Printable View
I'm playing my first game as the Julii on H/H. Just entered mid game. Carthage went for an all attack on the Brutii, so I snuck a ship down with 6 hestatii and captured their home city. Now I have a choice - exterminate / loot / raze everything for a tidy 20k, or enslave 10k people and try to hold the most advanced city in the game from angry stacks returning from Sicily. What do you think?
Raze it to the Ground!
Repair the Buildings after.
Give the Scum no mercy..
Or a least that's what I'd do
My personal preference is to exterminate it, destroy all (destroyable) buildings, leave a token garrison (merc hoplites do nicely) and leave the city to wipe the rest of the Carthaginians off the face of the earth first. Build peasants and/or hire the cheap Libyan mercs if the city gets too unhappy. Retake it later if it falls to the Carthaginians. This strategy minimizes the massive unrest you're bound to get later on with the high growth rate, while freeing up your main army from garrisoning the city. Also, you get a dollop of cash while at it.
But that's me. If you're not confident with the troops you have, I'd say just enslave the 10K people, and then hold it, training up heavies like principes or triarii from the captured Carthaginian facilities.
Or any combination of the above strategies. :shrug:
Exterminate and keep the buildings - always the fastest way to expand.
Occupying is bad idea. Too much troubles because you can't leave from Carthage with your army.
Enslaving is bad idea too. This might cause troubles in other cities you have because all those people are distributed between towns with governors. Although this could be a good idea if you want to get Marian reforms faster.
Extermination is possibly the best idea. This will reduce population in Carthage and gives you a lot of money you can use to build up your other cities or recruit new armies.
I usually exterminate all cities or large cities unless they are close being upgraded(5500 for large town; 11000 for city etc).
Occypying is actually the best in long term as it divides the maintenance costs over much more population and also offers the chance to get rid of penalties from distance to capital quicker as you can upgrade city level much faster.
However exterminate is better in the short term if you have not the army strength to spare so to properly occupy, as it boosts income at that moment and reilieves the city from difference of culture penalties.
But isn't the distance-to-capital penalty fixed? iirc the only way to affect distance-to-capital penalties is to move your capital.Quote:
Originally Posted by gollum
Right you are Quirinus - you affect only the cultural difference penalties. The distance to capital penalty cannot be affected indeed - this is why exactly it is imperative to make any conquered settlements as homogeneous as possible to your own culture especially if they are far away and have substantial capital penalties.
Thats why exterminating far off large towns that are any level before huge is actually bad long term. You have then to live through a long time before you can really reduce the cultural difference penalties.
:bow:
I think you've got it all wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by gollum
Occupying is always the worst choice. Here is why:
When you enslave, nobody is killed, just some people get shuffled around to various cities. Your total tax base remains the same, and cities back home get a nice boost.
Distance to capital is unaffected as you point out above.
As far as I know, cultural differences are affected only by the proportion of buildings in your settlement built by other cultures (you can see who built each building in the settlement browser). If you tear down and rebuild (or upgrade), culture penalty goes away.
If anything I would say having more people in a newly conquered settlement is just asking for problems as far as unrest and squalor goes.
I think the choice has always been for me to enslave, exterminate / repair, or exterminate / raze all buildings. The unusual option to raze everything was considered to keep accurate with history. However after reading up on the sack of Carthage, it turns out that the Romans destroyed most of it but then rebuilt a new settlement in its place. So this is what I will do - exterminate, then replace buildings one by one until a roman city stands where Carthage once stood.
No it isnt because you can jump to the next city level that upgrades the city to your *own* cultural townplan and that townplan is the most significant factor in proportion of cultural penalty as it counts all the *house* buildings in the city.Quote:
Originally posted by Yaropolk
Occupying is always the worst choice. Here is why:
When you enslave, nobody is killed, just some people get shuffled around to various cities. Your total tax base remains the same, and cities back home get a nice boost.
Distance to capital is unaffected as you point out above.
As far as I know, cultural differences are affected only by the proportion of buildings in your settlement built by other cultures (you can see who built each building in the settlement browser). If you tear down and rebuild (or upgrade), culture penalty goes away.
If anything I would say having more people in a newly conquered settlement is just asking for problems as far as unrest and squalor goes.
So if you tear down all buildings other than the undestructible town hall line you still got the culture penalty if the town hall has been constructed/belongs by/to another culture.
Exterminating is always best when the city has reached huge - then there is nothing else to be done, because you cant switch to your own culture townplan anymore.
Also exterminating reduces your overall population that is the greatest source of income early on - as the maintenance costs are divided among the populace that pays taxes for them. In sum, more populace, the more army you can maintain. This is not so important once you get very high trading income, but quite important in the early/mid game when the taxation/agriculture/trading incomes have a 1to1to1 proportion approximately. Later on that proportion becomes 1.5-2 to 1 to 3-5. That is trade gives three to five times the agr. income, and taxation almost twice the agricultural income.
In other words - long term, occupying brings the most benefits and stability.
:bow:
Hmmm... well I've never had to exterminate Carthage until it gets so huge and squalid that extermination is the only option. Neither have I had to demolish buildings. As a rule I only tend to demolish temples anyway. The rest get's upgraded as I go along. IIRC the culture penalty diminishes to 0 over time anyway, regardless of the culture type of buildings.
Really? I think only the unrest penalty fades off with time not the culture penalty.
Perhaps you're right. But that amounts to the same thing. If the unrest penatly from the culture penalty fades over time, then surely that amounts to the effects of the culture penalty fading over time... or shall I just shut up and go back to the Main Hall?
:creep:
Not at all - You are right as i am too - just to make it graphically clear it is so with a few examples;
Example 1Quote:
Definitions
Penalties
Distance to Capital (proportional to distance of city to capital - constant)
oooooooooo=(10) Say max units of penalty
Culture Difference (proportional to TownCentre culture and Number of buildable buildings culture)
oooooooooo=(10) Say max units of penalty
Unrest (proportional to time from which settlement changed hands)
oooooooooo=(10) Say max units of penalty
For a max of 30 penalty. Say 15 total points is the average limit of penalty points required to tip the town populace in the red.
Now an example if you conquer a town that is close to your capital, the following happens;
Distance to Capital (proportional to distance of city to capital - constant)
oooooooooo=Say (4)
Culture Difference (proportional to TownCentre culture and Number of buildings culture)
oooooooooo=Say (5)
Unrest (proportional to time from which settlement changed hands)
oooooooooo=Say (4)
Total = 13 close to 15 but not above so some unhappiness but bearable. So from now on the unrest fades off and the cultural penalty doesnt bother anyone because it is inconsequential as when the unrest is gone you are down to 9 which is much smaller than the 15 limit.
Now in Example 2, see what happens if that same town is much more far away from the capital;
Example 2
Now an example if you conquer a town that is close to your capital, the following happens;
Distance to Capital (proportional to distance of city to capital - constant)
oooooooooo=Say (10)
Culture Difference (proportional to TownCentre culture and Number of buildings culture)
oooooooooo=Say (5)
Unrest (proportional to time from which settlement changed hands)
oooooooooo=Say (4)
Total = 19 ie the population will be in the red. However even after the unrest subsides, the population will still be in the red because the Distance to Capital is now huge. But because it cant be reduced your only chance is to drop the cultural penalty.
So after a time (ie minus the unrest) you are down to 15. If you jump city level, and get rid of say 3 points of culture penalty you are down to 12. Ie the city is now ready for stability and milking.
:bow:
EDIT
Another thing to note is that the squalor penalty that comes as a sort of density ratio ie (population)/(space available in town plan).
That is the higher that ratio is (the more people you squeeze in per available area) the more squalor points you get.
The squalor penalty in the above axamples works as a barometer that regulates the limit for penalty points required to tip the population over. It has a time component too - if you keep too long the taxing high - the growth rate slows down and you experience the high squalor penalty longer. In general it is advised to drop the taxes once squalor becomes high in order to accelerate the transition between town levels and so prevent squalor penalties to be painfully slow to get rid of - slow enough to start a rebellion in the city. Once the transition is complete, squalor drops because the populace is now distributed over a larger area.
Carthago delenda est
<--- End of story. Roleplaying is fun :2thumbsup:
I would disagree-- yes, in the short term the squalor penalty goes down, but it doesn't take that long before pop. growth raises the population to such a level that squalor starts increasing again, but this time an order of magnitude more severe than last time. Besides, when you reach huge city level, what then?Quote:
Originally Posted by gollum
Regarding cultural penalties, iirc it is dependent on the ratio between foreign-culture and own-culture buildings. So the most logical way to go about it would be to build one building, and then demolish one native building, until there are no more native buildings left. But in practice, at least for me, it can be difficult to implement. For example, that +2 equipment bonus from the Carthaginian foundry may not be strictly neccesary, but it sure is a nice bonus to have around! I may be tempted to just keep it rather than going to all that expense and time of rebuilding it from blacksmith onwards. By razing all the destroyable buildings, I avoid being tempted, so to speak. Plus it is satisfying from a role-playing perspective, the digital equivalent of a shaft.
I also disagree about your opinion that it's better to occupy as the population reaches the next stage faster. From a cultural penalties perspective, the governor building is 15% (or 3 shields) in and of itself, out of a maximum possible penalty of 40%. Of course, though that leaves the other 25% penalty, which is still quite a hefty chunk of public order.
I disagree with Yaropolk that "occupying is always the worst choice" though. Aside from occupying ratty little towns with <1000 pop., I've found that occupying cities are an excellent way to build a stable economic base, esepcially so if it's a city of your own culture. For example, if you're the Roman underdog by the time the Roman civil wars break out, just occupying a few Roman cities instead of exterminating or enslaving them can do wonders to your global position.
Personally, for roleplay reasons I am disinclined to extermination unless I am feeling particularly vengeful, such as when I get stabbed in the back at a very bad time, or when said city is a high-growth city which is also far from my capital. For example of the latter policy, as the Julii I rarely exterminate Patavium when I get it, but Carthage, Corduba and Alexandria (among others) are marked for extermination the moment they fall.
Carthage is also a heightened unrest province. It will prove almost impossible to occupy Carthage with anything less than a full stack of Romans -- who will still not get more than a 60% on the garrison score.
Because of this, I almost always end up doing a lather-rinse-repeat on the poor place. Sad really, as it could be the centerpiece of an empire easily.
I always exterminate anything bigger than a Large Town, otherwise its very difficult to prevent a rebellion.
when i take a big town like carthage i occupy but have with me a governor that can help order (traits/retinue) together with the general that takes the city. I then que up peasants all the way(that gives a bit of decrease in pop. helps garrison/pop ratio) and make the city my capitol untill the new buildings are in place, the peasants can be ferried to regions that need population
I've been getting into the habbit of taking a high influence (and in the case of BI, high religious conversion) general just to keep loyalty in these nightmare settlements, although even then I still usually exterminate.
Another idea which I just noticed is to raze the original buildings. This will dramatically reduce the culture penalty when you replace them with your own.