Is this gamey?

[Torres84]

Hi mates !

I've found pretty much wonderful the idea (and the fact I've proven:P) of setting up the historical borders in my romani campaign but taking up the nearest enemy settlement, occupy it, destroy every building, raise taxes and let it revolt. Then I recapture gaining experience and some nice traits for my family member and rinse & repeat :P

is this a exploit?? or do you do it to keep your border safe? since eleutheroi doesn't seem to attack my towns. They pretty much roam their province just engagin if I dare to put a feet in their lands.

cheeers

[Burebista]

I do this when a faction gets too aggresive with me and i dont feel like funding a looong campaign against them.

I raise all their neighbourhood villages , let them revolt and then go back in my lands. It might even get you a peace treaty as the AI never accepts a ceacefire if you have a common border.

[Taedius]

Doing it to secure a border seems alright to me. Punitive action, you might call it. If you attack these settlements for experience every other turn, you venture into the borders of gameyness, imho. It comes down to how you balance your own game, I think.

Now, a question I've been asking when considering this: How can you be sure the settlement doesn't revolt to its previous owner?

[Torres84]

Doing it to secure a border seems alright to me. Punitive action, you might call it. If you attack these settlements for experience every other turn, you venture into the borders of gameyness, imho. It comes down to how you balance your own game, I think.

Now, a question I've been asking when considering this: How can you be sure the settlement doesn't revolt to its previous owner?

Sometimes it does, but to be sure I just destroy the faction... AFAIK that prevents any rebels to rejoin the faction.

[Randal]

Punitive expeditions were the standard Roman response to raids and such in Imperial times. It seems perfectly logical to me.

After a punishing punitive expedition it would be years before such a tribe could pose a threat again, so the loss of infrastructure and need for the enemy faction to re-conquer it all make sense.

[Ludens]

It's effective, certainly, and the Romans did employ such tactics provided they had a casus belli. The A.I. is very poor at concentrating troops and building up provinces, but the downside is that it can make your campaign too easy.

[Fulminatrix]

i did this but i find it useless since the cities beyond are still popping out units even if u cripple their nearby cities by sacking them. Because EB script gives AI bonus money if they reach a low amount so they can still make more money even if u sack half their cities.

[Taedius]

i did this but i find it useless since the cities beyond are still popping out units even if u cripple their nearby cities by sacking them. Because EB script gives AI bonus money if they reach a low amount so they can still make more money even if u sack half their cities.

True, but it seems the idea is to take out all bordering settlements, then ask for peace. One problem, as mentioned: One or all settlements joins your enemy.
If they don't, they'll be more conserned with the eleutheroi for abit.

[siegfriedfr]

If you let ai faction live they will attack you.
As the romani i entirely raze carthago/sweboz/getai to death and then let the towns which are not part of my victory conditions go eleutheroi, because if you dont destroy the faction they usually developped their lebensraum enough (ie build a palace/governor/king house) that each town will rebel back to them.

I wouldnt mind countering sporadic raids from bordering barbarians, and from a RP pow its really great, but i cba constantly micromanaging a war front toward an area i don't want/intend to conquer the way the game is build: permanent stream of fresh units sieging my cities

Sure it's not "historical" and an easy way to manage my progression, i guess it all depends how many battles you want to play before being burned out.