When do you enslave?

[SD1987]

I only enslave when in roleplaying terms I want to make a point, that often means I'll enslave a Seleucid city or two (but not cities like Persepolis or Babylon) for some cash. I generally feel bad about it and find that in the long run, expelling is much more profitable and can really boost the popopulation of your home provinces and with good adminstrators means a lot more dinerii per turn!

[Sylon]

I use expelling and enslaving interchangeably. It is not uncommon for games to get to the point where every enemy city is either at large or huge size, and simply expelling the population would not get the population low enough to restore public order. And of course, there is the problem of having a sudden influx of population in my cities which might cause them to go over the squalor limit and revolt.

[Ibrahim]

I do it for the lulz (i.e. it is the inevitable fate of a settlement, either originally from the enemy or from rebels.). exceptions are for cities I used to own that were captured by the enemy, if I deem the fighting to be "honorable" for an AI (a rarity), If the site is deemed "holy" (role-play wise), or after a siege longer than 7 turns (most last just ~2-3 turns). town size matters little.

the reason for the brutality is to: a-intimidate the locals b-reducing the population apparently makes it easier to assimilate, and c-I get to recoup my financial and military losses better that way. this last part is especially so when you consider I can earn 5-10 times in mnai what I would have earned if I spared the town. this can be used to either retrain the units that assaulted the town, or spend on the infrastructure in the area, or even, if I really strike it rich, for a few central cities.

the worst scenario for a settlement is to not only be "enslaved", but to be despoiled: not only are the inhabitants slaughtered, but the infrastructure is completely trashed and torn down-even government buildings, and, in dire circumstances, man-made wonders. This can happen either due to a retreat from occupied territory, a "raid" on a settlement, or when "Kleinkrieg"* is waged-usually against an enemy whose territory is too far from supply lines to make conquest permanent. This can also be used against an enemy I simply wish to cripple, or force to the bargaining table (you'd be amazed how the AI will react, sine forced diplomacy, to extreme devastation). The common thread in all of them, of course, is that the cities are not intended for keeps, but, insidiously enough, to let the enemy take back.

*a form of guerrilla warfare, where both sides, with small forces, skirmish round their larger armies. it is war without rules, and for no real reason-other than to kill. I got the phrase, humorously enough, from the Documentation of the Seven Years War. I got the idea for doing this in fact from the accounts of General Wolfe's campaign in Canada, 1759.

[Saldunz]

I expel, if the FM who takes the city is unselfish. If he's selfish, I enslave. Both choices has advantages and disadvantages, and I prefer letting the victorious general "decide". Oh, and if the city doesn't seem hostile to occupation, I just occupy, regardless of the general.

[Crassus Creed]

Most of the time I enslave unless I am taking smaller settlements. My rule of thumb is anything less than 6000 occupy anything more and I just find it easier to enslave them. For some cities that I like I generally leave them be; unless their population is so high and my garrison so weak that I won't be able to hold the city. I also will make a point to exterminate some cities for role playing purposes (like when the Seleukids bribe one of my settlements for example).

[Sapper]

I normally 'expel' as the greater reduction in population helps public order and assimilation and the extra money helps pay to replace my losses.
I like captured settlements to be able to recruit their own garrisons so if they are small, <1000 os so, I will just 'occupy'.
I also 'occupy' those settlements I am re-capturing. It is surely a bit harsh to enslave or kill what were your own citizens!
I tend to 'enslave' if the population is ethnically similar, e.g. we are both Hellenic, so assimilation will be easier, and early in a campaign when I need my settlements to grow.

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

I do it according to city size. Town: Occupy. Large Town: Expel. City: Enslave.

I do this because I'm always keeping in mind that I want to convert the city to my own culture as soon as possible by boosting the population up to the size required for the next enlargement of the town - because only then can I tear down the pre-existing governor's house and replace it with my own. Reducing the population of a small town is not worth it because I'd have to wait a lot longer to change it to my culture.

[Ca Putt]

for several reasons:

1. It's the Capital or a very important city of my arch enemy thus a particulary powerfull and annoying one.*

2. I Have no intetion of holding the city in the next few years, in this case I also demolish most buildings

3. The public order-head is red when I conquer it and it is not one of my expanded homeland provinces. - depends how I roleplay sometimes this means lvl 1 government sometimes 1 and 2.

4. I had a bad day, DIE CIVILIANS DIE!!!!!!!!!!

*if their Capitol/prominent city is within my homeland I just expell or occupy them.