Printable View
I have recently found, that (using Xanti as Carthage through Italy) sacking cities by enslave + destroying lots of buildings can net me huge amounts of cash. In doing that at least once per year, can make for a huge difference in my economy. How viable is that as a way to earn mnai? Got any advice in the art of pillaging?
Destroy everything... always... especially in Italy. then retire... and restart the next year... RAIDING SEASON show your vassals who command. Rule by terror, and glory for your warrior! :smash::smash::smash:
Cities get worth less each time you sack it. You should move like Atilla through the map, sacking and enslaving the entire world and come back later to do it again. That will give you some mnai.
Also good advise... Still, i like to role play the fear of romans and epeiros when the raiding season approach... i like to imagine their watch tower shivering in fear of a impending invasion of fierce sweboz..., or punitive expedition each time they refuse to pay tribute (so... almost every time!) pillaging their home, killing their men, and taking their women! AAAARRRRGH Sweboz FTW
Its always fun to sack cities, and its funnier if you roleplay, something like Carthaginians destroying Rome or vice versa, or those Makedones destroying that Rhodian colossus and sacking Rhodes, and last but not least Gauls sacking Rome again. As long as you enjoy it, then its GOOD.
In the long run is it not more profitable to own a high income yielding city than to sack it once a year?
How many times can the same city yield a huge profit of plunder?
from that point of view, yes, but... what's the fun of it?
Going on a "raiding circuit" and sacking a new city owned by the faction you are at war with every "raiding season" can be a viable alternative to controlling the cities, especially if (A) you don't wish to destroy the faction, (B) you don't want to expand in that particular direction (due to the "distance from capitol penalty" or to prevent overextension of your borders, or (C) you want to use them as a weak buffer state for a more dangerous enemy. Just make sure you go on a tour of their cities (to allow previously sacked cities to recover). This policy is also one of diminishing returns. When the faction is "sacked out", defeating the rest of their armies in the field, blockading all their ports, and threatening ALL of their remaining settlements can gain you a protectorate-you still get paid.
Dont forget to destroy the aigai, temple of zeus donadios, and the oracle at delphi! Show them what monstrousity the romaioi are capable of! Oh yeah, actualy, rather than sack the makedonians, it will be fun to give pella for getai, and let them exhaust themself in a futile war. Give the southren hellas to the ptolemaioi and grow your own yellow fever. Give the epeirote for some lulz with sweboz.
This way of income does not really apply to my tastes. Even though it's a very good way to make quick money, plus potentially cripple an enemy faction for many years to come.
Even so, I sometimes raid specific cities in order to prevent a faction from becoming too powerful. For example, I sometimes pillage the Levant to prevent the Ptolemaioi from becoming the infamous "Yellow Death". Or the poleis in Italia to prevent the Rhomaioi from spreading to the north.
what If I want to take some far away place later? If I pillage their villages, does that mean I'll end up with an economical liability later? Or are the cultural penalties that severe anyways?
As for sacking, behave like factions historically did. I do. And as I play mainly Rome and Sweboz, I get to sack a lot of cities; as Sweboz I do it as raider, as Rome to make examples, one is for own income, the other for pacifying populations.
In neither case do I sack the Wonders of anyone, few factions actually did as they all mostly shared the same venerations.
From a strict economic point of view and thus neglecting roleplay, it's impossible (or nigh impossible) to calculate whether a city needs to be sacked or just occupied. Imagine a city that is fully built out, and thus has the health-line buildings, her farms, and possibly a pop-growth temple. Such a city, if left alone would merely have a big population (let's say ca. 30.000) and no demographic growth anymore (due to squalor). But if you wipe out the population, you gain your cash and double digit demographic growth, which quickly makes up for most of the losses in taxes and trade. Not to mention the demographic and squalor setback allow you to increase taxes, and give you valuable time to construct buildings of your own cultural group. On the other hand, smaller cities who don't have the necessary demographic-growthbuildings would cost you relatively more when you sack them. Therefore the economic and financial loss of sacking fully built-out cities with a huge population and a small demographic growth is most likely smaller than sacking cities without the infrastructure, the inhabitants or with a decent demographic growth (before the sacking).
Sacking has become a way of life in my latest Getai campaign. My situation is much like Germany's in the two world wars, fighting a vicious two-front war: against the Qarthadastim/Epeiros in the West and the Ptolemaioi/Pontus in the East.
Sacking, therefore, not only provides me economic benefits but a way to stymie my enemies' advances. Without their major troop recruitment centers, they are forced to utilize levies by the thousands, easy pickings on the field of battle. Without their naval ports, the control of the seas can sway in my direction.
I would recommend, however, that you do not employ sacking as your main economic strategy. The immediate gains are great, certainly, but the loot from sacking is really nothing more than a very large gift. They don't provide much for long-term growth unless you spend some of the money on economic or urban development buildings.
Trade is a much more viable and steady method of gaining income.
Sorry chaps, very (silly?) question I am asking. When you guys mention sacking, do you mean enslaving the population then destroying all buildings and then giving back the city via force diplomacy or do you mean the sacking option in BI which was available to horde factions? I only have the original RTW installed and as we all know there was no sack option in that game, did the sacking option become available when you installled BI for EB? Apologies if none of that made sense, I am quite sleepy.
Take city
Enslave Pop
Destroy all buildings
Evacuate city
City rebels
True, but you might not currently be able to hold it because it is too rebellious or the enemy is too determined to regain it. Therefore, it makes more sense to just take what you can and leave. Plus, as Merlinus said, you can create a nice little eleutheroi buffer state. In my Sweboz campaign, I don't want full scale war against the Romans yet (it's far too early, about 240 BC) but they of course want it against me. So , to slow them down, I sack their alpine cities and let them revolt to create a new alpine buffer.Quote:
Originally Posted by zcb888
Playing as Macedonians.
Just sacked the city west of Alexandria, destroyed everything then moved on to take Alexandria, fought a huge battle in amongst date palms and now in control of the mighty city and access to the best ships in the Med!
Result!
Burning Alexandria to the ground in a bold raid deep into enemy territory as the Saba was very, very satisfying. And it made the little Arabian kingdom filthy rich. That's how it got some new mines.
I usually raid Qarthadast and destroy all wonders and the barracks. Then quickly get back on the boat filled with soldiers and Carthaginian coins and sail back.
Good idea. Two large armies are closing in on Alexandria and Memphis and it's time to leave! Evacuation shipping on the way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skullheadhq
Time to liquidate both cities and everything inside, ratchet up the tax rate to the max and get the hell out of there to help out the threatened frontier in Asia!
I'll be back!
I prefer construction over destruction, tax over robbery, so I guess I'm a civilized guy in heart...
Once played a Saka campaign in which I pushed to Indian ocean in 10 years and razed almost every city on my way. But no matter how many cities I razed and how many armies I destroyed, I got little satisfaction from it. I prefer to watch my cities growing.
Oh, and another reason might be that I'm an infantry lover, always have a weakness for those closely packed orderly solid infantry battle line who marched slowly but firmly towards enemies.
Not a reincarnation of a WW1 General are you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Julianus
Ha ha ha, I assume you mean a British or French one?
Just liquidated Alexandria for 32,000
Bonus!
'Haig' springs to mind!Quote:
Originally Posted by Macilrille
If an EB campaign could last more than 2k years all the way to WW1 era, of course I will adjust my tactics according to the calendar...Quote:
Originally Posted by SaigonSaddler
I think exterminating money bonus are proportional to the population, no matter how backward the town is....
BTW, if you want to got filthy rich, you could always type : add_population Roma 10000
repeat for several tens of times just before you start to assault Roma, and you could get thousands minai easily...
Where's the great difference to the add_money cheat?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cute Wolf
Only a real fanatic can burn down Roma several times and still find it funny. Usually I only get some sort of satisfaction when I destroy the cities of a strong enemy and in EB Rome doesn't belong to these...
Rome is about the only faction that I have really raided/sacked with any frequency. That being said, the reason why is they are the faction that I typically have the most trouble going toe-to-toe with due to the triarii spamming that occurs.