City Incomes

[g0ra]

I've never fully understood exactly what yields a cities overall income. I have several Towns/Large Towns fully built up and I'm waiting to expand, many of which have incomes of -800 (or something similar). Why?

Also something else I noticed is I had 3 cities, all of which had some 500-1000+ incomes. I decided to disband all of their current garrisons to replace them with better units. I did so and the income of each city fell to around -2000. I did this on another load and it completely ruined me as the majority of all my cities (which needed new garrisons) were in the red and I lost all of my money!

So, first of all, what exactly governs the income in my cities?

Secondly, how do I combat the new -2000 incomes on my other save, which came about from disbanding all of the garrison (which I then subsequently replaced)?

[Aaronto0]

disband unnecessary units form ur cities, army upkeep drains cities income




go to a settlement, click view details to bring up scroll, see where cursor is shows how much city contributes to army upkeep, like my capital contributes 1641 of its income, dont keep full stacks at cities, keep few units and archers so can fend off the enemy

[g0ra]

Point is mate in the majority of my negative income cities I only have a garrison of 2 peasants, maybe 3 and i'm still at a loss as to why i'm losing money.

As shown here:



Secondly, why does disbanding units lower the income? Something which has happened to me on several occasions.

As shown here after I had disbanded 5 or so peasant units and replaced them with Warband you can see the new income is below -2000:

[Plant]

Hahahaha, why would you compare Londonium with Narbo Martius after disbanding some units? No wonder you don't understand anything, since you don't seem to understand that two different cities would have different incomes. Silly you, comparing two different cities after disbanding some units, just so you can say "why does disbanding units lower the income? Something which has happened to me on several occasions" when in fact this does not occur at all, if you bother comparing the same city! Completely bizarre in that you have decided to compare apples and oranges.

Why don't you take a good look at your picture and read what you have highlighted yourself?

"Your armed forces' total running costs are divided up according to settlement size."

IE The larger the poulation size of the city, the larger the apparent running costs, as the total army upkeep is divided according to city population.

Disbanding some peasants, simply reduces the armed force's running costs, hence reduces the income loss of each and every city.

Here is how it works;

Each city has an income. That would be the top layer. Run your mouse along it to see what is giving you the profit, be it trade, taxes, farms or mines. The End.

Each city also has a totally useless army upkeep loss. That would be the bottom layer. It is totally useless. It is useless. Useless. Useless. Ignore it.

If you want to find out what is losing you money, goto the Faction Overview and take a look at Financial details and look at army upkeep.

[Xerrop]

Each city has an income. That would be the top layer. Run your mouse along it to see what is giving you the profit, be it trade, taxes, farms or mines. The End.

Each city also has a totally useless army upkeep loss. That would be the bottom layer. It is totally useless. It is useless. Useless. Useless. Ignore it.

That is the point. Army upkeep has nothing to do with the actual garrison. It is related to the population.
So in order to decide whether a city is productive or costs you money you have to look at the details and compare your income and costs. But exclude army upkeep.

This is where many players have misunderstandings cause they look only on the overall +/- income. Probably not the best solution from the developers. So don´t abandon a city only because it has e.g. -1200 income. Just look if this results only from army upkeep cause it is one of your biggest cities.

[Plant]

Plant, firstly I must thank you for your rather patronising and impotent insight into my post which I find both unhelpful and similary offensive. ... I appreciate you'll help me if you have any worthwhile advice.

Each city has an income. That would be the top layer. Run your mouse along it to see what is giving you the profit, be it trade, taxes, farms or mines. The End.

Each city also has a totally useless army upkeep loss. That would be the bottom layer. It is totally useless. It is useless. Useless. Useless. Ignore it.

That is the point.

It helps if you actually bother to read what I have written for you g0ra, rather than forcing someone else to rehighlight what I have written.

Ah right Xerrop, I get that now.

[g0ra]

Plant, firstly I must thank you for your rather patronising and impotent insight into my post which I find both unhelpful and similary offensive.

I wasn't comparing the two cities at all, if you re-read my post, properly this time. The first picture (of the city Londonium) was in response to Aaron saying I need to disband any unnecessary units. I used an image of this city (Londonium) to illustrate that this was not necessary as I have only 5 units of peasants in that city.

The second image (of Narbo Martius- which was completely unrelated to the first) was trying to show that I have had a heavy fall in income in a completely different City, which I explained came about after having disbanded some peasants and replacing them with cheap Warband units. I also labelled that a small cohort of cheapish Warbands were yielding quite a large expense for upkeep, with a red box.

I have to apologise if I am misunderstanding something but that is the whole reason of this thread, so I can iron out any misunderstandings or problems I have. I appreciate you'll help me if you have any worthwhile advice.

[g0ra]

Ah right Xerrop, I get that now. Like you said, I thought it was dependant on the garrison, but it's the population instead - my mistake.

I'm still at a loss though as to why disbanding around 20-30 units of Peasants and replacing thenm with Warbands ruined my finances completely on the other save.

Upon reflection I'm guessing it's simply because the Warbands cost more to upkeep than the Peasants and thus this increased the overall upkeep for my armies - therefore ultimately lowering the income of all my cities as the payment for this upkeep is shared out, as I've just realised.