occupy, sacking, killing.

I been wondering about this. when you occupy a huge city in game, it is the worst thing to do, but lets talk about this realistically. wouldn't the inhabitants of a city show their appreciation for you not killing/robbing them? you get a huge order bonus from the population boom after the killing, + the temporary terror bonus (not sure if this is m2tw only feature, haven't play vanilla rtw in over 2 years.) why not a temporary happiness bonus for the city when you spare the city if you choose to occupy? would make alot of sense no? also giving players a choice, instead of the 1 choice for huge cities, which is massacring the city.

Indeed. But can't.

In this case you should have a massive moral minus for your army too for not letting them plunder the rich and hughe city (would vary from faction to faction).

Is this something that could be implemented with traits for the conquering general of a city? We already have enslaved own people and restless sleeper traits, I would be interested to know if this idea is possible :2thumbsup:
Nice ideas Craziii & Konny
Cheers

Yes certainly you can give him a trait that has "-6 unrest" and "-6 troopmoral", for example. You would also need the respective antrait in case of him becoming a butcher later.

Hmmm... a "Forbade Looting" and "Merciful Conqueror" could perhaps work, though with some careful tweaking.

To some degree wouldn't it depend on the culture you were, and the one you spared. I mean some cultures were always trouble because of a high sense of independance, Iberia was always trouble. I get the idea being gentle wouldn't be repaid in kind. Certainly the Romans were brutal at times there, to pacify areas.

But if you were for example a Greek culture taking a Greek based culture, then perphaps being gentle could well pay off.

What I presume EB cannot do is transmit the effect of a massacre to cower an enemy, or to the world stage, ie Alexanders don't mess with me destruction of Thebes(or was it Corinth-sorry I can't remember)durring the Greeks rebellion, after the death of Phillip.

Certainly, massacring and robbing were a very common activities when a city was conquered. Generals who don't allow that (like Scipio the African) had a reputation of strange man, I mean his soldiers were disconcerted.

Our history teacher told us that aplying modern ethic and moral to the ancient times is absolutely wrong, I mean in ancient times people ""believe"" (if it's possible to say so) that when you conquer a city, you have the right to pillage. Not robbing them would be considered more an stupid act than a benevolent act.

PD: Forgive my poor English speaking.

hmm, if what jaume stated is true, then my idea is kaput :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jaume

Certainly, massacring and robbing were a very common activities when a city was conquered. Generals who don't allow that (like Scipio the African) had a reputation of strange man, I mean his soldiers were disconcerted.

Our history teacher told us that aplying modern ethic and moral to the ancient times is absolutely wrong, I mean in ancient times people ""believe"" (if it's possible to say so) that when you conquer a city, you have the right to pillage. Not robbing them would be considered more an stupid act than a benevolent act.

PD: Forgive my poor English speaking.

---

Honourable conduct in ancient times (in the Greek world) was this:

A city could surrender and be treated decently provided it did so before the first siege weapon (ram or tower) reached the city wall. If it still resisted after that, then the city would be subject to a sack, massacre and enslavement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Titus Marcellus Scato

Honourable conduct in ancient times (in the Greek world) was this:

A city could surrender and be treated decently provided it did so before the first siege weapon (ram or tower) reached the city wall. If it still resisted after that, then the city would be subject to a sack, massacre and enslavement.

---

This was also the case in Medieval times, I supposed it encouraged people to comply, for example Gengis Khan got to move on more quickly because resistance could be a bad mistake.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Titus Marcellus Scato

Honourable conduct in ancient times (in the Greek world) was this:

A city could surrender and be treated decently provided it did so before the first siege weapon (ram or tower) reached the city wall. If it still resisted after that, then the city would be subject to a sack, massacre and enslavement.

---

Indeed, as long as it's before "the ram has touched the wall", the inhabitants can surrender and expect honourable treatment.

In Hellenic warfare, with a constant string of wars with negotiated peace, and a complicated and ritualised system of determining who "won" and who "lost" from the terms agreed after a few set pieces, total warfare wasn't anyone's intention. After all great losses of manpower aided no one, and decimated populations couldn't produce harvests or taxes. And it took a long time to replace losses of professional soldiers.

I recall in my readings that after Alfonso the Great captured Malacca, he ordered the pillaging and extermination of a large portion of the Malay Muslim residents, while leaving the Javanese and Chinese merchants unharmed. He did this in order to reduce the unrest in the city. That is how he managed to hold the city for a century and Portugalize the region to a fair extent.

So I would say it is realistic that a city would temporarily be very loyal to it's owner after a massacre.

I presume you're using the word 'loyal' in the R:TW context.....

....since otherwise, 'loyal' and 'cowed' are not quite the same thing!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Titus Marcellus Scato

Honourable conduct in ancient times (in the Greek world) was this:

A city could surrender and be treated decently provided it did so before the first siege weapon (ram or tower) reached the city wall. If it still resisted after that, then the city would be subject to a sack, massacre and enslavement.

---

Nice. I didn't know it; my warfare knowledge of the Greek world are not very deep.

Well, my explanation was about roman time. But of course it is not anything barbarian to affirm that some cities didn't think so.

I remember a very curious chapter of the Punic wars by Goldsworthy in which the author explains the differences between roman ethic (pietas, dignitas and gravitas) and the cartagenian ethic, which doesn't understand the roman "right" to humiliate their enemies and refuse any peace petition even when they were losing the war.

Anyway, it is not an easy question to answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Titus Marcellus Scato

Honourable conduct in ancient times (in the Greek world) was this:

A city could surrender and be treated decently provided it did so before the first siege weapon (ram or tower) reached the city wall. If it still resisted after that, then the city would be subject to a sack, massacre and enslavement.

---

I believe you are quoting a bit from Ceasar's "Gallic Wars" and not necessarily a widely accepted rule of war. I would have to see several quotations to convince me otherwise. Although it is a handy rule of thumb to go by, I don't think there is much proof.
The rule sounds good to me personally, but I believe we are applying our modern "ethics" to an ancient problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Digby Tatham Warter

But if you were for example a Greek culture taking a Greek based culture, then perphaps being gentle could well pay off.

---

That would be REALLY historical - how the Diadochi (notably Antigonos I and Demetrius I) tried to become 'the defender of the greeks' - perhaps, in a far-off future when new total war games make it possible, you could, by sparing Greek cities, get a general order bonus in all Greek cities (incl. enemy), while massacring greek cities would do the opposite all over the place... Then you would also have to choose BETWEEN order bonus OR money, instead of either choosing order bonus + money OR nothing! ;)