When you sack a city, does the money you receive come from the other player's treasury directly or from the buildings/people of the city. (In other words, are you damaging your enemy further by sacking the city vs occupying it)
Printable View
When you sack a city, does the money you receive come from the other player's treasury directly or from the buildings/people of the city. (In other words, are you damaging your enemy further by sacking the city vs occupying it)
This is only a guess, but I've noticed when I lose a city and it presumably gets sacked, I lose no money.
More compelling evidence is when you sack the city of a "bankrupt" nation and get tens of thousands of florins. That should tell you it's not coming from the opponent's treasury. Especially when they spawn new troops when they would have been thousands in debt.
I'd say it's spontaneously generated money. Case in point : when you buy out another faction's merchant, you get a ton of cash (I think it was something like 150 or 250 florins per point of Finance of the loser), but if your own merchants are sacked, you don't lose any money. Same should go for cities. Plus, theoretically, the "sacking" loot comes from the citizen's personnal possessions, not from a share of the sacked nation's treasury...
It never occurred to me that this money was coming from the enemies treasury. I just assumed that this was cash generated by the looting of the citizens of the city, probably mostly the jewish merchants and money lenders.
If anything the thing that puzzles me is how my faction leader manages to get his hands on it. Logic would suggest that most of it in reality would disappear into the pockets and backpacks of the soldiers who looted it, and the rest would probably be buried as soon as possible for later recovery.
Well, i always assumed that my boys go out on a fun little romp of pillage and destruction when i sack a city.....and that it hurt the income of the city temporarily but gives you a nice influx of cash, as apposed to occupy which leaves the economy intact, and exterminate which of course causes long-term economy damage (mostly due to less tax payers)
I don't get it when you get less money for exterminating than you do for sacking. Surely you get to swag ALL their stuff if they're dead!
I believe extermination doesnt damage / loot buildings.
:inquisitive: Are they always Jewish? And in Cairo? :gah:Quote:
Originally Posted by Didz
You should be able to exterminate AND sack, bwahahaha! You should also be able to smash down walls, like in MTW 1 when you could utterly destroy a place. that was cool
Based upon what little I know the Jewish merchants were the masters of the trade routes during the period depicted. They were also major financiers of the wars of this period including the Reconquista in Spain.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gorm
As I understand it part of the reason for this was that many Christian factions considered the lending of money (Usary), and in particular the charging of interest on the principal lent to be a sin.
"The rich ruleth over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender" -- Proverbs 22:7
"For the love of money is the root of all evil" -- II Timothy 6:10
This in effect meant that any non-Christians in the community had a potential monopoly upon the business of lending money, and provided this service to everyone from the King to the lowliest peasant.
This was compounded further in some countries by other laws which prevented Jews from owning property. Thus, a Jew could not own a shop, house, cart, ship, or even a horse and so could only survive by the lending of money for profit. The classic depiction of this is the story of 'The Merchant of Venice.'
Indeed, the very growth of Venice as a major trading nation can be partly attributed to re-settlement of Jews from Spain following their expulsion after the Reconquista, as indeed can the rise of Amsterdam as major trading port. The explusion of the Jews from Spain also signalled a major decline in Spains role as a trading conduit for Europe.
It therefore, follows logically that if a bunch of soldiers are looking for large quantities of gold coinage then their best bet is probably to head for the Jewish quarter of the city they are sacking. The added advantage being that they are probably not going to meet much opposition, in so far as most of the people of the city who owed the Jews money were only too willing to have their debts written-off by the death or explusion of their creditor.
It's the Templars who've got all the money I tell you!
True about the Templars. On the History-Int they had a templars special, and they said they had their huge reserves of money due to moneylending, and that in fact they did charge interest, but by using the loophole of calling it "rent," instead of interest. As in you are renting the possession of the money from me, same as you might rent the occupation of a house I own.
You don't think your lads would really take the time to stabbity-stabbity the whole town on a case-by-case basis, do you ? Who's got the patience for that ? They've got places to be, women to rape ! Plus it's just no fun to slaughter innocents after the first hundred or so. So methinks they work smarter instead of harder and just lob a bunch of disease ridden cows around, then burn the whole place to the ground, gold/tapestries/artworks/valuable books included :smash::skull:Quote:
Originally Posted by Joshwa
Thank you for a very thoughtful and detailed explanation. :scholar: I was beginning to wonder if this was a racial slur, but thank you for setting the record straight. I was totally unaware of the restrictions put on Jewish people during the middle ages. I must read "The Merchant of Venice"!Quote:
Originally Posted by Didz
I would also recommend the film, which is excellently shot and very atmospheric. Al Pacino does an excellent job of playing Shylock the jewish money lender. The film also highlights the hypocracy of the Venetian catholic's who spit on the Jews in public and then arrange secret meetings with them to negotiate loans and credit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gorm
Also, you have to think, how in the hell is your army gonna carry off an entire city worth of treasure? It's not like theres always a giant fleet of ships around to carry off your pillaged goods, and even if there were, where would you store it all?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2fr
In all probability it comes directly from the buildings/people of the city.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yaropolk
I read it some where regarding it and it seems correct from my gameplay.
There's 3 option when u occupy a city.
1) occupy
2) sack
3) exterminate
1) Occupy
Do nothing to the city and get little $$$
2) Sack
Kill a few civilians and get a some $$$. Buildings get minor damage in the process
3) Exterminate
Kills a large percentage of the civilians in the city and get loads of $$$. Buildings get major damage and may even downgrade.
I do not know where did the TS get the idea of the $$$ coming from the enemy treasury. but it certainly doesnt come from them.
Since we r in this topic. Why cant take over a enemy faction's teasury when we were took over it's LAST city. The $$$ just disappear! Talking about hidden treasures...
Something just struck me : perhaps the increased "value" of sacking as opposed to extermination is related to something that was and important mechanism in RTW but has disappeared in M2 : slavery.
Since population doesn't work the same way, and medieval slavery was much less... I don't know, pervasive ? institutionalized ? than in Ancient Rome, it would make sense to remove the option to enslave cities... but still, maybe the pop that "dies" when you sack the town is not killed but sold to slave merchants. And it's hard to sell a corpse (except if you live near a medical school that is :laugh4:).
BTW khaos, you've got it backwards : sacking nets you a lot more instant cash than extermination (which is what puzzles the OP)
Didz is of course correct that the Jewish diaspora community acted as one of the most important finance networks of the medieval period. And that the Christian communities they lived near often interacted them in a hugely hypocritical fashion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gorm
As for Jews in Cairo: AFAIK, for the majority of the past two thousand years there have typically been more Jews in Egypt than anywhere else. The Jewish community there during the Roman period was enormous and no real effort was ever made to dislodge them until after the foundation of the modern state of Israel.
Added to which, Muslims have historically been far more tolerant of Jewish minorities in their midst - not exclusively but certainly for the most part. So, yes, expect that the largest (and probably richest) minority in Cairo during the M2TW period would have been Jewish.
All of which makes the current situation in that part of the world all the more depressing......
My take on this is that it depicts the difference in motivation behind the action.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kobal2fr
EXTERMINATION: As a the label justs is little more than the wanton slaughter of anyone and everyone you come across. Sort of 'kill first ask questions later.' Consequently, as dead men tell no tales the haul of gold is going to be limited to that which can be found in a mans house and on his person.
SACKING: I assume is a bit more of an targetted affair. Here your troops are deliberately looking for gold and so having smashed their way into a victims home their first order of business is not to kill him and his family but to persuade him to reveal where he has hidden his money. It was common practice at this period (and for sometime afterwards) for people under threat to bury their riches, and so persuading the victim to show you where he has strashed his loot requires alternative tactic's. Killing his wife, or son might be a better approach than killing him and so the death toll is somewhat lower, but the results are more financially rewarding.
Incidently, my late father, a native of Bermondsey (London) taught me a similar strategy to protect my money from muggers. He always insisted that I emptied my wallet when we travelled to London, and leaving only a token note or two in it distribute the rest about my person in various pockets with at least one note large enough to pay for my ticket home hidden in my shoe. That way the theory was that a mugger might snatch my wallet and get a small haul but short of indulging in a major body search was unlikely to clean me out and leave me stranded. I'm sure similar strategies would have been common place in Medieval times and I suspect that multiple stashes would be an almost standard trick. If nothing else it would mean that if after paying off one bunch of looters, another came calling you still had money left to bargain with.
Hehe, I wonder where that shoe business comes from. I know it's the *first* place Paris cops look for marijuana, because most kids tuck their stash in their socks since "they'll never find it there !". And I should know. French cops have the right to bodily search you in the street out of the blue, and I used to have long hair. You do the math :). Old habits die hard...Quote:
Originally Posted by Didz
My auvergnat grandfather (if you don't know, Auvergne is France's Scotland in terms of miserly old men) always instructed me to keep money inside my underwear, because "even if they do find it in there, half the time they'll be too grossed out to take it" :laugh4:
Precisely. And I suppose (never checked, come to think of it) extermination comes with a few turns worth of heavy bonus to public order, which certainly helped in RTW with the culture penalty (is it still in there BTW, or has it been totally replace with religious unrest ? I used to systematically replace/destroy every infrastructure in captured cities back in Rome, but with militias and dread/chivalry I never had to in M2)Quote:
My take on this is that it depicts the difference in motivation behind the action.
Pretty much like that, expects that they had chapter houses all over Christian-Europe, and it was dangerous to move around with bag full of money, so they gave the money to Templar chapter house and received somekind of note and code or something, so they could cash the same amount from any other chapter house.Quote:
Originally Posted by DesertEagle
They were actually first worldwide bank in world or something...
The Templars started acting as bankers as a way of facilitating crusading efforts (one of their constant problems was persuading enough fighters to go to the Holy Land outside of the major crusades).Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarky
The idea was that a knight could go to his local chapter house, pay in some cash and then be able to draw from all chapter houses on route, either in the local currency or (far more likely) in kind (i.e., replacement horses, bed and board and so on). This was intended to make it easier to go on crusade and did help increase the number of military personnel who made it to Outremer.
This got corrupted over time and the Templars did become moneylenders in a more conventional sense.
Of course, they were never in the same league as the Jews had always been or as the northern Italians who got in on the game around the same time.
As for the Templars being the first worldwide bank, this ignores:
a) them not operating worldwide
b) their banking efforts being predated by several centuries by the efforts of many, many others (most notably the Jews, who are known to have been engaged in banking throughout the Hellenic world in pre-Roman times).
I thought that it came from looting too.
I just had a series of events where I crusaded to sack Egyptian held Constantinople only to discover it had almost 10k gold in repairs needed, in addition to the expensive mercs I'd not been paying upkeep on during the crusade, so I gave it back to Egypt in exchange for a ceasefire, cash, and a minor city. I got 21k gold from sacking it. Two turns later a jihad is declared against me, so I'm at war with Egypt with a medium stack (Dismissed the mercs) right by Cons, and I know they can't afford to repair it, so I proceed to sack it again, pouring through the same holes against pathetic militia units and a fresh general. 18k gold this time.
This whole time I'm in frequent diplomatic contact with Egypt, and they are low on cash by all reports. I'd say there's no possibility the money came from them, especially not the second time.
Oh, and if you happened to be in Constantinople around 1260-1270 AD, the English king apologizes for robbing you twice (And then foisting you off on the Milanese for repairs).
Ramses II
My usual strategy in the Holyland is to sack the city, trash all the buildings for cash and then sell or gift the husk to the Pope. So. maximum profit and loads of Pope-o-meter bonuses. Plus the added bonus of almost guaranteed follow up crusades to defend the Popes new possession.