occupy or sack?

[PittBull260]

when u take over a settlement, do u occupy it or sack it?
I usually occupy the ones that i'm gonna keep but sometimes i send a powerful army through the lands and just sack towns and cities and then destroy every building in the area then i leave, i get a TON of money this way.
what do u guys do?

[PBI]

Sack sack sack. How else do you get money?

Sacking is win-win since you keep the buildings but reduce the population which is actually a good thing since it reduces squalor and unrest. Occupying is only worth it for tiny villages where sacking won't make any money anyway.

Of course, this is different in BC where some buildings are destroyed by sacking, but this is counterbalanced by the fact that the AOR system means captured cities cannot produce any decent units, so the buildings are largely pointless anyway. So sacking is still normally the best option.

I generally find sacking to be so effective that it makes economic development almost irrelevant; the proceeds of one or two big cities can produce as much money as many years worth of profits from ports, markets etc.

[ArtistofWarfare]

Sack sack sack. How else do you get money?

Sacking is win-win since you keep the buildings but reduce the population which is actually a good thing since it reduces squalor and unrest. Occupying is only worth it for tiny villages where sacking won't make any money anyway.

Of course, this is different in BC where some buildings are destroyed by sacking, but this is counterbalanced by the fact that the AOR system means captured cities cannot produce any decent units, so the buildings are largely pointless anyway. So sacking is still normally the best option.

I generally find sacking to be so effective that it makes economic development almost irrelevant; the proceeds of one or two big cities can produce as much money as many years worth of profits from ports, markets etc.

You have to eventually get 45 provinces though.

[PBI]

I'm guessing you're referring to the RTW:BI version of sacking, where you destroy all the improvements and reduce the city to a rebel held hovel, and make off with a huge pile of loot?

I meant the M2TW version, which is simply the middle ground between occupying and exterminating. It takes the place of enslaving in RTW, only it's much more profitable; it actually makes much more money than exterminating but less damage to the settlement.

I don't generally go in for the extreme version PittBull260 suggests, of sacking the city, selling the improvements, and abandoning it; generally I sack, and use the proceeds to invest in building. Never understood the point of abandoning settlements personally; generally if I have the strength to take a settlement I have the strength to hold it, and it's virtually always better to have a settlement yourself than let the enemy or rebels have it back.

[King Nasty]

If I need the money and/or am worried about the Pope, then I'll simply sack the town. Otherwise I exterminate.

[locked_thread]

edit

[glyphz]

For me, it depends on the situation or the settlement type (<--heck, the same as everyone's, just differ in style in play & what s/he thinks is the best decision)
Early on, I try to occupy as much as possible, unless i'm really strapped for cash, maybe due to bad starting economy or big army or both. Besides it's hard to resist sacking a capital or a decent size city i.e. Corduba, Constantinople, Venice, Milan, Cairo. Castles, I avoid sacking for the most part, they grow slowly anyway.
edit: Also, occupy may cause chivalry traits, and chiv helps your settlements grow faster

Next is resistance and religion. If it's the same religion as mine sacking is the worst i'll do. Squalor is more manageable in M2TW compared to RTW (culture penalty ), where a 1/2 army stack cant even stop rioting after enslaving.
Difference in religion (+ settlement size), is where i consider putting the population to the sword (evil cackle, "FEAR ME!!!"). If it's adjacent to mine I might reconsider, but if it's on your path via crusade or jihad, i exterminate. More so, if your conquering army needs to move on quick. (i.e. one army (with siege equip) cutting a swath through Alexandria=ext -> Cairo=ext, -> Gaza=sack, ->Jerusalem(target)=ext, why exterminate Jerusalem? cause likely you'll have pissed Egyptian stacks, right behind you or from the North. I'd rather face them than getting sieged. Or better yet continue to target cities til they have none. That way you can deal with their diminished rebel stacks at your leisure.)

Two notes: 1) AI usually tends to go after settlements on their border so say, your inJerusalem & there is an Egyptian army in Cairo (w/c you caught earlier) but Egypt doesnt border it any longer. Likely, Cairo is safe, and the enemy army will retreat back to the hot spot (your border against theirs).
2) PLan which general to use in case you decide you need to be bloodthirsty. Exterminate causes dread traits, you'll lose hard-earned chiv points fast, though winning the crusade/Jihad may compensate for this.

Cheers!

[Galain_Ironhide]

In my early days I would only sack. When I play now (which I can't at the moment because I am about 1700km away from my home until the end of next week. ) I roleplay with my Generals and family members. It's not just about the loot anymore. If I have a chivalrous character, they will always occupy the city/castle no matter what, or if I have a Character that is dreadly and he goes on a steamroller mission, wiping out every thing in existence, then the residents of those particular provinces should consider themselves lucky if all I do is sack them.

[PBI]

Is it possible to tell when the occupy/sack/exterminate screen comes up, or the release/ransom/execute screen, how chivalrous/dreaded the general in charge is? Reason is, I would quite like to roleplay generals as Galain suggests, but I can never remember which generals are in charge of which armies. So I almost always end up going for the "neutral" option anyway.

[KingKnudthebloodthirsty]

i usually occupy for the smaller cities which are mostly rebel. however, i cant resist the rewards for sacking a huge city. as egypt, i got 15865gold for sacking jerusalem, not to mention the rewards of a mission to take jerusalem and the jihad reward.i ended up with 31000 or so gold altogether in my treasury after the sacking. it was DEFINTELY worth it. i spent all i wantbuilding up my armies and settlements and about 8-10 turns down the road, i still ended up with 50000gold in the treasury. well i just began my egyptian campaign and so far so good. i use my massive treasury to fuel my endless conquests through levant, getting even more cash. im now having no difficulty building up a very big army to defend jerusalem as a crusade was just called there...

[Robespierre]

Sack! Sack! Sack! Sack! Sack! Sack! Sack! Sack! Sack.!

as nursey said on blackadder, it'll soon grow back again.
unless perhaps you have a low-loyalty, high-chiv general leading the expansion force.

[Quintus.JC]

What about the effects on traits and loyalty. Sacking and exterminating increases dread, and occupy increase chivalry. Sacking and exterminating is the better option but when you have a high chivalry genearl in charge it will affect his loyalty because he would feel what he is doing right now is unmoral and against the code of chivalry.

[Galain_Ironhide]

Is it possible to tell when the occupy/sack/exterminate screen comes up, or the release/ransom/execute screen, how chivalrous/dreaded the general in charge is? Reason is, I would quite like to roleplay generals as Galain suggests, but I can never remember which generals are in charge of which armies. So I almost always end up going for the "neutral" option anyway.

The only time you can check is on the units stat card prior to even engaging in battle.
I guess I just have a good memory as to what traits a certain General/Family Member has and act accordingly from there.

[lobo76]

i am playing portugal (H/H), trying to be chivarous. Most of the cities I have attacked, I simply occupy. For cursades, due to the distance from capital, it is too much work to maintain, so I exterminate (more money than sack?), sell all the upgrades and gift it to the pope. I only maintain a fortress(Gaza) so that I can fulfill any Crusades quickly.

[PBI]

i am playing portugal (H/H), trying to be chivarous. Most of the cities I have attacked, I simply occupy. For cursades, due to the distance from capital, it is too much work to maintain, so I exterminate (more money than sack?), sell all the upgrades and gift it to the pope. I only maintain a fortress(Gaza) so that I can fulfill any Crusades quickly.

Exterminate actually gives less money than sack (though more than occupy), I suppose because rather than taking the time to carry off everything of value, your men simply burn everything to the ground.

I almost never exterminate, partly because the money isn't worth it for the damage it'll do to the local economy, partly because the damage is just too severe and involves destroying precious buildings too. Sacking only reduces population, the trade buildings are unharmed so the damage done to the income is actually minimal: Mostly the tax income will go down, but taxes a) aren't worth much anyway and b) scale less than linearly with population, so halving the population will reduce the taxes by less than half.

[Autumn]

The only time I occupy is when taking a Wooden castle/village because the hit to population from sacking is more noticable. Especially if you want said settlement to grow quickly.

Me, I use all three depending on the general in charge. Uber dread lords in charge of horse archer armies are the way forward