Two Questions

[KampfHase]

Hi there,

I have two questions I'd like to ask:

1.) When it comes to the upkeeping costs of you army: The bigger the city the more it has to bare of the overall costs for your army upkeep? Or is every city to be good for the units trained in it?
My point is that I don't understand why some of my cities keep having a negative income because of the amount of money that is substracted for the upkeep of my army. And if I start training units in those very cities the balance moves toward positive. So how does this system work?

2.) When some ai-faction attacks a city of mine they always siege and never start an actual attack so that I would have to defend my city. They always simply wait until the siege is over. I'd be doomed if I wouldn't go out and end the siege. I mean, that's just boring. What am I building epic walls for if nobody comes/dares to attack?

Hpe my questions are cear to you.


Thanx in advance.

Keep conquering,

KampfHase

[Ludens]

1.) When it comes to the upkeeping costs of you army: The bigger the city the more it has to bare of the overall costs for your army upkeep? Or is every city to be good for the units trained in it?
My point is that I don't understand why some of my cities keep having a negative income because of the amount of money that is substracted for the upkeep of my army. And if I start training units in those very cities the balance moves toward positive. So how does this system work?

You first explanation is the correct one. Unit upkeep costs are divided per head, so the more population a city has, the more it has to pay. When you recruit a unit, population decreases, and the city has to pay less.

2.) When some ai-faction attacks a city of mine they always siege and never start an actual attack so that I would have to defend my city. They always simply wait until the siege is over. I'd be doomed if I wouldn't go out and end the siege. I mean, that's just boring. What am I building epic walls for if nobody comes/dares to attack?

Perhaps this is just as well, since the A.I. is not able to storm a city without suffering huge losses. It will therefor only attack when it has overwhelming superiority. Despite this, money spent on epic walls is not wasted, IIRC they increase the length of time a city needs to be sieged.

(On the other hand, large and epic stone walls give the besieger better siege towers equipped with deadly ballista's, so you may want to stick to stone walls. Or retreat to the town square and wait for the attackers to arrive piecemeal.)

[doc_bean]

Hi there,

I have two questions I'd like to ask:

1.) When it comes to the upkeeping costs of you army: The bigger the city the more it has to bare of the overall costs for your army upkeep? Or is every city to be good for the units trained in it?
My point is that I don't understand why some of my cities keep having a negative income because of the amount of money that is substracted for the upkeep of my army. And if I start training units in those very cities the balance moves toward positive. So how does this system work?

IIRC the upkeep cost is simply divided amongst all your cities, since income is also added up it doesn't really matter does it ?
There are other reasons why a city might lose money that might be countered by having alarger military presence there.
Do you use auto governors ?

2.) When some ai-faction attacks a city of mine they always siege and never start an actual attack so that I would have to defend my city. They always simply wait until the siege is over. I'd be doomed if I wouldn't go out and end the siege. I mean, that's just boring. What am I building epic walls for if nobody comes/dares to attack?

Assaulting a city is very costly for the attacker in terms of soldiers. Especially if you have epic walls it wouldn't be wise for the AI to attack. Big walls are meant to deter opponents from attacking (at least historically) as much as they are meant for defense.
Starving out an opponent was a pretty common tactic of the time, especially if they were in no hurry (didn't need the troops elsewhere) or if they didn't need to fear a relief army.

[KampfHase]

Hi there,

thanx for the really quick answers. This forum is worth its efforts.

@doc_bean: Do you use auto-governors?
Well, if a general or family member is at hand I prefer my cities to be ruled by one of them. Neverthelss I'm nearly all the time short of generals so there's no way for all of my cities to be ruled by a governor, even though I take any chance of getting new generals... even by bribing rebel family members.

Concerning Siege:
Well, I do understand that it is more wise to starve the garrison of a besieged city to death than attacking epic walls. I use this tactic nearly all the time.
All I wanted to say is that it is very boring sometimes.
I mean, even I like to attack a city even if I wouldn't need to just for the fun of it. A.I. just isn't the adventurous type, I guess.

So would you recommend to train units only in cities with negative income and large population? I do so in general. But it's not always the best tactical choice to make.

Besides, what's a trade contract with e.g. egypt good for when I'm e.g. playing germania? I mean, I'll not likely get in touch with egypt economics and traders, neither through harbors nor through trade posts.
Trade contracts are only working between factions who have the same boarders or have some connection via harbors, doesn't it.

[x-dANGEr]

Their is a box before you start any campaign, that allows you to govern your cities even if they have no governor.

Yes, I think a trade rights pact Germany-Egypt wouldn't be as useful as one between Scipii and Greek Cities.

[Garvanko]

I always let the AI control my taxation - it always keeps it as high as possible in all settlements. I handle construction and unit training.

[doc_bean]

I always let the AI control my taxation - it always keeps it as high as possible in all settlements. I handle construction and unit training.

Not true, the default is often growth build policy.. Unlees there's an auto-tax option that I'm not aware of ?

Their is a box before you start any campaign, that allows you to govern your cities even if they have no governor.

Is it different from the boxes in the construction menu ? You can always turn them of or on afaik.

So would you recommend to train units only in cities with negative income and large population? I do so in general. But it's not always the best tactical choice to make.

No matter where you train them someone is always going to have to pay for them, this doesn't change no matter where you train them.
Train them where you get the best units: better barracks or stables, temples that give bonuses, armourers, etc. that way you get better units for your money.
Sometimes it's a good idea to train units in big cities to keep the population growth under control, it reduces effects like squalor (which can be real trouble).

[Avicenna]

If there's no problem with overcrowding and you have decent health in major buildings, you should keep upgrading their economies to take advantage of their population (if you had a maxed out settlement with every advanced building but only 400 pop, it will earn less than a simple province with level 2 government and buildings but 12000 pop. Higher pop earns more with buildings) However, keep an eye on them to make sure they don't get the plague, losing soldiers, population and therefore money. You can govern all your cities if you choose to 'Manage all Settlements'.

[KampfHase]

Hi there,

@ tiberius Quote: "(if you had a maxed out settlement with every advanced building but only 400 pop, it will earn less than a simple province with level 2 government and buildings but 12000 pop. Higher pop earns more with buildings)"

But the population growth depends in a certain degree on how advanced the city is, doesn't it?
Or is it just that your citizens are the more happy the more edvanced the city is? And that the population will grow whatever the advancement?

Man, I kinda get the idea of being some newbie asking faqs. Anyway these are questions that occured to me during play. And the manual doesn't explain it very well.

However, thanx all, your advices helped a lot, already, to get things clear in my head.

Keep battleing

[Ciaran]

To be able to manage all cities, including the ones without a governor it is necessary to check the box "manage all cities" in the campaign starting window. Otherwise you can only manage those cities that have a governor, and the AI will handle the rest. Means, if you allow it to build buildings and units chances are you´re going to waste huge amounts of cash for little return, if you don´t allow it to build automatically you´ll have to get a governor into the city each time you want to issue a build order. So if increased micromanagement is what you´re after...

Regarding sieges, I really don´t recall fighting a defensive battle in cities with stone walls or above. Either the AI starves the garrison out, or, in the rare event that they indeed attack it is because I only have some peasants in the city - and watching them getting slaughtered without being able to do anything about it isn´t exactly my idea of fun. Besides, while a siege lasts the defending army constantly looses men from its units, but not the attackig one (it is different in MTW, there both armies loose men, and the endurance of a siege is dependand on the number of soldiers withing the castle).

[Avicenna]

Large cities that are overpopulated slow down. But you're right, generally the upgraded cities with good governors, upgraded farms, health buildings and markets will grow a lot.