade then markets.