Occupy? Loot? Raze?

Hey guys. I'm wondering what is considered the best thing to do after conquering a city. I been occupying because I'm worried I'll do something bad and not be able to get the city's public order under control. Am I being too skittish? What are other people doing.

Also what is everyone doing with their captives after a battle? Sometimes I kill but most of the time I just free them. Seems that if you enslave them it just comes back and bites you in the butt later on with slave rebellions. Any insight here would be appreciated too.

i Always occupy as i never need slaves to get more Money (razing will get you more Money per turn for a time as well, as all Citizens in that settlement will be slaves as well as getting Money) looting i have not done)

Ihmo (and i am not what you would call good at this game ;) ) it depends on do you need some Money short term and are willing to pay the "price" of loosing stabilitys in all your countrys settlements in the long term (if you for example raze a fully upgraded athens it would be bad not so much in a smaller settlement iirc 2-3 slave Points in a smaler settlement).

killing will upset there ally and the country you defeated, but i Always do that in this playthrough (why helping them getting back that 20 stack army you just defeated and i am at war with the rest of them as well so.. )


if i am incorrect i am sure someone will correct me (i checked youtube for the razing thing when i were at home cant send you the source at the moment as i am at work)

Razing gives you a popularity boost with that faction's enemies. Something to think about with the Seleucids for example. I normally occupy and execute prisoners though. Can't be bothered with the severe PO hit for my settlements, and I never build the slave market chain anyway.

I go for raze all the time with barbarian factions. With 'Civilised' factions I tend to occupy.
Occupy is ok, the -25 PO hit is not a big deal, but the -10 (sometimes -8 depending on faction) that decreases gradualy is actually quite a lot of PO, 10+9+8+7+6+5+4+3+2+1= 55 so I tend to raze more often than anything else. If it's a different cultures buildings you'll have to demolish or convert them anyway, and if it's high level, it still retains the old properties untill the conversion is complete, meaning temples that give opposite culture don't stop giving it untill you finish converting, and high level buildings with -PO or -food will still kick out the negative untill it's finished too. All this adds up to it being far more of a headache to make that high level city usefull, and converting is expensive, nearly as much as building it yourself when you take into account the - construction cost benefits you can get by parking the right general there or building certain things first.
Razing knocks everything that can't be destroyed (city buildings and ports) down to level 1 and destroys everything else. Even against other barbarian factions that is usually a better option as it gives you a clean slate to work with and no penalties from buildings getting in the way. The -50 can seem like a big deal but actually it's less in total than occupying. Occupy gives you -50 instantly (quite a bit of which is countered by your army that just took the town being parked there and not being able to move) and then -5 diminishing at one per turn, 5+4+3+2+1= 15. Total PO hit 65, compared to 25 + 54 = 79 for occupy, just spread over a longer time. Also multiply razings one turn appart work very well for 2 or 3 settlement provinces, as the -5 doesn't stack (but the -50 does if it's the same turn) it just gets re-set to five each time, which is a lot better than the occupy hit, which re-set to ten (or sometimes 8). The flaw to razing is that if you don't have any cash flow the empty slots can become slums after a couple of turns, and that will deal massive hits to PO and food.
Sack/loot is a terrible option almost all the time for me. Loot (civilised factions choice, captures settlement) gives you -50 AND -15 diminishing, which is almost always enough to make even one province rebel without a babysitting army, all the buildings are badly damadged, taking upwards of 5 turns to self-repair compared to about three for raze, and don't forget repairing a high level building is expensive, a low level one is relatively cheap. The initial cash benefit almost always gets eaten up just repairing the settleent, not even converting the buildings over which adds at least another turn to them kicking out negative effects.
Sack (barbarian factions choice, damage eveything do not capture settlement)is better and has it's uses to weaken an enemy but that -15 is still bad as most of the time you will want to come back and take the settlement for yourself within the next 5 turns or so, and that penalty is still slowly ticking down for you. I tend to use this when at war with someone I want to hurt but the settlement is strategically weak or in a province I don't want to touch.
And then slaves, from looting and sacking you get a ton of slaves and the PO hit that comes with them. Razing doesn't take slaves, it just kills them all. Much more efficient. I tend to get far less rebellions when razing than I do when occupying.

aa perhaps i was thinking of looting then on the slave thing.. :) thanks for setting me straight :)

Im a cold hearted bastard so I kill everyone. And I occupy all the time

I occupy all of the time, but might start razing after reading Sociopsychoactive's post. Though I would caution you to make sure there aren't any non faction buildings (gold related for example) that you may wish to keep. If there are I would still suggest occupy and selectively destroy undesirable buildings afterward. Having a spy in the region allows you to preview the city before capturing it so you can plan this out better.

I really wish that civilized factions had a sack or similar option that allowed you to abandon a region. There are many times I have no interest in owning a region such as in the steppes, I just attack the city to encourage a faction to accept peace. I have seen some mods that expand the options, I may just take a look at them.

If I have a stable economy and substantial military, I will use the 'ol lightning attack devastate larger factions.

If I try to occupy everything, I have to move slowly, convert and build infrastructure. That is awesome for building up your empire.

However, if you want to BLEEPING DESTROY THE BAESTERDS!!!!! Then you just attack, raze, move forward. Attack, raze, move forward. Sure you will have some PR to do later, but you will anyway when occupying completely foreign cultures.

If you are short on cash at the start of the campaign, looting, letting the region rebel, then taking back from the rebels and occupying (or looting again) sometimes pays nicely. Just be careful not to raise the slave population too high. Also, when you do this, do it in regions that are part of provinces where you have no other holdings (since happiness is set province-wide).

Coincidentally, looting, letting the region rebel, then subjugating seems to be the best course for creating faithful client states. Subjugating directly results in a client state that still remembers all the hostilities that you have inflicted upon the faction over the course of the war. However, if you loot, let the rebels take the region and then, on the very same turn subjugate their settlement, the resulting client state has only a very short memory of the very last war (that did not even last a turn). Thus, the resulting client state turns "green" (on the diplomatic screen) in no time.

Subjugating in this fashion has the added benefit of the client state not inheriting all the wars of the original faction. The rebels will be a technically "fresh faction". BTW, the client states inhering old wars is not a problem for satrapies: all their wars are rendered null and void upon subjugation. Still, by looting -> rebelling -> subjugating can result in a more reliable satrap than straight subjugation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slaists

If you are short on cash at the start of the campaign, looting, letting the region rebel, then taking back from the rebels and occupying (or looting again) sometimes pays nicely. Just be careful not to raise the slave population too high. Also, when you do this, do it in regions that are part of provinces where you have no other holdings (since happiness is set province-wide).

Coincidentally, looting, letting the region rebel, then subjugating seems to be the best course for creating faithful client states. Subjugating directly results in a client state that still remembers all the hostilities that you have inflicted upon the faction over the course of the war. However, if you loot, let the rebels take the region and then, on the very same turn subjugate their settlement, the resulting client state has only a very short memory of the very last war (that did not even last a turn). Thus, the resulting client state turns "green" (on the diplomatic screen) in no time.

Subjugating in this fashion has the added benefit of the client state not inheriting all the wars of the original faction. The rebels will be a technically "fresh faction". BTW, the client states inhering old wars is not a problem for satrapies: all their wars are rendered null and void upon subjugation. Still, by looting -> rebelling -> subjugating can result in a more reliable satrap than straight subjugation.

---

Interesting! May have to try this.

I usually occupy. but, if I don't want that city of my enemy I just loot.