Occupy, enslave or exterminate?

[Naughtius Maximus]

So far I have only played the Julii, and what I have found out is the wonderous money to be made in slaves. (honey, aren't these gauls terrific gardeners?)

What I want to know is what y'all think of the three choices and what situations dictate using them. I tend to occupy towns with a similar culture to mine, unless they are closeby to my home turf. Then I enslave.


BTW- I realize that this thread must have been done before, but I tried the search function in this forum and it blows.

[Craterus]

Enslave or exterminate.. I rarely occupy..Don't exterminate if you will be building troops from there in the future because you won't have the the population to do so. ~D

[Brutus]

I usually occupy when the culture is similar and the number of inhabitants already pityfull (so, in effect, I always occupy when playing as Barbarians and taking an other barbarian town). Otherwise, it depends. Especially when you play barbarians exterminating can be a good idea when you encounter a minor city or even bigger. Since you cannot enlarge the town, get rid of those nasty cultured types! When playing as Romans or another civiliced faction, I usually enslave to boost my home cities as well a keeping the recently conquered town a little bit quiter. However, depending on the size of the place, I still may just occupy (when it's really small), or exterminate (when it's very large and you know it's going to riot). There was a thread about a week ago in which 'unrest' was explored. It should give you a idea of which cities in particular you'd want to exterminate.

By the way, don't exterminate too much with the same general. Once can actually give him a good trait, but doing it too much will give him traits like sanguinary which makes his influence and command plummet...

[screwtype]

The prevailing wisdom shortly after the game came out was to exterminate, exterminate, exterminate in order to reduce the effects of squalor.

I believe the effects of squalor were ameliorated somewhat by the 1.2 patch (I might be wrong about that).

In any case, I rarely exterminate anymore. It takes ages to rebuild your population, and you are destroying your own potential tax base. The more folks, the more money, if they want to revolt later in the game, let 'em, I'll deal with it when it happens.

So what I tend to do is occupy if the enemy shares my culture or the town is small, or else enslave. IMO it's important to check the population of a town you want to besiege, and to be sure you move your governors to the cities most requiring more folks before enslaving. Otherwise you end up with humungous numbers of people in a handful of cities, which is not very useful.

[Brutus]

You could of course also move your population around for a little money...Just build some peasants in a overcrowded city and disband them again in small town. Works pretty neat. When I needed ships as Germania to invade Britain, I boosted Batavodurums population so it could make it a large town and build a harbour. And sothe Britons were exterminated at least 5 to 10 years before they otherwise would have... Serves them right, lousy backstabbers!


:rtwyes: Germania Moving Corp. :rtwyes:

Moving tribes since 270 BC
:medievalcheers:

[tibilicus]

Oucupy if i can. Normaly enslave though. In very rare cases i get out the trusty chping axe...................

[Divinus Arma]

Destroy everything and exterminate everyone. Unless it is a similar culture. In that case it is up to you depending on how you want to manage the population.

I have two major campaigns going on at all times:

One for expansion, which has occupying forces as a following army and

Another campaign for extermination and liquidation in distant lands (kind of like viking invasion). I invade, kill everyone and destroy everything. Then I give the the city back to it's previous owner. This keeps distant enemies from growing too powerful (like egypt) and keeps your expansion under control by limiting rebellions.

If I start to expand too quickly with my first army, the senate gets pissed. I keep them happy by giving a few distant lands to both rival roman factions (after exterminating the populace and detroying all property of course). As long as a certain ratio of territory is kept, the Senate will always like you and never give you "do or die" missions.

[screwtype]

You could of course also move your population around for a little money...Just build some peasants in a overcrowded city and disband them again in small town. Works pretty neat.

I did that in one campaign but it's just too much micromanagement to bother with. It was such a chore, it spoiled all the fun.

Mind you, I only play with standard size units which means a peasant unit only has 60 guys in it. Your method probably works much better when playing on huge unit size.

[Brutus]

I did that in one campaign but it's just too much micromanagement to bother with. It was such a chore, it spoiled all the fun.

Mind you, I only play with standard size units which means a peasant unit only has 60 guys in it. Your method probably works much better when playing on huge unit size.
I agree it's usually too much micromanagment. But sometimes (as in the case I mentioned), it can come in handy. And indeed, the larger the unit size, the better it works.

[Conqueror]

I occupy if the city is civilized, less than huge is size and looks like it can be kept under control. If it's civilized but too big or unruly, I put 'em to good use :whip:

Barbarian scum will be exterminated, as will some cities of those factions that have caused me significant setbacks (got to set couple of warning examples, you know...)

[Kraxis]

Basically I always enslave. It brings lots of trademoney, it increases my cities and it brings that 0.5% growth in the traded cities and it loweres the angry population quite a bit. Not even a 425 population village will be spared my enslavement, for while it won't give me much population to the main cities it still adds that half percentage to the cities within range.
If I'm really pressed for money I put them to the sword, but only if the city is large enough to give a suitable bonus. I hardly ever occupy.

[The Stranger]

i always occupy in some rare cases i enslave. but i almost never exterminate (only if the city has no respect for THE EMPEROR

[dismal]

I still exterminate quite a lot. Almost always when I take a highly developed city. The benefits are:

- A nice shot of Cash
- The ability to de-garrison quickly (and take more cities)
- The ability re-culture the city before the squalor kicks in

I will occupy when:

- it's a small or slow growth city (barbarian, rebel, or early game usually)
- the city is near a threshhold where a new palace becomes available
- if it's my culture, I'll be more likely to occupy

A good rule of thumb is I'll exterminate when there's a big cash payout to doing it, and occupy when there isn't. If there's a big payout, it generally will means the city grew fast, therefore has a high growth rate, therefore will grow back fast.

I don't enslave because I generally don't want a lot of new population in my governed cities.

The general idea is to keep my armies out in the field attacking while having enough people in the cities to keep the building queues full. Your military is a sinkhole for your money. The biggest economic mistake you can make is having unproductive military units loitering about.

[Craterus]

I'm having a bit of trouble as Scythia (economically), should I exterminate a lot from now on? I'm about to lose a city to Parthia as well so that's going to cut my income even more :(

[Marcus Maxentius]

Yeah, occupy if same culture or if it's already small. I don't try to enslave too many cities at once if they're going to all go to the same few governed cities in order to control overpopulation. I just alternate with exterminate. Some times I need the initial infusion of income over the long term benifits of higher population.

Basic rule of thumb is don't do anything that will deplete the population below roughly 2000 people.

[HarunTaiwan]

Exterminate. Pop grows back so fast anyways.

[screwtype]

Basic rule of thumb is don't do anything that will deplete the population below roughly 2000 people.

I'd agree with that. You can't build anything useful in a city with pop below 2000 and it takes ages to get it back up again once it slips below that mark.

[screwtype]

I'm having a bit of trouble as Scythia (economically), should I exterminate a lot from now on? I'm about to lose a city to Parthia as well so that's going to cut my income even more :(

I was hard up for cash in my last campaign as Thrace so I exterminated everything for the fast bucks. I think I destroyed my own potential tax base by doing that. 3000 denarii seems like a lot when the coffers are empty but it's gone in a turn or two. And then by exterminating, it takes ages to rebuild the pop again.

[PseRamesses]

I occupy rebels and towns with the same culture as myself.
I enslave all of a different culture than myself.
I only exterminate as a revenge or if I want to give the town away to an ally.

[Quietus]

I occupy everything within a reasonable distance (regardless of culture). I enslave when the city is too far away from the capital. ~:)

[ToranagaSama]

Since my disenchantment with this game has subsided, I've recently returned to it since the 1.2 patch.

Yes, indeed, Squalor is easier to manage, or, more accurrately Squalor is now manageable, whereas prior to 1.2 it was not---or, at least, it was too damn annoying.

On principal, I refrain from Extermination, as it appears a Cheesy was to gain money. Occupation is my standard procedure. It reduces the *immediate* monetary gain; allows for a conscriptable population; but, the greatest benefit, for those seeking a Challenging game, it forces you to pay close attention to the Subjugation (sp??) of the city.

An Occupation policy, helps to limit the speed of expansion, and forces the Player to not simply plan to Take the city, but you must be prepared to Hold the city. A player needs to *plan ahead*.

Slavery, for me, unfortunately, isn't much of an option, as its presently implemented. The reason being that *effectively managing Squalor is a bit of a delicate balancing act. One which, I believe, I beginning to master. The fact that Slaves will be sent to ALL your cities (with govenors ??) is just not what I want. I have my cities' populations under control, growing or not-growing at a rate I find satisfactory and to my purposes---Slavery will through this balance out of wack---don't need that!

Now, if a player had the capability to *Direct* Slaves to a Specific city or cities, as well as the capability to Allocate the distribution percentage to each city---THEN, Slaver would be *truly* useful.

Taking a City, particularly one of a foreign culture, and holding would be facilitated by instituting Slavery, and being able to direct the Slaves to a particular city(ies) needing population for development.

Not being able to direct and allocate the slave population is a bit infuriating. Sincerely hope this will be implemented in the Expansion.

----

Extermination s/h a more Strategic purpose (rather than the Cheesy monetary gain). Realistically, Extermination was used, either as Punishment and/or to induce Terror and Fear. Someone correct me, if I'm wrong, but this is not effectively simulated within the game.

That is Extermination was used NOT to effect the City conquered, BUT, rather, the City *next* to be conquered. There s/b a Zone of Effect with regard to Extermination. That is certain *positive* effects s/b applied to cities within this Zone of Effect, mitigated by distance.

For example, Exterminate a City, and the the nearest city, be it an Enemy city, the Units set to defend it might have an induced *fear* effect (or something); consquently, it might make conquering that city easier.

Or, in the alternative, perhaps, that city's population might become more unruly, maybe a revolt might ensue; and/or that city's govenor might become more suseptible to Bribing.

That's for an Enemy city, the effect might be somewhat similar for one of your own nearby cities. Extermination might cause a neaby same-faction city to become MORE ruly. Perhaps, all Governors within the Zone of Effect might gain increased Influence; Corruption might decrease, etc.

I think implementing something to above effect, will make Extermination and Occupation more **Strategic** in effect. More strategic options equals more fun, at least for the Strategy Gamers!!

---

For now, I take heart, that Occupation means that the conquering army isn't going anywhere too soon, until I find a sitting Govenor, build up the Town Watch, destrory and rebuild some buildings (if possible), and some time passes....

[tibilicus]

THe only city i tend to sack id Antioch. There having non of it when i try to get in.....

[The Stranger]

Since my disenchantment with this game has subsided, I've recently returned to it since the 1.2 patch.

Yes, indeed, Squalor is easier to manage, or, more accurrately Squalor is now manageable, whereas prior to 1.2 it was not---or, at least, it was too damn annoying.

On principal, I refrain from Extermination, as it appears a Cheesy was to gain money. Occupation is my standard procedure. It reduces the *immediate* monetary gain; allows for a conscriptable population; but, the greatest benefit, for those seeking a Challenging game, it forces you to pay close attention to the Subjugation (sp??) of the city.

An Occupation policy, helps to limit the speed of expansion, and forces the Player to not simply plan to Take the city, but you must be prepared to Hold the city. A player needs to *plan ahead*.

Slavery, for me, unfortunately, isn't much of an option, as its presently implemented. The reason being that *effectively managing Squalor is a bit of a delicate balancing act. One which, I believe, I beginning to master. The fact that Slaves will be sent to ALL your cities (with govenors ??) is just not what I want. I have my cities' populations under control, growing or not-growing at a rate I find satisfactory and to my purposes---Slavery will through this balance out of wack---don't need that!

Now, if a player had the capability to *Direct* Slaves to a Specific city or cities, as well as the capability to Allocate the distribution percentage to each city---THEN, Slaver would be *truly* useful.

Taking a City, particularly one of a foreign culture, and holding would be facilitated by instituting Slavery, and being able to direct the Slaves to a particular city(ies) needing population for development.

Not being able to direct and allocate the slave population is a bit infuriating. Sincerely hope this will be implemented in the Expansion.

----

Extermination s/h a more Strategic purpose (rather than the Cheesy monetary gain). Realistically, Extermination was used, either as Punishment and/or to induce Terror and Fear. Someone correct me, if I'm wrong, but this is not effectively simulated within the game.

That is Extermination was used NOT to effect the City conquered, BUT, rather, the City *next* to be conquered. There s/b a Zone of Effect with regard to Extermination. That is certain *positive* effects s/b applied to cities within this Zone of Effect, mitigated by distance.

For example, Exterminate a City, and the the nearest city, be it an Enemy city, the Units set to defend it might have an induced *fear* effect (or something); consquently, it might make conquering that city easier.

Or, in the alternative, perhaps, that city's population might become more unruly, maybe a revolt might ensue; and/or that city's govenor might become more suseptible to Bribing.

That's for an Enemy city, the effect might be somewhat similar for one of your own nearby cities. Extermination might cause a neaby same-faction city to become MORE ruly. Perhaps, all Governors within the Zone of Effect might gain increased Influence; Corruption might decrease, etc.

I think implementing something to above effect, will make Extermination and Occupation more **Strategic** in effect. More strategic options equals more fun, at least for the Strategy Gamers!!

---

For now, I take heart, that Occupation means that the conquering army isn't going anywhere too soon, until I find a sitting Govenor, build up the Town Watch, destrory and rebuild some buildings (if possible), and some time passes....


i totally agree with you about slavery

[RollingWave]

In 1.2, my usual idea is...
Early on, if you capture a relatively big city, enslave, if it's a very small town, occupy, main point is to get ur core city populations to the 6000 and 12000 lvl, so you can start building some decent units and get all ur important economic structures up.

Later on, the main idea is, if you can hold it without it revolting, occupy, if you can't and/or is short on cash, extreminate. don't enslave later on... espically after ur core cities reach the final level, the extra squalor you get in those cities usually throws off the economic bonus on slave trade.

[Kraxis]

Actually you can choose which cities to send the slaves to. It is even quite easy.
Only cities with governors get the slaves, so how can one direct the slaves? Well you merely have to move out the governors of the cities you don't want slaves to appear in, before you take the enemy city. Just a very short move is enough, and you can move him back again for the management and influence gains he gives the city before the turn is over. And if you have too many governors in cities the impact of the slaves will be rather slight putting perhaps a few hundred to the population (which at that point should be quite a lot less than what the city itself grows each turn).
The gain of the 'slaves' as a trade item is very good as it grants a good value in sales.

[screwtype]

Slaves also ramp up the population growth rates of nearby cities, don't they?

I'm not sure how it works, but quite a few of my cities have greatly increased pop. growth due to slavery. You can see it in the settlement details.

[Kraxis]

They do. Each city that trades with a city with the slavery trade item gets a 0.5% growthbonus. But that is just an extra in my book, I just like the bonus to the trade (money money money).

[screwtype]

Oh, is that how it works? Thanks for that Kraxis, I could see I was getting a BIG pop. rate boost from slavery but hadn't figured out what the mechanism was ~:)

[The Stranger]

i just have a problem against slavery

[Hold Steady]

i just have a problem against slavery

Hmm, not against slaughtering? The cities that oppose the Emperor?

Ah well, I can imagine, I hate killing Elephants.

[tibilicus]

You have to be cruel sometimes to get the job done. Now time to enslave some more romans as Carthage. ~D

[Rodion Romanovich]

I always occupy as much as possible, because I don't like being cruel... Later in the campaigns when cities are huge it's often impossible to occupy unless you like to retake the same city 2-3 times (which I've also done on occasion when I didn't want to exterminate at all. In the game engine I think, but I'm not entirely sure, that many exterminations have bad long term effects while it's sometimes a better short term sollution as it instantly gives higher public order for newly conquered cities. So, for that reason I recommend occupy early in campaigns and exterminate later in them. If you're a poor faction you could also exterminate one or two chosen very large cities. Barbarians have to exterminate a lot because they have fewer city levels.

[King Henry V]

Early on in the game, it's always best to occupy cities, especially when conquering your first cities. However, later on in the game, when you have an increasingly large empire, I have a habit to enslave them. The extermination option is only used when a city has rebelled twice, when I really get angry.

[PseRamesses]

Actually you can choose which cities to send the slaves to. It is even quite easy.
Only cities with governors get the slaves, so how can one direct the slaves? Well you merely have to move out the governors of the cities you don't want slaves to appear in, before you take the enemy city. Just a very short move is enough, and you can move him back again for the management and influence gains he gives the city before the turn is over. And if you have too many governors in cities the impact of the slaves will be rather slight putting perhaps a few hundred to the population (which at that point should be quite a lot less than what the city itself grows each turn).
The gain of the 'slaves' as a trade item is very good as it grants a good value in sales.
Actually what ToranagaSama was trying to point out is that there´s no smart way to manage this properly. Since population is just stats and numbers it would have been easy to implement a scroll-down menu with a list of all your settlements when you choose to enslave so you could direct them to one, several or all settlements.
As it comes to extermination I´d like to exterminate a certain part of a communitys population especially when conquering settlements of a different culture.The old MTW culture-mix is shurley missed by atleast me. So when, as a Roman, you conquer a foreign settlement of a different religion and culture you should be able to exectue some, enslave some and leave the pops that support your beliefs be.

[MajorFreak]

hmmmmmm...all depends on which coastal provinces you pick to become your trading zone. Since trade income depends on the combined population of both ports, and corruption is dependent on distance from capital, plus the fact it takes time to recruit a few peasant units so you can repeat the process, the entire formula becomes mindbogglingly simple: your future capital
occupy not too distance provinces
exterminate any city you capture that gives you the option of eliminating 6k+ citizens, enslave anything less than that but greater than 1k+, and occupy anything less than 1k+ (extermination option statistic) distant provinces
exterminate.

It's amazing what happens when you realize coastal trade is the key...you soon (within 20 turns) get maximum use out of your diplomat as you attempt to keep your treasury under 50k gold to avoid vices among your generals.

[MajorFreak]

Actually what ToranagaSama was trying to point out is that there´s no smart way to manage this properly. Since population is just stats and numbers it would have been easy to implement a scroll-down menu with a list of all your settlements when you choose to enslave so you could direct them to one, several or all settlements.
not to mention the fact you'd lose the chance for an ancilliary or trait for all those generals you moved outside.

[dismal]

I'm afraid I'm going to have to recant my earlier answer (that I never enslave).

I started a Seleucid campaign and have found my self money-rich and population poor in my home cities in the early game.

As a result, it has made sense to enslave a couple moderately big Egyptian towns I have taken.

[Drake22]

i always extreminate egyptians and romens (unless i am one) and enslave everything else unless im taking back one of my cities or the population is less then 800