To exterminate or not to exterminate

[derF]

Been continuing with my Julii campaign, but one MAJOR thing changed. I started getting tired of enslaving and exterminating populations (i was getting a guilty conscience) so i decided to try another approach of putting down unrest after occupying cities. My solution would be that i would besiege the city until it surrenders, then occupy it, but if it starts rioting, ill pull out comletely leaving no units in garrison. Theoretically, iu thought this would eventually (after about 2-3 repetitions) lead to the people realising that:

1. my Roman occupance is inevitable.
2. Theyre better off with me, (no riots, better living...)

There were 2 main problems with this method:

1. The senate thought that i was failing to successfully occupy territory for Rome, so it wasnt long until my popularity with the senate dropped to minimum. So much so, that they (and the rest of the Romans) have declared war on me. They are truly idiots, i was clearly the strongest of the families (with 3 operational armies) it wasnt long until i pulled them back from their fronts and marched them to the Brutii lands. There have been many epic battles and now it seems that the fate of the Brutii is sealed. I have finished building another 2 armies (1 with 12 units of URBAN COHORT) and am now moving to occupy the Brutii cities and towns.

2. The second problem what that my idea didnt work. The people kept rioting and rioting rioting and rioting rioting and rioting.

So now, im back with the old solution, but no guilt this time. Extermination is the only solution.

[nokem]

This is not the most intelligently or sensitively worded thread I've ever seen.

Perhaps you'd like to expand a little on the holocaust analogy? It's possible you're attempting irony so I'm not sure whether to flame you for stupidity or poor taste.

[The Stranger]

are you playing vanilla

[hundurinn]

When I take a city I always enslave it. If they decide to revolt I flee the town, then I siege it and exterminate them. That drops the population almost down to 0 which means you have a fresh start but limits your troop training. That may give your faction leader bad traits. My faction leader is named Marcus The Cruel. It seems that the name runs in the family since all my leaders have been named The Cruel. ~D

[Fridge]

derF - I'm guessing (hoping!) you haven't realised, but 'the final solution' is actually what the Nazis called their plan to exterminate the jews. Bearing this, and the subject of your post, in mind it might be a good idea to change the title of your thread, or get a mod to do it for you...

[Ar7]

There really can not be any clear answers to the question above, it all depends on the situation, what are your plans with the newly conquered settlement in the future.

I will give a few examples using my current Julii campaign.

I am occupying the Gallic lands currently and as you know they are quite large and stretch far from the initial capital. My aim was to pacify those lands, bringing quiet life to these towns and ensuring that economy develops well and the citizens become true Roman subjects over the time ( Of course the Gauls did not see it my way ). Thus I really did not need large settlements somewhere far away on my frontier. The result was, that I exterminated every town that the Gauls had, so that I ended with small, prosperous towns that slowly were rebuilding in a Roman way.

There was only one exception, I spared Alesia. I needed a large training center where my bordering legion would have been based.

So you really have to think a couple of steps after the war is over and that will clearly point you to the answer, whether to exterminate or not.

[Spino]

As of right now the extermination strategy is far too rewarding. I used it extensively in my first campaign and was amazed how few drawbacks there were to using it. I now avoid using it except on very rare occasions where I might actually be justified in putting an entire settlement to the sword. It's simply too easy to exploit that strategy to your advantage. In reality this option would ruin a given province's tax income and development for generations but since population doesn't directly influence tax revenue in RTW you can do it to your heart's content as long as the high level income generating buildings are left intact.

On the other hand cities with massive populations are unrealistically difficult to manage in RTW, even if all cultural/racial related unrest has been eliminated. Often it is this reason alone that the extermination option becomes an attractive alternative to leaving a massive garrison in place. I seriously hope this has been addressed in the patch.

[Vitiare]

They all get put to the sword. They should have revolted from their oppressive faction and handed me the key to the city when they saw me coming. Since they did not, they must be punished.

[Vitiare]

They all get put to the sword. They should have revolted from their oppressive faction and handed me the key to the city when they saw me coming. Since they did not, they must be punished.

[Vitiare]

Ack.

Please excuse my double post. The server was slow and didnt work the first time.

[mikey2001]

I only exterminate if a desperatly need the cash or my other cities are in need of a population boost (either because of recruiment needs or tech level improvements). Most of the time I enslave cities....but it can be fun to exterminate them, especially the Romans! :devilish: :charge:

[ChaosLord]

Well, I considering enslaving the standard, as war needs money to be profitable, and nothing is better then beefing up your other cities through conquest. Extermination is reserved for times when i'm in desperate need of cash or when I want to send a message to an enemy. (For example, enemy capitals are put to the sword much of the time).

It is strange that extermination gives the most money though, it should be the opposite. Occupying(Looting/extorting gold from populace but letting them live) should give the most gold, Enslaving gives some gold as you claim the possessions of the enslaved, and Extermination should level much of the city to be truely effective(75% of population), and thus net little in the way of loot.

Oh, and Fridge/nokem I think you read far too much into it, he didn't say "final solution" he just said "back to the old solution". He was discussing game mechanics, not history.

[AntiochusIII]

I've unfortunately learned a bad habit of exterminating every 9 out of 10 cities I conquered that are large enough to recover. Besides, it sounds rather cool during the extermination phase. I don't feel sorry for a bit, after all, the people were just all-boring ladies with everyone looking the same and the same dress and walking with the enemies peasants (Also looking identical) in cities all the time. (Look at them in cities using an option available.)

It is absolutely necessary in blitz tactics I employ. Those damned squalor + unrest + cultural penalty leave me no choice.

The patch will fix it though. Also, fixing my genocide habit as well, I hope.

No, extermination money is not what I want. It's just that after liberating the people of their Earthly burden, I feel the need to liberate their Earthly possession as well...

[HarunTaiwan]

Exterminate.

Every time.

I usually need the money and hate dealing with riots.

Cities I love to exterminate: Carthage, Egyptian ones, Rome, Sparta, Patavium.

[Sinner]

Oh, and Fridge/nokem I think you read far too much into it, he didn't say "final solution" he just said "back to the old solution". He was discussing game mechanics, not history.

CL, they weren't reading far too much, the title of the thread has now been changed from 'Final Solution'.

Back on subject...

I prefer not to exterminate where possible, it's one reason I like conquering barbarians - their settlements tend to be far smaller and so suffer less from unrest.

On occasion, when I need to keep pressure on a faction and don't want my main armies tied up garrisoning or I have no available family member and I know I need one to hold a big city, then I will exterminate. I also tend to 'roleplay' if I do lose a city due to a rebellion and often exterminate when I reconquer - after all, the Romans weren't known for their tolerance in this area.

I rarely enslave, finding it to be an unsatisfactory middle-ground if simply considering game mechanics. The population boost to governed cities can be more of a pain than a benefit, so I much prefer the flexibility of transfering population via peasants.