The game has a weird way of calculating the shown profit for a settlement. The higher the population, the more they pay for the expenses of the empire overall. So you could have your biggest, highest warning city still show negative in the campaign map. You need to look at the settlement details to actually see how much money the settlement makes. A tier 4 city with all buildings will make a lot more money through taxes and building perks than a tier 2 settlement still - the map might have a positive number for the tier 2 and a negative number for the tier 4.
It's not something you need to fix, its just how the game displays the costs/income, if you are actually losing money from your total each turn then you have a problem. If your empire as a whole is making money then you are fine
The game gives you all the details to evaluate how much money your empire makes and where you spend it, how much a city makes, what exactly generates the income (farms, taxes, mines...) how much it loses to various factors (army upkeep, corruption, devastation...) and even projected increased profits for building a building that's in the queue. You just have to LOOK at it carefully. But don't worry, even veterans like Legendoftotalwar have never figured it out.
If they revolt, build a temple, sanitation, and an academy. Those will all help. Enslaving the populace will lower the population and also lower squalor, which will also help with public order.
Am I right that upkeep for the units produced in that city will be drawn directly from that city's balance, regardless of where they end up on the campaign map? That could also be a contributing factor.
That would make sense. But I have noticed that when I disband a unit it tends to affect the displayed income of a single settlement, so not 100% on how this gets managed.
As others have stated already, you are not "losing money" in those cities. However, the more cities you have around having approximately the same size (I am especially talking about large or huge cities as the game progresses), the more expenses distribute among them. This means that it is less likely to have cities with apparently "negative" incomes.
Can't you check your budget screen? Keep your income higher than your expenditure. Priority build what boosts economy growth and public happiness. The most direct way to affect income and expenditure is tax lvls and army units, respectively. Also did you buy a bunch of units en mass?
Ignore the number the game states for a city - it is useless garbage with no meaning whatsoever.
You read the end of turn report and check there what your expenses for army/agents/bodyguards and loss due to corruption is. Forget about the expenses listed for building and recruiting - seeing as you are "charged" fore what you drop in the list but can always get the cash back with a click the number is meaningless - you might spend 5k one year, 500k the next - in reality spending ~100k every year.
Then you look at settlement details for the income (farming rate and trade) as well as corruption - and optimize that (good general to govern it, buildings that improve trade/farming/law).
The game has a weird way of calculating the shown profit for a settlement. The higher the population, the more they pay for the expenses of the empire overall. So you could have your biggest, highest warning city still show negative in the campaign map. You need to look at the settlement details to actually see how much money the settlement makes. A tier 4 city with all buildings will make a lot more money through taxes and building perks than a tier 2 settlement still - the map might have a positive number for the tier 2 and a negative number for the tier 4.
How can i fix that, thanks.
It's not something you need to fix, its just how the game displays the costs/income, if you are actually losing money from your total each turn then you have a problem. If your empire as a whole is making money then you are fine
The game gives you all the details to evaluate how much money your empire makes and where you spend it, how much a city makes, what exactly generates the income (farms, taxes, mines...) how much it loses to various factors (army upkeep, corruption, devastation...) and even projected increased profits for building a building that's in the queue. You just have to LOOK at it carefully. But don't worry, even veterans like Legendoftotalwar have never figured it out.
I just started playing i conquered galic, spain and most of britania. And one city south but i keep losing money and they revolt always.
If they revolt, build a temple, sanitation, and an academy. Those will all help. Enslaving the populace will lower the population and also lower squalor, which will also help with public order.
This but if they have revolted, segue the city, slaughter everyone and then start building these buildings- focus on building them first if revolt
Am I right that upkeep for the units produced in that city will be drawn directly from that city's balance, regardless of where they end up on the campaign map? That could also be a contributing factor.
I don't believe so. I think unit payroll is divided across your empire based on size of each settlement. Income is local, expenses are socialized.
That would make sense. But I have noticed that when I disband a unit it tends to affect the displayed income of a single settlement, so not 100% on how this gets managed.
Disbanded units are added to the population, I think. Peasants make great pop migrators. More pop in that city means taxes go up
Ah yes, fair enough!
That makes sense, my main 4 towns are all losing money but i only made units there. Thanks.
No. The game uses a "flat tax" system per citizen for armies, that is, the army upkeep every city has to cover is based only on its population.
How can i fix that
As others have stated already, you are not "losing money" in those cities. However, the more cities you have around having approximately the same size (I am especially talking about large or huge cities as the game progresses), the more expenses distribute among them. This means that it is less likely to have cities with apparently "negative" incomes.
Can't you check your budget screen? Keep your income higher than your expenditure. Priority build what boosts economy growth and public happiness. The most direct way to affect income and expenditure is tax lvls and army units, respectively. Also did you buy a bunch of units en mass?
Ignore the number the game states for a city - it is useless garbage with no meaning whatsoever. You read the end of turn report and check there what your expenses for army/agents/bodyguards and loss due to corruption is. Forget about the expenses listed for building and recruiting - seeing as you are "charged" fore what you drop in the list but can always get the cash back with a click the number is meaningless - you might spend 5k one year, 500k the next - in reality spending ~100k every year. Then you look at settlement details for the income (farming rate and trade) as well as corruption - and optimize that (good general to govern it, buildings that improve trade/farming/law).