Occupy / Sack / Exterminate a settlement.

Hi guys. I can't find anything in the manual about this. When you take a settlement, you get three choices as to what to do with it.

1) Occupy settlement. This way you get no extra money but you have a large population to grow your city with. What are the bonuses or penalties associated with this

2) Sack Settlement. This way you get tonnes of money and kill a percentage of the populous so there's a quick pay-off and only a slight slow-down in growth. What are the bonuses or penalties associated with this

3) Exterminate populous. This way you get a bit of money and kill everyone. You get some money, but not anywhere near as much as sacking and you have to grow the town from scratch. What are the bonuses or penalties associated with this

it seems to me that you'd always want to sack a settlement cause the population hit isn't that bad and you get loads of cash. there has to be a balance somewhere but i don't know what it is ~:(

Can anyone help? Pointing to the right page on the manual will do ~;) But I can't find it anywhere! :dizzy2:

Sacking also destroys some buildings,

Early game I occupy, cities are smaller and need all the population they can get. Then I exterminate.

Are you sure about that Monarch? I've looked at the buildings a settlement had before I sacked, then I sacked and they were exactly the same...

Does anyone know if there is anything on this in the manual or do CA assume we'll just guess!? :furious3:

That seems to be a conglomeration of the rules from RTW with the Barbarian Invasion horde mechanic thrown in. In RTW, occupying the city got you about 1 gold for every 100 population. The population was left intact, which could cause public order penalties if the population was high (there's no penalty for different culture in M2TW, is there?). Exterminating killed off 3/4 the population, but got you 10 times as much gold: 1 gold for every 10 population. In M2TW, it'll lower your relations with the faction that owned the settlement before you took it, and with the Papal States if the previous owner was Catholic. Sacking was possible to hordes in BI. In BI, sacking a city killed off about 80-90% of the population, brought in a little more money than extermiting, and had a chance (not automatic, just a random chance) of damaging buildings in the city. I don't know how closely that's followed in M2.

The 3 options really have a pretty easy application when you consider the results you'll get.

Occupy settlement. As mentioned previously good in the early stages of the game, you simply move in retain the current population & don't damage any buildings. This is really applicable to cities that you take where your faction & the "populace" are compatible, for example a catholic faction taking a muslim city would not be compatible so to avoid unrest you would need a large garrison, & it would take longer to convert the city itself.

Sack Settlement. You need cash, sack the settlement, you get alot of money but do not drastically decrease the populace so it will recover faster. The building damage may or may not be a concern dependent once again on the peoples that you are taking over, obviously a city with the wrong religion will require you to knock down their places of worship & build your own anyway but you have no guarntee that the sacking will damage those or other buildings. In a small city the population loss maybe sufficient for you to quickly convert & gain control over the populace, in a larger city it may not be sufficient for you to comfortably convert everyone, before the unrest gets unreasonable. This option is also very useful if you're not looking to consolidate but just raid or put an enemy on the back foot, you make a mint of money & lose them the cities wealth for a while.

Exterminate populous. You move into a hugh city of an opposite religion, or a city revolts due to unrest, move in & kill 'em all. You'll get less money for doing this but you'll make extra cash knocking down the religious buildings which you may want to get rid of anyway, & in the case of unrest, well you just killed everyone so that & squalor should be radically decreased.

City conquering styles also affect your commanding general's traits: occupying is a chivalrious act, sacking is considered neutral and exterminating makes your general more feared.

In game terms, you get chivalry/dread points sometimes if you choose occupation/extermination.

Exterminating is useful where you take over a city/castle that isn't aligned with your religion.

I think we're all pretty confident about when we should use each option, but I'm still not sure about the actual sacking mechanics.

For example, how random is the building damage? Does it always cost you more to repair the damage than you get from sacking? And if not, what's the downside? Does it give you unrest over a long period?

I'm sure I've sacked cities and got little, if any building damage, while raking in the cash and leaving the population largely untouched. It just seems a really attractive option - so I'm thinking there must be a catch.

basically you do wantto sackk enearlly every time. the cost to repay the damaged building is more than outwieghed by the loot

In BI when you sacked a settlement you did not keep it but instead it became Rebel, is that still the case?

No you keep sacked settlements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fridgebadger

I think we're all pretty confident about when we should use each option, but I'm still not sure about the actual sacking mechanics.

For example, how random is the building damage? Does it always cost you more to repair the damage than you get from sacking? And if not, what's the downside? Does it give you unrest over a long period?

I'm sure I've sacked cities and got little, if any building damage, while raking in the cash and leaving the population largely untouched. It just seems a really attractive option - so I'm thinking there must be a catch.

---

I've sacked the rebel cities of Bruge, Antwerp and Cheverou something (city in Wales). These cities had no buildings, except for the regular wall. So in this way you get the bonus without damaging any buildings.

Does sacking reduce unrest?

Funny thing though, when my crusaders took Jerusalem and exterminated the place, the port at least was destroyed (and I know for a fact that there was one, because I had blockaded it before the city fell). I don't know about any other buildings that may have been there, as I didn't check, but at any rate I haven't really noticed any building damage when sacking towns - though I may not have paid much attention to it.

I'm finding it very difficult to come up with a reason not to sack a settlement in almost all circumstances :dizzy2:

Yes, at the very beginning of the game with a very small settlement then occupy for growth, and I guess when taking over a very large city the other side of the map then exterminate for unrest.

Otherwise - sack the lot of them!

I've sacked all the settlements that I've conquered, and there has never been damage to any buildings other than the walls and any other buildings I accidently hit with my catapults/cannons when laying siege.

Yup I sack too, its the best option.

A fun thing to do though is, I was at war with danes I did not want Farnkfurt but attacked anyway. I sacked them, then sold all the buildings. I made over 30K just doing this. Then I abandoned it.

The only thing I did wrong was destroy the church, which was really bad for papal relations, I went down to one cross from 5. So next time I won't touch the church.

has any one else noticed this?
After taking a city and i hover over the sack option it tells me that i will make about 10K from it, but in reality i only make about 3K. Is this a bug or a feature?

Isn't sacking better than exterminating under all circumstances right now? Sacking seems to kill enough people to bring any city under control. You don't need to exterminate if that is the case.

I still like holding on to certain towns if I can occupy them safely. Trade income seems more related to population in M:TW2. I have my capital Venice bringing in over 6k per turn and have a few cities like Vienna over 4k (maybe 5k for Vienna), some over 5k as well.

Has anyone really paid attention to the city b4 sacking?

Like Sardo posted, maybe the buildings just disappear and dont show up in a damaged state?

I really wish their was a Sack City and move on feature tho. I captured a Muslim town sacked it and destroyed all the buildings, then moved my army out, had to wait a few turns b4 it actually became Rebel but at the time I was crusading and it ending before got there so figured I was at war with Egypt , may as well earn some coin as its going to be a long haul back.

What percentage of the population do you kill when sacking a settlement? People say here that it's not like the 80-90% of BI, but does anyone have a number?

I always occupy now, I'm thinking that the income in the next turns would be more than the loot from sacking but I really don't have any hard evidence to support this. I think this was the case in previous TW games. Anybody that knows?

I've been playing M/M level English short campaigns while awaiting the patch.

The only thing I can recall as a specific relation to sacking vs occupying is York.

When I sack York I get one city upgrade to build. When I occupy I upgrade the city and there's another upgrade available immediatly after.

I never looked at the numbers but the above has been consistant enough that I always occupy York and the other UK towns/forts now because having them up to speed and producing asap radically affects how I can conduct operations accross the channel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by maestro

Does anyone know if there is anything on this in the manual or do CA assume we'll just guess!? :furious3:

---

The strategy guide says this:

...you can choose to Occupy the Settlement, leaving the buildings and populace intact. You can Sack the city, generating a large amount of gold, but destroying infrastructure. Or you can exterminate the populace, instilling order through fear. Exterminating also generates a lot of money, and it raises the Dread of your General.

Occupy: Population strong, a lot of unrest though
Sack: Population decreases about 1/5 or so, get a lot of money
Exterminate: 3/4 of Population are put to sword, get about 1/4 of the Florins one would gain if sacking.

I don't know if this is consistent or not, but "damaging infastructure" sounds like you're taking out buildings that give you law bonuses like governors palace. If this is the case, then the downside to sacking a big city is that you'll take out most of the buildings that were allowing you to keep the population in control, while only killing a small amount of the population (more likely to revolt).

Really the only time I'll occupy is if they're of a similar religion/ethnicity. If not I'll simply sack it. However if the city is simply gigantic and filled with pissed off people that think I'm heathen scum I'll kill their first born, their second born, them, their significant other, and their neighbors just for fun.

However if the general I'm using has a developing chivalry rating, I'll occupy if I think I can handle it over time, just to get him the bonus, or if he's developing a dread rating, I'll exterminate if I think I can handle the drastic decrease in manpower quickly enough.

Tbh I sometimes save, exterminate, then reload and just sack it, simply because I like the sound of the screams of the fools who dared to defy my will.

Actually I have found on several occasions that after sacking the city, there is damage to some of the buildings that has to be repaired. Ihaven't noticed if this is always the case or what, if anything, gets completely destroyed.

I found out exterminating the population of a catholic settlement damages your standing with the Pope. Apparently he doesn't like it when catholics get exterminated, not even rebels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AndresTheCunning

I found out exterminating the population of a catholic settlement damages your standing with the Pope. Apparently he doesn't like it when catholics get exterminated, not even rebels.

---

Sacking a catholic settlement also damages your relations with the pope, though not quite as much as extermination.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daveybaby

Sacking a catholic settlement also damages your relations with the pope, though not quite as much as extermination.

---

The French exterminated a city of mine and went from 6-8 crosses to excommunication. Funny the outcome of the pope forcing me to cease hostilities.

It appears most warnings are double warnings. When I get warned not to attack them, they are also warned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oaty

The French exterminated a city of mine and went from 6-8 crosses to excommunication. Funny the outcome of the pope forcing me to cease hostilities.

It appears most warnings are double warnings. When I get warned not to attack them, they are also warned.

---

Yeah, i think they all are. Had opponents excommed several times when they attacked me after i got a warning from the pope to cease hosilities with them.

So i now try to goad them into attacking me after getting a papal warning - by constantly moving small stacks in and out of their territory to (a) piss them off with me even more, and (b) present a nice easy target to take out. Once they attack and get excommed, i am then free to invade with impunity, and the pope will actually thank me for it (as long as i dont exterminate or sack captured cities).

Personaly, i always sack settlements. Cause war needs money, especially at the beginning of a campaign.

Sacking large cities is extremely profitable...

Sacking Milan and Genoa generated more than 30k florins each. The same with Budapest. And with the heartland of the HRE being highly developed I don't mind if there are few buildings lost. After all the HRE is Nothern European while the other two are Southern, which cause some unrest due to cultural differences (as in Rome).

But those money are always great for heling me to keep my heartlands producing buildings. The sack of Milan even paid for three cathedrals the Pope liked very much (6 crosses to full).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kraxis

After all the HRE is Nothern European while the other two are Southern, which cause some unrest due to cultural differences (as in Rome).

---

Not quite sure how that works, but I occupied an Egyptian castle as England and had no unrest. My guess was in beta they looked into keeping cultural penalties but left it out. But it is still used in sieges for what the castle/cities looks like.

Also I noticed it appears sacking a castle seems to keep everything in tact, but sacking a castle with 10,000 population is a lot less profitable than sacking a city with 10,000 population. by 2 to 3 times.

if not a christian city n im playing christian i exterminate it so no hostilities

Ah well... even without the cultural penalty the sacks aer more than just worth it when you have a nice empire going.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oaty

Also I noticed it appears sacking a castle seems to keep everything in tact, but sacking a castle with 10,000 population is a lot less profitable than sacking a city with 10,000 population. by 2 to 3 times.

---

Sacking castles and cities does some damage to buildings. I'm not sure if it happens every time, but it definitely happens. I have also noticed that sacking a city generates more money than doing the same to a castle. Probably because cities tend to have more money laying around than castles. There is more economic acticvity and the people are likley better off than the poor peasant farmers you would find in a castle.

Just a guess.

Wow, I've been exterminating constantly because of my longstanding dread of squalor but now it seems that I have damaged my relations with the pope and missed out on a lot of cash, which I'm always in need of.

How does population affect unit recruitment or retraining though? If I exterminate the population, am I limited in soldier numbers or unit numbers? Are you unit numbers based on buildings (i.e., 2 feudal knights per x building) or poopulation or both?

Sorry if this is too much a tangent.

I'm not sure if unit recruiting subrtacts from existing population as it did in RTW or not.

Quote:

---

I'm not sure if unit recruiting subrtacts from existing population as it did in RTW or not.

---

It does not. Recruiting and pop are fully separated now. By the same token, disbanding a unit inside a town/castle will not increase its population.

Which is a good thing, because as a modder said it was very hard to balance growth when people played with different unit sizes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kobal2fr

Which is a good thing, because as a modder said it was very hard to balance growth when people played with different unit sizes.

---

I always liked it. At this point I think it would be, as I found it in the past, a valuable tool in balancing population. The unit sizes aren't as big in MTW2, even on huge, which is good.

in reality, how much would you really benefit monetarily from destroying a city? is this just looking at the robbing people's homes and the artwork and such from the businesses?

personally, i never exterminate and i never sack a settlement. my infrastructure is always built to a point that supports my military needs.

Today you wouldn't gain that much to be honest.

But back then you would gain a whole lot. All money was valuable and there was no such thing as paper money or cards. At best there were vouchers.
So if you ransacked a city and took all the money within, you would gain a good deal. Add to that that most armies had merchants tagging along, hoping to get a good deal. So you could sell them all kinds of stuff. Metals (always valuable), art, weapons, slaves (a bit on and off for the catholics) and such. And the idividual soldiers would gain things that would help him on the march. Pots, light equipment, expendible supplies (candles, food, firewood, ect ect).

Seems to me that the only option is to sack. I've taken settlements, saved the game, and compared after both occupation and sacking. Both decisions revealed the same results. I checked buildings and finances and not a single stone or cent was changed.

A note on the Pope: In the game at least, he's not so righteous as he ought to be. Station a Diplomat outside Rome to gift him with 100 Florin and maybe map information. He'll forget all about any misdeeds as fast as the money hits his pockets.

Sacking and exterminating settlements will hurt your global reputation! In my Polish campaign a while back HRE´s last king was assasinated and some 8-9 settlements went rebel. I swiftly moved in and secured all of them sacking everyone and my global reputation went from trustworthy to dubious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by malkuth

Yup I sack too, its the best option.

A fun thing to do though is, I was at war with danes I did not want Farnkfurt but attacked anyway. I sacked them, then sold all the buildings. I made over 30K just doing this. Then I abandoned it.

The only thing I did wrong was destroy the church, which was really bad for papal relations, I went down to one cross from 5. So next time I won't touch the church.

---

Playing as Russia I was at war with Poland and Denmark. I was holding my own, but I was going broke doing it and unable to expand. So I loaded an army onto ships, sent it to sweden, and sacked a couple of danish cities I found there. Then I sold all the buildings and ditched the cities. The downside is that a few hundred years later both of those cities have full stack garrisons of high-grade rebel troops. I've broken two armies on the streets of Upsalla.

I'm wondering what the effects are of sacking and exterminating Muslim cities on your reputation as a catholic ruler.
I sacked Jerusalem in a crusade, but they quickly revolted and threw me out. I went back in and exterminated it. My king still has 5 points of chivalry.

I can imagine that being cruel to the religious enemy may have the opposite effect to being cruel to fellow catholics. Does anyone have data?

Chivalry is not reputation.

What I know about occupying, sacking and exterminating, is this:

Trais on the General taking the settlement:
- Occupying gives you a 100% chance of StrategyChivalry
- Sacking gives you a 20% chance of Despoiler
- Exterminate gives you a 100% chance of StrategyDread and Genocide and a 10% chance of Bloodthirsty. Note that the first level of the Genocide trait is at treshold 3, you'll have to exterminate 3 cities with the same guy to get it. It also gives you a 50% chance of DiscontentGeneral if you exterminate with more than 4 chivalry on your general.
- Your leader is not affected traitwise by what his generals do to cities. So you don't screw up your noble leader if you exterminate to train a fearsome general.

Reputation:
- Occupy increases it
- Sacking decreases it slighty, even against rebels
- Extermination decreases it a lot, even against rebels
- in addition, your pope rating will decrease if you sack or exterminate a catholic city

Building damage:
- No damage from occupy
- Sacking has a random chance of damaging, but not destroying, buildings
- Exterminating has a random chance of destroying buildings

Sacking gives you the most money, but when deciding what to do, you'll have to consider all of the points above to decide what to do. It might not be the best thing all of the time.

"OH NO, WALLACE JUST SACKED YORK~:mecry: " I sacked as England to get the cash and now as Spain I have been sacking but, the Moorish cites are starting to be a pain ~:angry: . I think I will exterminate and build from scratch???? I only get wall/gate damage when I sack never no buildings??? Haven't payed to much attention to my rep. seeing how I will rule the world or die trying.~D :charge: . I play slow and like to please the "Pope" even when I own him :laugh4: :laugh4:. I do miss the control you had over population in "RT" that was easy to make a bunch of peasant and send them over to a city and disband, or if a city was being a pain to hard to control just take the peasants out to the country and disband :juggle2:. "Hore Tore" is right on :2thumbsup:.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jambo

Are you sure about that Monarch? I've looked at the buildings a settlement had before I sacked, then I sacked and they were exactly the same...

---

They seem to receive some damage...

Regarding sacking and damage:

Yes, you DO damage buildings when sacking. But it's not a given. It's a random chance(can probably be found in a data file).

I'm playing my moorish campaign now, and I captured Pamplona. I saved the game, then sacked. The fortress and barracks was damaged. I reloaded, and sacked again. This time, the fortess, bowyer and blacksmith was damaged. I reloaded and occupied, and only the fortress was damaged, but that's because I crushed it in the siege.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PseRamesses

Sacking and exterminating settlements will hurt your global reputation!

---

BINGO. And then all your neighbors will declare war on you. Unless you want to be at war with everyone all the time, "occupy" should be the rule not the exception. Except when taking large cities of different religion in which case you may be forced to exterminate.

IMHO to sack/occupy/exterm depends on your stategy and situation.


If you are blitzing , ie. trying to win as quickly as possible then sacking is best as it gives the $'s necessary to field large armies and build what you want.

If you have a particularly unruly province far away from home then you may consider exterminating, though generally most places can be controlled without this (unlike RTW)

If you like to have chivalrous generals and a good reputation then occupy is the way to go. Chivalry gives +0.5% growth and therefore more tax $'s. Your population will also be happier. I virtually only use this option as I like to play the chivalrous guys. IMHO it builds a slow but sure road to success.

Choosing to occupy a settlement gives steady population boom but lacks immediately financial advantage. Sacking yields sizeable cash with a population hit, while exterminating presents some cash but calls for rebuilding. The stability relies upon for your short-time period wishes and long-time period method. Refer to the guide for extra special statistics at the results of each choice.