Why do I keep ruining cities' economies?

[PowerPenguin]

I'm not sure that's the best grammar in the title but we'll have to live with it.

Anyway, I have concluded I am a rubbish manager of settlements. I can somehow make a settlement go from earning 1500 a turn to making a loss(!) over a period of say 20/25 turns.

The only problem is, I don't know why this keeps happening!!! I'm only playing BI at the mo, as I've lent out my copy of the main game, and Alexander won't run, but I can't remember ever going into the red in RTW!

The problem being is it ruins all my games eventually. I'm currently playing as the Saxons and have taken a few of the Burgundii cities (the ones I managed to ruin economically) and I'm also at war with the Celts, who were allies but then betrayed me. The problem I'm having is the Celts keep attacking, and because I'm in 25,000 worth of debt I can't train or retrain any units!!! So eventually I'm going to lose some cities.

Any ideas what I should do?

[C-Rob]

IT shouldn't be that hard to maintain a settle ment unless you're roman in that game, but whatever.

Any diplomats? I'd send them out and see if I coudl get some cash from other peoples.

Or just push ~ and put in the cheat for an extra $40000!

Or if it's possible, get one of your cities to rebel, then take it back, razing it, you'll make some money.

[Pontifex Maximus]

Keep military expenditures under control and don't be in a war with everyone at once. Keeping the peace for trade purposes will greatly bolster trade income. Keep your army at the front, and leave small garrisons.

Also, take cities that are key trade points, like those with ports or those at crossroads. Always tax heavily in developed cities.

Finally, don't rush into upgrading military buildings right away. Bide your time and build some roads and markets.

[Kratos]

A useful idea to keep building costs down is to let each city focus on different things. One is for infantry training / retraining, one for missile troops, on for cavalry and so on.

Of course every city should be upgraded with economic buildings but the priority should always be to build were you make the most profit from it. For instance, building a trader in an inland province somewhere in Germany doesn't produce nearly as much income as building one in Constantinople (huge trade profit). Eventually you will want to build one in Germany too and this should happen BEFORE you start upgrading your military too far.

[asn]

You probably built up your army in those 20 turns then, because otherwise I've got no idea at all how your cities could be losing profits if your army hadn't grown. Double click your settlements and open the advanced info, then you should see if it is your upkeep that is handicapping you

[Xavier Dragnesi]

Also, when you take an enemy settlement, take care to exterminate the population. It usually makes greater public order, and lets the city give out a greater income.

[Scutarii]

Extermination doesn't give a city greater income, it makes the city pay less of your military upkeep (and therefore giving you the illusion it is making more money, but the upkeep it is now not paying is thrust onto other cities).

[Doctor]

Extermination doesn't give a city greater income, it makes the city pay less of your military upkeep (and therefore giving you the illusion it is making more money, but the upkeep it is now not paying is thrust onto other cities).

Yeah this is very true don't be afraid of cities in the negatives (unless you have a lot of them, then it is a problem). It just means they have larger populations compared to the rest of the cities.

[General Nuisance esq]

Yeah this is very true don't be afraid of cities in the negatives (unless you have a lot of them, then it is a problem). It just means they have larger populations compared to the rest of the cities.

100% correct, extermination is very much the last resort
for cities such as Carthage and Syracuse I would suggest enslave populace as a far better alternative as it reduces dangerously high levels of populace (for rebellions) and gives your safer towns/cities with governors a population boost which will speed their growth to city and better buildings

[Roman_Wolf]

I'm not sure that's the best grammar in the title but we'll have to live with it.

Anyway, I have concluded I am a rubbish manager of settlements. I can somehow make a settlement go from earning 1500 a turn to making a loss(!) over a period of say 20/25 turns.

i don't think you're ruining the city's economy. but rather you have more armies than the original owner of the city. so once you've captured it, the city had to pay more military upkeep than it used to.

[Claudius Gothicus]

As It's been already stated keep your military expenses under control, sometimes is better to have a small strategic army for making one campaing finishing It and continue to the next one, do not fight a lot of worthless wars that your economy is not going to be able to sustain.

[nickod777]

Just stop building thats what i did

[Scutarii]

Thats not very sound advice.....

[Zuwxiv]

Cities never lose money.

The number just shows what the computer thinks the effect of the city is - but all cities make money. You can look at the detailed information to see exactly how much money it is making and how.

It's really just an arbitrary allotment of your expenditure (most of it military upkeep) that gets the number, and generally it's worth ignoring. If you're actually losing money every turn, then disband some military - or, attack and let some die. Try to keep cheap units for public order in a city (Town guard, etc - not heavy infantry or cavalry) so you pay less.

I don't know how RTW gets that number, but I've had some of my most profitable cities (the ones making the most money) end up having the smallest numbers. I think it disproportionately applies the cost of your soldiers to larger cities.

[Ludens]

Cities never lose money.
(...)
I don't know how RTW gets that number, but I've had some of my most profitable cities (the ones making the most money) end up having the smallest numbers. I think it disproportionately applies the cost of your soldiers to larger cities.

He is absolutely right. Don't pay attention to the income displayed on the campaign map: it shows income minus expenditure on army, agent and family member upkeep. The latter has little relation to the cities: it's divided over them based on population. However, since the population required for every city upgrade doubles, highly developed cities have to pay 8 (=2x2x2) or 16 (=2x2x2x2) times as much as a small town; hence it looks like they are costing money even while they are actually the workhorses of your economy.

[imak]

I usually go by If the town i just caputured is green i occupy
Yellow = enslave
Then if the face is red i exterminate

[NobleNick]

Cities never lose money.

Zuwxiv and Ludens are right on.

Here is a snippet from an old post I dug up on the subject:

...But first, a short lesson in economics is in order. I ask you to take this on faith for now, but hopefully you will understand in a few paragraphs: Syracuse is NOT, I repeat NOT, losing you money. NO town/city, except possibly the very, VERY **SMALL** ones are losing you money; and then only under extenuating circumstances.

What does that -3200 mean? It does NOT mean that Syracuse is costing you 3200 denarii per turn. And it does NOT mean that Syracuse's income is -3200 per turn. What it means is that what Syracuse makes in income MINUS ITS SHARE OF ARMY UPKEEP (based on its population) is -3200.

Here is a concocted, but realistic example -- Let's say you have 3 cities:
City A (population = 31000, city income before army upkeep = 3000)
City B (population = 7000, city income before army upkeep = 1200)
City C (population = 2000, city income before army upkeep = 400)

Let's also say that you have a standing army (including Peasants in town to keep order) which costs 4000 per turn in upkeep. The cost of army upkeep is prorated among the cities, based on population. In this very easy example, we have to spread out 4000 cost over 40000 population, or 1 denari per 10 population. So the army upkeep tab is 3100 for City A, 700 for city B and 200 for City C. So, what do you see as "income" for the city?

City A = (3000 - 3100) = -100
City B = (1200 - 700) = 500
City C = (400 - 200) = 200
TOTAL NET INCOME AFTER ARMY UPKEEP = 600

So the city which makes the MOST money for you looks like it is making the least!

So, back to our discussion of Syracuse: It is a CASH COW: It is making BIG bucks for you. Do not leave it! If you want to verify this, save your game to a scratch game and then leave Syracuse. Note the "income" numbers for all your other cities (this will be most dramatic if you have only a few cities). Then take another look at those numbers just after you lose Syracuse (or any town). What happens when you lose that money-sucking town of Syracuse? The "income" in ALL your other cities goes DOWN. Why? Because you not only lost the POSITIVE real income which Syracuse produced, but you lost Syracuse's population. Now the army upkeep is re-prorated across your (now much smaller) population, and all the other cities must bear a larger share of the army upkeep. If you add up all the decrease in "income" in all the other towns, you will find out ABOUT how much Syracuse was adding to the economy.

Let's try that in our example: City A is "losing money;" so let's get rid of it by sailing away and letting it rebel. Now the army upkeep of 4000 is split between two cities (ROUGHLY 3100 and 900) and the economy looks like this:

City A = LOST to rebels
City B = (1200 - 3100) = -1900
City C = (400 - 900) = -500
TOTAL NET INCOME AFTER ARMY UPKEEP = -2400

Total net income after army upkeep has dropped from +600 per turn to -2400 per turn. Ouch! This faction is in deep doo-dah. And City B, EVEN THOUGH ITS REAL INCOME HAS **NOT** CHANGED AT ALL, now looks like it is losing 1900 denarii a turn. Get rid of City B, too, since that it is "losing" money? Hopefully you now know enough to soundly reject that decision; and you really wish you could have that "loser" City A back.

An important byproduct of this discussion is how to make your city incomes look better: Get more cities. This splits the army upkeep over a larger population, so each city has less of a burden. But the much more important point is that without lots of analysis and/or experience, the income number that shows up by each city name is virtually MEANINGLESS. Make no decisions based on this number unless you absolutely know what it means. I contend that virtually everyone does NOT know what it means. Even I do not know what it means most of the time.

I look to the end of turn expenditure report for my economy news: Subtract last turn's cash from this turn's cash. (Often this will give you a negative number.) Add new construction and new recruit costs to this number. The total shows how much over "operating costs" your economy generated last turn. Hopefully it is a positive number. If not, quickly go out and capture a city and/or LOSE a big battle (drives your army upkeep down)...