Capturing Cities

[Megas Methuselah]

Partly out of curiosity, and partly out of a very minor annoyance, what do you guys do to the population of a city once captured? I find that I almost always have to eradicate the population simply because the unrest would otherwise trigger a rebellion.

Does anyone here actually occupy their captured cities rather than enslaving or eradicating? If so, do those particular cities tend to be very unlawful and difficult to keep under your control, usually requiring a large garrison(and something of an expense as a result)?

Due to the high upkeep of units, I tend to only leave a garrison of 1 or 2 units of militia in my average city(4 units or a standing army on the borders). Any more than that I sometimes start losing money rather than gaining it. What about you guys?
:uneasy:

[Horst Nordfink]

It depends on what culture they are most of the time. If they are the same culture as the faction I'm playing, I will just occupy the territory. If they're some stinking barbarians, chances are I will enslave the smelly oafs.

Although, if I'm feeling in a vindictive mood and I had to waste a lot of lives taking the city, I will annihilate the worthless peasants to make me feel better.

Either way, it doesn't require too much of a garrison if I have a general in the army.

[dominique]

I try to occupy the city of my own culture. In the beggining of the game, if my mnai balance is positive and my home cities are still small I will enslave the populations from other cultures, if it's negative I will keep them intact (Tax payers are good! :2thumbsup:).

I will exterminate only in late game if I need to blitz an area.

Otherwise, destroy their gov, destroy their temples and replace it by temples and gov of your own culture. Try also to choose the kind of gov and temple with the best happiness/law bonus/health bonus.

By example:
If I play the Arverni, I will occupy Mediolanum and Burdigala and enslave Massilia -unless I want some hoplites!- In the middle game, if Romans get Polybian armies and look threateningly at me I will send my biggest army down Italia and raze every city I can get a hand on. I... WILL... NOT... TRY... TO...OCCUPY... ITALIA (this is a mantra I had to repeat myself). Just raze and move on. The Mnai entry will give my faction a much needed boost in constructions.

If, and only if, the Romani seem fatally wounded, I will then move in with garrison units (the cheapest sons of a goat I can buy) in every city I can get. Trying to hold captured cities with frontline armies is not a good idea. Your good nice chevronned units and rare mercenaries will get attrition from riots far from your R&R cities.

You can win fights against roman legions with almost no loss (30-50 guys) and then lose 400 crack troops trying to keep Baghdadum er... I mean Roma free of riots - even if you had razed the city beforehand.

So to answer your question, there's no golden rule.

Be like the Romans. Be capricious. Enslave Taras, raze Carthage, occupy Capua then raze it if it revolt. Adapt your policies to your needs. You need hard cash, RAZE! You need conscripts, enslave. You need a good trading post, occupy.

BTW, If you play the romans, occupying a city like Syracuse is a go! The Mnai you'll get from trade and tax will pay in the long term.

A bitchy huge city who support a dozen unit and give trade to 6 of your other towns is far better than a quiet small city anytime.

Also, you can get some sucky traits if you raze too much.

[Sand]

Enslave them always is my motto. I try to move generals in and out of homeland cities so my troop builing centers get their population boosted up. The benefits from recruits, tax, trade and farm income, and growth rate are much better than a short term cash boost. I only very rarely occupy, usually only at the start of the game when Im confident I can handle the unrest and I dont want the city to lag behind growth wise [ Athens for example when playing as Maks]

The only time Ive seen the benefit of extermination was as WRE in vanilla Barbarian Invasion where quite simply some treacherous so and sos needed manners put on them quite sharpish.

Some cities are just very tough to hold after having taken them - especially the ones the AI has not developed. I try to blitz cities before they hit 24K so Ive got some light at the end of the tunnel, but on my Roman game I was able to hold Seleukia, which had hit 24K size too soon quite handily even with no governor because the AI had built a lot of happiness boosting buildings. Bostra or the Crimean greek cities on the other hand were an absolute nightmare.

[Megas Methuselah]

thx guys, that's great advice. My huge empire is mostly a cluster of "quiet small cities"... I'll try and change that, I think. I'll keep my eyes open for any happiness buildings that may be in cities I capture.
:wink2:

[Zaknafien]

i generally occupy civilized cities when playing as the Romans. Barbarians, or paticularly irretractable enemies I enslave, and when punishing a faction or having to endure a full year plus siege I slaughter.

[Thaatu]

I almost never use enslavement, because it's more like the Assyrian mass-deportation than real enslavement. Extermination is more like enslavement, with some being killed and some bound for slavery. I don't know if any of the current factions used mass-deportation. That's why it's only two options for me.

[matte89]

Right now ive been playing the kolion hellenas faction alot, i like to enslave settlements not only to streanghten sparta,athens and rhodes but becuse you can have smaller garrison along whit good public order, the growth is very good after a city has been enslaved, like 2,5-3% growht whitout the farms and granery buildings, so they recover fast if you dont build units. It gives a small loot but it also gives me time to build all the nessisary buildings before the town screms for another gouverner palace and even a larger list of needed buildings.

My first play trough the hellenas campains it was kinda ebaressing that every spartan man able to bare arms was trained as milita or peltas... so that started my world enslavement and it turnd out pretty good.

Im glad its abit harder in the 1.0version, but i still counqer macedon in 5-10 years wile building structures in every settlement at the same time.

I dont like to go off-topic but i have few quik questions:

When/if the roman direct thier aggression towards greece? what period dose that normaly happen?

Wy is rhodes allways in dept no matter howe hard i try to make the city usefull? any hints/tactics to improve the city?

What is the best in your opinion? the spartan agoge system or hellenic collony system?

thanks in advance.

[Long lost Caesar]

if its a large city with a population over 5000, ill exterminate it. gets cash and keeps order. am i doing the right thing? :help:

[Bootsiuv]

A bitchy huge city who support a dozen unit and give trade to 6 of your other towns is far better than a quiet small city anytime.

Apparently, a city can only trade with up to 3 other cities. A caveat of R:TW unknown to the developers until only recently.

Thus, the immensely expensive large port upgrade found in cities without a natural harbor is completely useless.

I assume the team will address this in a future patch.

That is, unless they found it to be untrue, which would be totally awesome. :yes:

But I dunno. :shrug:

Bootsiuv

[Long lost Caesar]

Well its clear to me that cities can't trade with other cities half way around the world. As for only 3 cities...i have no idea. EB team?

[Decimus Attius Arbiter]

If it's green, I'll consider occupying. What's the point if say a previous conqueror exterminated the population?

If yellow, I enslave; red exterminate.

[CaesarAugustus]

I tend to enslave in most cases, but many times I eradicate the population if I am ticked off at how hard the city was to capture or have suffered greatly at the hands of that particular faction. When i set out to destroy a faction completely I will often exterminate their cities as a form of 'ethnic cleansing', purely for roleplaying. The only time I occupy is if I re-capture a city that has been fully intergrated into my empire and only held by the enemy for a couple of turns.

[ombudsman]

Wy is rhodes allways in dept no matter howe hard i try to make the city usefull? any hints/tactics to improve the city? @matte89 it´s because the city doesn´t show how much it makes, but it counts how many ppl there is in the settlement and divides the army upkeep cost across the cities, so for example if you have rhodes and another small village, and rhodes show -900 and the village shows +200, it doesn´t mean that the village makes more money, just that the inhabitants are so few that the money you make from that settlement is more then the army upkeep for each inhabitant. there are several ways you can make a city improve income-wise, upgrade the trade buildings, farming output or build mines, though i dont think rhodes can build mines... i would suggest you focus on trade on rhodes...anyways, hope it makes sense, too tired to really go trough and see if my ramblings all makes sense.

about your other questions, been along time since i played KH, so i cant really answer about if the spartan agoge or the hellenic colony system is to prefer. and i have yet to see a roman invasion of greece in my EB games, and i dont think you have to worry about that too much.

[The Gonzo]

I usually occupy my conquered cities, except when I encounter particularly ferocious resistance, rebellion or the capitals of hated enemies (Carthage etc.). Then I exterminate.

[EdwardL]

There is a system for this something along the lines...


If it's green, I'll consider occupying. What's the point if say a previous conqueror exterminated the population?
If yellow, I enslave; red exterminate.

Of course there just are some areas that need to be put to the sword no questions asked.

Iberia being a good example of this. I will always raze Iberia to the ground, except for a couple of the south and eastern cities. They will often spike unhappiness if you leave adequate size native populations.

Beyond that, distance to capital and culture will determine if a settlement flames up.

Remember you can import your own "culture" by having stacks of cheap units on standby ready to be disbanded in newly aquired city. Is it cheating? no. powers of antiquity, er.. throughout all history for that matter have often settled newly aquired conquered territories.

[sgsandor]

I have a problem with slavery (just dont like it, my own reasons) however i KILL EVERYBODY!!! I ususally go out with 2 generals, one for fighting and one with some cheapo garrisons units to govern the city. I dont like that i cant kill everybody so i will console code add_population -(whatever), Any time I dont kill them all is if they are homeland provinces(unlsess they rebell) or want to use them to produce more garrison troops.

[Thaatu]

Isn't enslavement bugged somehow? I seem to remember it giving the slavery growth bonus to the enslaved settlement. Anyway, I think it's a little absurd that you can disperse the foreign populace to your own cities and recruit factional elites out of them. In my mind the population level doesn't include slaves.

[The Celtic Viking]

I rarely do anything else than occupy. My generals tend to be unselfish, and so going on murdersprees isn't really their "style". Rome would probably be the exception. I can't recall ever enslaving a settlement since last time I played vanilla, but if everything goes as planned in my current campaign, I will sooner or later change that.

[matte89]

@matte89 it´s because the city doesn´t show how much it makes, but it counts how many ppl there is in the settlement and divides the army upkeep cost across the cities, so for example if you have rhodes and another small village, and rhodes show -900 and the village shows +200, it doesn´t mean that the village makes more money, just that the inhabitants are so few that the money you make from that settlement is more then the army upkeep for each inhabitant. there are several ways you can make a city improve income-wise, upgrade the trade buildings, farming output or build mines, though i dont think rhodes can build mines... i would suggest you focus on trade on rhodes...anyways, hope it makes sense, too tired to really go trough and see if my ramblings all makes sense.

about your other questions, been along time since i played KH, so i cant really answer about if the spartan agoge or the hellenic colony system is to prefer. and i have yet to see a roman invasion of greece in my EB games, and i dont think you have to worry about that too much.

Thanks for this information, i knew it was something whit this money system i didnt coop whit. Anyway i allways counquer kerte and the macedonian islands fast and get a stable income. Perhaps rhodes also gives better tradeing to the other citys?.. in my tactics i allways improve trade and income before growth and military, ho needs a barrack if you dont have any income ^^

Another quike of topic question is that if its possible to play a more historical path during the KH campain? after a turn or two you out of money and cant hope to defend athens or sparta for a longer period. Wile we at it, about athen, wy do large macedonian armys allways stuck outside, if thier ram burns up they just stay outside the walls getting cut down by the tower archers, not moveing. After they lose half thier force then they attack whit the ladders. :inquisitive:

[dominique]

Apparently, a city can only trade with up to 3 other cities. A caveat of R:TW unknown to the developers until only recently.

Thus, the immensely expensive large port upgrade found in cities without a natural harbor is completely useless.

I assume the team will address this in a future patch.

That is, unless they found it to be untrue, which would be totally awesome. :yes:

But I dunno. :shrug:

Bootsiuv

Ok, I'll check that tonight, I'm sure I've got cities with larger trading networks than 3 cities.

I'll printscreen it.

Er... Wait, do you mean that the trade page would yield incorrect information?

[ombudsman]

Another quike of topic question is that if its possible to play a more historical path during the KH campain? after a turn or two you out of money and cant hope to defend athens or sparta for a longer period. Wile we at it, about athen, wy do large macedonian armys allways stuck outside, if thier ram burns up they just stay outside the walls getting cut down by the tower archers, not moveing. After they lose half thier force then they attack whit the ladders. :inquisitive:
My guess is probably hard coded AI stupidity. i always try to stay off city battles, send a unit or two from Sparta and fight a open ground battle, the battle AI seems to function better then.

[matte89]

My guess is probably hard coded AI stupidity. i always try to stay off city battles, send a unit or two from Sparta and fight a open ground battle, the battle AI seems to function better then.

Indeed, but levy milita hoplite cant possibly stand up against a macedonian army 7 times it sieze outside the city walls :dizzy2:

Maby not the best place to discuss bugs, v1.0 is a great realese, even though the macedonian had this bug i lost athen for a few turns, that never happen on 0.80 versions ^^

[dominique]

Isn't enslavement bugged somehow? I seem to remember it giving the slavery growth bonus to the enslaved settlement. Anyway, I think it's a little absurd that you can disperse the foreign populace to your own cities and recruit factional elites out of them. In my mind the population level doesn't include slaves.

Don't forget that classical slavery isn't american slavery.

Some slaves or freedmen were pretty high in the social strata. Sulla used freedmen like Chrysogonus to run his kelptocracy/dictatorship. Claudius used highly trained freedmen (I think of Polybius) to run the roman bureaucracy.

It was a career move for some greek academics to sell themselves in slavery and working as teacher in roman patrician families.


---I simplify a little bit in this section, I don't wan't to explain the comitias and all that stuff so I took a few shortcuts without altering the big picture!---

It was also a good move for some roman politicians to free a part of their slaves. The freedmen became clients of their tribe. So they had to vote for their ancient masters. It was really important for families like the Graccii, or the Cornelius Sylla. In the late republic, a consul was lame if he didn't have a tribune of the Plebs to back him up. To have a tribune, you needed to have a big tribe to pull one of your clients through the vote. If you were a new man and you didn't float in denarii, you needed people to vote for you. So, you hope you get a good war in your career, get a lot of slave, freed them, give them property so they could vote in the right century, register them in your tribe and tell them to vote for C. Johnus Doeus in the next election if they didn't wan't to have a private meeting with one of your gladiators/veterans.

T. Sempronius Gracchus tried to pull a stunt like that by giving away lot of farmland to beggars, destitutes and slaves, which would have moved a couple hundred thousand people in his tribe and who would have been his clients. He would have been able to rig the elections forever and become a virtual dictator.
----

So, to answer you, slaves were an important part of the population level of the classical world. The way they disperse the slaves throughout the cities is a simplified but effective way of simulating their importance.

[bovi]

As an aside, kelptocracy is of course rule by seaweed, as opposed to algastocracy which is rule by algae pond scum :clown:.

[Leão magno]

If I can control the city and it is matching my desires (rpg) I preserve the city under a pupet ruler. I only exterminate capitals of ferocous enimies or impossible to control cities