Extermination gives big money in the first turn but slavery gives money for 11 turns.
What is the best of this 2 ????
Printable View
Extermination gives big money in the first turn but slavery gives money for 11 turns.
What is the best of this 2 ????
It depends.
If you need a population boost in your governed cities, enslave.
If you already have big cities and don't need new citizens and the population of the captured city is above 2000, exterminate.
Otherwise, just leave them be.
R'as
Really there is no best answer, it all depends upon your own preferences and the current situation in the campaign.
If I capture a settlement which is close to growing to the next size, then I prefer to just occupy.
If I need to increase the population of my other cities, then I enslave. Since slaves are only sent to settlements with governors, there's an exploit to temporarily remove governors from all settlements apart from those you want to get the slaves just prior to your assault. You return the governors to their settlement before the end of the turn & no harm is done.
If I am just raiding and don't want to keep the settlement or I really need a quick cash boost or I can't afford to keep a large garrison to hold the newly conquered settlement, then I will exterminate. There's also an exploit to let a overcrowded but built-up city revolt, then recapture the city, exterminating the populace; you're left with a well developed city without any of the population problems.
Totally agree...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinner
That's a bit harsh, it is hardly an exploit to be able to decide where you want the slaves sent...Quote:
Originally Posted by Sinner
Well for me it's not money that counts. It's if I can keep the order of the city.
If I can occupy, I do so. If not, my first choice is to enslave. If enslaving doesn't work I exterminate.
(If during the game I decide that I hate someone I go the other way round ~D )
You can check the status of the settlement that you just captured while you see the screen that gives you the choice what to do with it. You can see under the screen if it's green or yellow or... you know what I mean ~;)
As I have found in the long run I do have the most profit when occupying (bigger city = more taxes) then by enslaving and then by exterminating. You have to be hot for cash to go for the extermination. It doesn't pay that much in the long run.
I think I could be right. But then I might be playing a different game... :charge:
Perhaps, but that's how I see it: it's taking benefit of a peculiarity of the game engine in a way that the AI can't use. I've done it a few times, but prefer not to now and haven't done so in my latest couple of games.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob the Insane
I kind of like the little sounds that happen when I put the city to the sword. Extermination all the way baby!
And I want good little Romans in my cities. Got to love them Romans, no problem what so ever being forced to move from a nice comfy interior city to one way out in the sticks.
I've been playing with the idea of adopting a *Policy* at the start of a Campaign. You decide whether to be an Occupier, Enslaver, or a Killer, and stick with it. Trying to find, which is the best *Challenge*. Right now, I'm an Occupier.
I'm beginning to wonder if the choice s/b held to the Size and potential Income of the City. For example, some Cities have Ports with good Tradeables, in this case, I think its best to Occupy and grow this city for its Income, etc.
Other cities, particularly those far cities of the Gauls and Dracians to the North, in the middle of the woods, have the least Income potential and relatively low populations, so why bother with the cost and attention of Ocuppying. Better to Exterminate; or, if the City has an appealing population level, then Enslave.
The above is my thinking, I'm testing things out. Like I'm not exactly sure, what the results and effects will be of Exterminating a cities population and NOT Occupying, just leaving. Not sure if CA, has got this right, a Player s/b able to just *wipe cities off the map*, as the Romans did to Carthage.
Also, a much need improvement, is that a Player s/b able to direct the flow of Slaves to a particular City or Cities.
Thoughts?
Extermination. :charge:
You'll probably have a revolt, which means you'll have a full stack of elite units that belong to the faction you just took the city from - it's really nasty.Quote:
Originally Posted by ToranagaSama
I thought you could. As I understand it, the enslave option sends slaves only to the cities that are governed at the end of each turn, which lasts for 20 turns. If it doesn't work like this then it's a bug.Quote:
Also, a much need improvement, is that a Player s/b able to direct the flow of Slaves to a particular City or Cities.
Thoughts?
Oh, and the coastal Gaul provinces can become cash cows once you build up your trade network. ~;)
I noticed something when I gave Parthia a try. The two rebels cities nearby only start the game with the minimum level population of 400. When I hit the one near my capitol, it had a population of 406 after one turn's growth. I could occupy it and earn 40 D, enslave the population splitting the 6 slaves between my three cities and earn 40 D, or exterminate killing 6 members of the population and earning 406 D. I chose exterminate. Everything depends on the current situation.
My strategy is simple - occupy settlements with similar culture (or, in other words, no cultural penalties), exterminate settlements with different cultures. Exterminating everything works too, if you start with decent cities. Otherwise it can be hard to get any city up to making your better units. Slavery can help, but I prefer to not have to micromanage where the slaves are going to go.
Bh