Negative Income -.-)

[xXEsotericXx]

WHy is it each time i take a city/town the income is always redicul low -5k -1k + rebel, when i take some AI town that said to be 10k income i take it ove and its 8k- , someone learn me the ways to be a walltreet broker in RS2, i m good general but with income im always screwd...

[Marcus Licinius]

what did you do to the citizens? when you took the cities. do not do the same thing for all of the towns, ie my latest rome game i enslaved all my cities, big mistake, now i have only just got enough coming it to keep me out of the negative, plus ive lost sicilly, not good at all

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

WHy is it each time i take a city/town the income is always redicul low -5k -1k + rebel, when i take some AI town that said to be 10k income i take it ove and its 8k- , someone learn me the ways to be a walltreet broker in RS2, i m good geenral but with income im always screwd...

The city income on the map is not the actualy city income, its the income of the city minus your total deficits divided by number of your cities. So every city taken is an investment as long as you don't over-garrison it, exterminating each city you take is a good practice.

True income is found in the city detailed information tab.

[xXEsotericXx]

The city income on the map is not the actualy city income, its the income of the city minus your total deficits divided by number of your cities. So every city taken is an investment as long as you don't over-garrison it, exterminating each city you take is a good practice.

True income is found in the city detailed information tab.

Exterminating is pretty good ye, when i do that the citicens keep quiet and the income is decent and it grows or the negative income is lower then 1k if i do that , enslaving i only do when the city i took before i confirmed it, saw they where orange or green and save to eslave it, when its red face i exterminate them, but i guess ill do that more, but i hate how i create markets and put alot of income temple's etc still the income is low i just get anyoied by that.

what did you do to the citizens? when you took the cities. do not do the same thing for all of the towns, ie my latest rome game i enslaved all my cities, big mistake, now i have only just got enough coming it to keep me out of the negative, plus ive lost sicilly, not good at all

Yea enslaving them all like what Rome did in Real life is very bad i dont know why players copy the real rome stuff lie it was a good way to rule it was very bad, if 1 gual town revolts the other will revolt too, like a virus spreading over the map, i rather exterminate i guess, mayeb i only enslave small populance who have little men power, and il ltry not to garrison the towns so much , i guess they are corruting the payments and the merchanets or something.

Still i wish that income buildings realy did something....

[Marcus Licinius]

even that has its problems, huge money for a small length of time then huge defacits, not fun

[|Sith|Galvanized Iron]

even that has its problems, huge money for a small length of time then huge defacits, not fun

Build in times of prosperity you know, plus exterminating is the most natural and responsible choice

[Drtad]

Personally I like to enslave the populace so even if those border cities are threatened it doesn't really matter because all the population is in my core provinces!

[Gaius Gersius Maxentius]

Don't always exterminate them! Enslave also some of them because that will prove advantageous: They don't revolt easily if you do that and the income is usually over 0

[chris10]

When playing Rome I always exterminate cause of the culture penalty. It easier to maintain public order and grow your own popultaion over time as the culture penalty is lowered on the long run which will result in nice big citys without to much unrest

[Tesla]

i thought the culture penalty only applied to buildings ?

[chris10]

i thought the culture penalty only applied to buildings ?

aaaahhh...ehmmmm...well..the culture penalty is applied thru the foreign buildings in the settlement, yes.. and the penalty affects public order in a negative way and that is what is causing the high unrest values when only occupying a high populated city without exterminating...it near to impossible to maintain public order...enslave lets sill to much pop in the city when it was a huge city...
therefore...exterminate pop/destroy all foreign buildings and build the settlement from scratch results in lowered penalty (which decreases over time but never down to 0) while population grows...in that way the player can create high pop foreign settlements with relative good public order...

[a-woowie.doowie]

Another reason for the seemingly low income in newly captured settlements could be due to this;

1: The settlement you conquer is highly populated, if so then the 'army cost' of your empire will be concentraded on it. Army cost and wages seem to concentrate to high-populated cities, this is why a 'town'-class settlement can seemingly provide more income than a 'huge city'-class settlement.

2: It could also be due to the fact that the location of the settlement isn't as good for you as it were for the AI. What I mean is following example; If you're Iberia and you control your areas, and wish to expand - say to take 'Aleria' or 'Caralis' from the(in this example) romans. The romans have a whole coast of cities able to have trade routes to these settlements, while you(if you only have Iberia/Spain) only have trade routes to 'Palma'. As far as I know, the trade routes aren't able to be long enough to reach Caralis/Aleria from Iberia straight away.

Summary:
1: Concentrated army cost.
2: Location issues.

These are just two examples I came up with right now - they don't necessarially have to be true, but I'm a pretty firm believe that these could affect the income.

By the way; if you exterminate your population, the income of the city will seem to be increased - but actually it only reduces taxes and since you reduce your population, the army cost will not be focused on that settlement. I'm not saying you shouldn't exterminate, it's a good sollution in some scenarios - but the numbers of the city could be called "false".

[chris10]

By the way; if you exterminate your population, the income of the city will seem to be increased - but actually it only reduces taxes and since you reduce your population, the army cost will not be focused on that settlement.

well...One could get that impression but its not really because of that ...the reason why the tax income strangely raises after extermination even though there is a lot less population than before is that you get rid of the 2 enormous problems which are plaguing the fresh occupied huge city: Squalor and Culture Penalty...Squalor alone can make your life difficult...as well there is a "settlement been captured" penalty which is huge during the first turns and decreases then...adding the culture penalty provided thru foreign buildings you pretty much end up with no tax collection at all...by exterminating population you reduce all the multipliers for unrest,tax penaltys etc as you get rid of the population...by destroying all possible foreing buildings and reploacing/upgrading them with your own you reduce culture penalty...btw letting foreign temples exist will block your own temple trees...temples and barracks have to be destroyed in any case other buildings might be upgraded ...

general rule...destory and exterminate on capturing settlements to be able to build an empire which can be ruled without constant unrest problems

[Dekker]

well...One could get that impression but its not really because of that ...the reason why the tax income strangely raises after extermination even though there is a lot less population than before is that you get rid of the 2 enormous problems which are plaguing the fresh occupied huge city: Squalor and Culture Penalty...Squalor alone can make your life difficult...as well there is a "settlement been captured" penalty which is huge during the first turns and decreases then...adding the culture penalty provided thru foreign buildings you pretty much end up with no tax collection at all...by exterminating population you reduce all the multipliers for unrest,tax penaltys etc as you get rid of the population...by destroying all possible foreing buildings and reploacing/upgrading them with your own you reduce culture penalty...btw letting foreign temples exist will block your own temple trees...temples and barracks have to be destroyed in any case other buildings might be upgraded ...

general rule...destroy and exterminate on capturing settlements to be able to build an empire which can be ruled without constant unrest problems

I think you're confused: squalor and culture penalty affect happiness, not tax income. City income seems to rise when you exterminate a city because your army's upkeep is divided per citizen- cities that have more citizens provide more of the upkeep, and so when you kill everyone in one city, their share of army upkeep largely gets redirected to more populous cities. And the city is not in fact displaying income but rather profits. If you check your largest city before and after you exterminate elsewhere, you'll see its profits fall, as it takes up the slack in supporting the army.

Also- a lot of the culture penalty is located in the indestructible culture buildings, to prevent you removing all the penalty by destroying buildings (which the AI never does). The most important thing to destroy is the enemy buildings that provide negative happiness bonuses- some of the barbarian recruitment buildings do this, for instance.

Apart from those, I never really destroy any buildings in a new settlement, as RS seems largely to let you build your infrastructure in parallel to the pre-existing culture.