Yes, the vast majority of us switches on which we pick most often. But for 51% of the time or more. For me, its Occupying but my next campaign it will be Sacking.
Printable View
Yes, the vast majority of us switches on which we pick most often. But for 51% of the time or more. For me, its Occupying but my next campaign it will be Sacking.
I'd say I occupy almost 100% of the time.
The other times are when I'm absolutely in dire need of cash, then I sack, or they revolted and kicked me out. Then they are screwed and extermination is the only way I go back in.
Sack Em, dread AND Florins. :thumbsup:
i always sack i always demand money for captives but in 1.2 whole world are always againts me after doing this, so i will stop this shame and play as good boy. i hope i wont die from being bored :juggle2:
Sack. I always sack, even in the games where I have over 800k cash, even though I don't always know why in those cases. Mostly I need the cash (early in the game)
I voted occupy, as most of my family tend to be chivalrous. But requirements must be met otherwise I will likely sack. Occupy if the occasion meets one or more of the following requirements:
1.) Settlement captured by chivalrous and likely merciful family member.
2.) Settlement belonging to rebels of my own nationality at the beginning of the game. I consider this 'unifying greater (insert faction here)'s lands'.
3.) The enemy fought considerably well (as best the AI actually can...) and the settlement were captured by a merciful family member.
4.) Most territories occupied on a crusade despite how extermination would be a better option due to unrest, religious unrest and more often than not, distance to capitol.
Usually if a dreaded or merciless family member is involved I will likely sack or exterminate whichever I deem suitable to fit the situation. If I need the money which I rarely do, sack it is. Or if I simply want a few people to die for insubordination or the like, sack. If said populace is discontent with their new masters, said family member exterminates discontent populace and leaves room only for those who will abide by the rules and settlers from my own lands.
Tschüß!
Erich
Fear me, for I choose exterminate.
Oh sure, on blitz runs and in the early game I tend to sack. But ultimately I end up exterminating due to public order concerns, and my lack of any desire to put garrisons in cities.
Sometimes I sack, let it rebel, and then return and exterminate. Either way, I end up hitting the exterminate button over 50% of the time. I get half as many florins, but that's usually enough after I've sacked a major city or two.
The larger my empire gets, the more people end up crucified. When it comes to this game, I do not take prisoners.
For the most part, as I am the benevolent God Emperor of my lands I simply occupy and convert. Once they know the glory that is ME, my people become loyal and productive.
For I am the BOB, and slack be to my followers!
Sack 'em! Take their money and their women!!!! :)
Sacking
It's where the money is.
Look at everyone voting Republican (Sacking) or Democrat (Occupy).
Looks like I'm the spoiler in this election. Anyone want to bribe me for the extermination vote?
Pizzaguy/Exterminate '08
Independent
"Together, we can build a better future on the smoldering rubble and piles of corpses of the vanquished"
VOTE PIZZAGUY/Exterminate '08
And now, the stump speech:
"Hello fellow patriots. Today we stand at the center of the magnificent city that our brave soldiers have taken. The fighting is over, and all the spoils are ours for the taking! Some say that we should loot the city and become rich, rich as Nazis!* Of course, only those business pigs the Repuglicans could come up with such a selfish and greedy plan.
"Still others say that we should occupy the city and try to win the hearts and minds of the natives, and express tolerance and kindness for our fellow man. I don't know about you guys, but I'm YAWNING already! These Dimocrats have no idea that if we show weakness, we will have nothing but riots on our hands in just a few short turns. Bunch of bloody peaceniks if you ask me.
"I know that I am a distant, long shot, third party candidate, but hear me out! Instead of looting the city, and then having to deal with reconstruction and nation-building, or being bloody pacifists and allowing riots to take place, I say we must take a stand now! I say, let's round up all the able-bodied in this city and burn them at the stake! Yes, we shall have a big, massive bonfire, and it shall smell of toasty flesh."
(Boos and heckling)
"Wait! Friends, give this a chance! I guarantee if you follow this plan we shall have peace and order in our time!"
(Louder boos)
"Not only will it ensure the lives of our troops, but we will have a great big new city to populate with good German blood!"
(Much louder boos)
*nervously* "Uhhh... and we can still do some minor looting! It's the best of both worlds! All we need to do is the most evil thing imaginable, and the war will be all but won!"
(Assorted objects are thrown at the stage)
"Ok, well, maybe you can just sit and think about it for a while, and then get back to me. Vote Pizzaguy/extermination '08, for a brighter tomorrow!"
(Several shots are fired)
"How about I just throw my support behind one of the existing candidates?"
(Cheers and celebration)
"Ok, taking bribes now... I'll start the bidding at 50,000 florins."
=====================================
*Quote by Charles Montgomery Burns, Episode 3F19 The curse of the flying hellfish
No?
Nothing?
Not even a titter?
Tough sub.
:laugh4: Hilarious! Uproarious! Stupendous!
I exterminate when it's a really big city, with a massive population, better to start all over again. Or when somebody really pisses me off like the Venetians who I beat in a bloody campaign they sued for peace which I accepted, and then not but 5 turns later they backstab me. I took particular pleasure in destroying and exterminating every last one of their cities.
But I usually sack, I need the cash.
I occupy cause I love teching up all of my cities. If the population is high enough, though, I sack for public order and money concerns.
depends - either occupy or extermination.
occupy if same religion, extermination if different fraction.
no sacking because i prefer either all the way or none at all
yeah, i am goodie-goodie-boring:shame:
in my current campaign I'm only allowed to take rebel settlements by force
so I generally sack them and use the money to buy territories from my neighbours.....
so I can spam assassins out of them and organise nights-of-the-long-knives to bump off their entire royal line in their sleep....
so their lands turn rebel and I can invade and sack them, starting the whole cycle again....
fools
When I take a place over I always occupy, then, if they rebel I sack, then, if they rebel again I exterminate.
I try to occupy. Sacking is so lucrative, it is like playing on an easier difficulty level. Exterminating is just mean.
Occupy mostly, certainly when the army is commanded by a General, which is most of the time. I like the chivalry bonuses, I also release all prisoners now for the same reason.
I sack those of the same faith and exterminate all others. Works well for me. :hmg:
Occupy-------> Cities that are green upon capturing. :beam:
Sack----------> Cities that are same faith but are yellow. :thumbsdown:
Exterminate---> Opposite faith cities. :skull:
This pretty much regardless of the drea / chiv rating of the general. Just business. Offers the occupied cities can't refuse.
I'll sack almost every time as my economy needs to be pumped up at every occasion...
I'll exterminate major crusades target, and occupy at the last...
It depends. I prefer to occupy whenever possible, and you can do that most of the time early game. But late game when you have gigantic cities with massive cultural penalties, extermination on a daily basis is the order of the day. Sacking I do very rarely--if I'm really desperate for cash, mostly.
When the settlement is small, I occupy. I want to get the population growth started and there's no money benefit to sacking a small town or stump size castle. :2cents:
Usually, however, I sack. I'm usually needing the cash.
But when the situation calls for it - public order being the concern and the settlement's religion is different from my own, I exterminate. :skull: When I play the Mamluks, Jerusalem will be 'exterminated.' That way I can keep the garrison modest and I can move my army to the next target without too much delay. And it buys me time :hourglass: for developing the 'economic' buildings in the city.
Update:
Last two days I been playing TLR mod (England & Venice) and I been occupying catholic towns/forts and sacking all other faiths. Population in TLR mod are too low to do exterminations and sacking the other faiths is enough to control civil unrest when taking over. TLR mod seems to handle unrest better than any mod I have tried before. Too early to tell yet. Need more time to test the mod.
I usually start with occupying but when the cities get big enough and the sacking of a single enemy city and pay for improvements all over the Knigdom the temptation is too much...
Personally I would prefer it if the feature worked kind of like in RTW:BI where sacking the city left it neutral...
Say occupy the city to keep it, sack it to reck the buildings and loot the place but leave it with the original owner and Extreminate to cull the population and leave the settlement neutral (everying in charge is dead)...
The the last to cases you would always have the opion of attacking again and occupying...
I used to sack a lot, once exterminate a "red mood settlement". But in my current Sicily campaign, I keep to choose occupy, although once I used to sack Milan.
I do the same as Wammer and exterminate when provoked. I also occupy when required and very seldom do I sack......
I mainly go for the sacking, I always need the money. I exterminate when loyalty is an issue. I almost never occupy, unless it is a small settlement.
actually , pure for financial reasons, what would be the most profitable :
1)sacking every city,thus taking the population penalty
2)occupying the cities,thus having larger settlements faster and more profitable
???????????
Sack. It's the money.
I'll occupy rarely, and exterminate those of a different faith.
I usually occupy but when I need cash I sack. I rarely exterminate. Only if the City pissed me off. Sometimes I take enemy cities, sack them, destroy ALL of the buildings and give it to an ally to create a "buffer" zone.
Havoc! Havoc! At them!:charge:
err I tend to sack for the cash particularly if I've no intention of holding the area. I love the smell of Chevauchée in the morning!:laugh4:
I exterminate most often. I really dont know why, perhaps its because I'm enraged at them resisting me. I sack a lot as well, and I only occupy when I conquer a huge city like Rome.
Early in the campaign I sack any rebel settlement of course. Extermination just makes it harder to develop the settlement later on. (Unless you are blitzing and need to raise florins for 'home security'.) I just found out I can't bus peasants into a settlement and disband them for pop!
And for other factions I check the papal rating/ diplomatic relations prior to conquering.
if i need money i sack. if its a town vrey far away from any other town and i don't want to pay a lot of money just for army to just keep it from truning rebel a exterminate ,that well show them to never mess with me agian.i occupy when the town well be more usefull if not harmed.