Occupy/Enslave/Exterminate options

[hoof]

I wish you could find out the unrest level *before* you make this choice. Too many times have I taken a nice city thinking "Oh, this is a good city, I'll just take it, and that'll save me from having to build it up". Then after making the choice, I find out that it has 0% Public Order despite minimal taxes and a huge garrison. Thus I'm forced to either a) let it revolt and retake it facing high-tech units or b) tear down every building that makes units so that I only have to face peasants/town militia.

Had I known the unrest would be so dire *before* I made the choice, I would have enslaved or exterminated the population. That way I can get the benefits of the buildings w/o having the unrest. I prefer to occupy (my 20th century morality getting in the way I guess). However, I'm leaning more and more to the "Genocide is best" camp. Sad that this game requires genocide to allow for large empires and the keeping of large cities far away from the capitol.

[Beelzebub]

Just look at the population to be massacred numbers. You massacre like 70 or 80% so figure it out with that. If the population to be exterminated is 20000, that means there's about 25000-30000 people which means it's gonna be a huge bitch to keep the population in line. Generally I enslave anything above 8000 or so and exterminate any city at 15000-20000 or higher. It depends on the city's position and if I need it to start churning out a lot of troops quickly or not.

[hoof]

Argh! My attempts to make the post-revolt fight easier have failed! Sure they're all peasants, but judging from the little flags and their super-stats, these are valour-7 peasants! Peasants with attack of 8 and defence of 9! (on medium difficulty no less)

So my payment for being nice and not slaughtering the population is to face super-peasants ...

[hoof]

Well, I crushed the revolt (thank goodness even valour-7 peasants have morale problems). For the first time ever in my RTW career (including about 8 campaigns as various factions), I am going to exterminate the population. I consider this a failure of game design that I am forced to do this but oh well. Now I've got to spend the next 5-10 turns shipping all those units of mine back to cities with appropriate buildings so that I can repair the unnecessary damage to my army.

I was under the impression that playing games was supposed to be *fun*

[Rob]

You can get an approximate idea of the level of unrest in the city by looking at it on the strategy map. Generally the option window appears right in front of the city, but if you scroll a bit to the side then you will be able to see it. If the face next to the city name is red, the city will revolt (admittedly this assumes normal taxation). If the face is green, the city is safe to occupy.

[Bhruic]

You can see the unrest level if you use a spy on the city before you attack it. You don't get a breakdown of where the unrest/pacification is coming from, but based on the size of the garrison, you can generally figure it out. Ditto if a governor is having an effect.

I kind of like it that make, makes spies even more useful.

Bh

[sapi]

I wish you could find out the unrest level *before* you make this choice.

Quickly move the screen after the seige and you can see the unrest level - but you must be quick! For some reason it only works sometimes...

[Spartiate]

Kill kill kill...............it's the only way*wipes blood off corner of mouth*.

Seriously though,the reason i do this is because i still get the benefit of the buildings.The population is now docile and there are still enough of them to recruit from.The income level of the city is much improved if it already had evolved ports and traders/bazaars.

[Warmaker]

I think a quote mentioned in RTW went along the lines of:
"An Empire is not maintained through timidity."

I used to try the soft hand approach in my first campaign game as the Julii(unmodded of course). My reward? Frequent unrest and riots. The worst perpetrators of my settlements was Cordoba and a few of the cities in Asia Minor. I tried throwing games, increase the quality of life of the citizens, and for what? Riots against my garrissons, damaging government facilities... total chaos. I changed my style to the Iron Fist. Any revolts were dealt with mercilessly. Enslavement was too humane a treatment, I said "Crucify them all! I want a road filled with crucified rebels lined all the way from Cordoba to Rome!"

Seriously, kill the population. It's the best way to deal with revolts. Having a small, frontline-quality army in central areas is a nice way to deal with the nastier revolts. Your expelled Town Watches/Garrisson troops can combine with these Legionnaires and absolutely crush the Rebels.

Again, "An Empire is not maintained through timidity."

[Doug-Thompson]

Quickly move the screen after the seige and you can see the unrest level - but you must be quick! For some reason it only works sometimes...

It works when you initiate the attack. However, if the garrison sallys or relief army attacks you during the "auto-moves" of computer controlled factions, you can't move the display out of the way.

[Hurin_Rules]

The last thing I wanted to do when taking a city is exterminate the population. But I've realized you simply have to do it, and do it often. It makes the game so much easier. I think it's a bad design of the game to force you to keep exterminating populations, but that's the way things are right now.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

If I had a hard time capturing it (over like 200 casualties) I massacre the pop for revenge.
If not I enslave or Occupy.

[pyhhricvictory]

I have to agree with Capo, I usually exterminate to teach the faction a lesson. The Scippii took one of my cities (as Macedon) so when I took it back, I let them live but the first Scipii city, I killed them all.

[Oleander Ardens]

I does also depends with which faction I play, because some have a dire need of manpower, like the Germans and Gauls, while others, like the Eggies have almost too much of it...

So I usually enslave always with the Gauls while I do it less when playing the Eggies, although I also orientate myself according the distance from the capital, their population, my manpower, their culture erc...

OA

[TimDogg]

I agree with the poster above. It depends on your needs, I used to be a softtouch but I now either enslave them or exterminate them. I don't have problems with extermination, it is a game and it gives me cash ;)

I noticed in a campaign as Scipii where I controlled the whole of Africa that Alexandria, Carthage and Memphis kept on rioting. I tried to maintain population but after loosing Carthage for the third time I decided I was fed up and killed them all, I let Alexandria and Memphis fall (maintain a tiny garrison, move your mainarmy outside the city) and retook both cities to exterminate the populace to show I was fed up with them. As a result my overall happiness went up in all states.

[Magraev]

Yeah - it's a bit off that it's necessary, but the only alternative is to produce more troops in the towns than the pop grows, and that is impossible in the long run.

[Kekkonen]

The last thing I wanted to do when taking a city is exterminate the population. But I've realized you simply have to do it, and do it often. It makes the game so much easier. I think it's a bad design of the game to force you to keep exterminating populations, but that's the way things are right now.

It's realistic though. When Romans took Carthage at the end of the 3rd Punic War, they went from house to house killing everyone they saw before razing the city to the ground; if anyone survived, they were sold into slavery. That was the Scipii family; a certain member of the Julii family put a huge dent into the population of Gaul in his expeditions there, again by slaughtering villagers during, after, and between battles. I can't think of a famous example of Brutii brutality off the top of my head, but I strongly suspect that they weren't humanitarians either.

[Bob the Insane]

Personally I find enslavement to be a great option... And very true to the whole Roman thing...

It really builds up population in your core cities as long as they have family members for Governors (what happens to the salves if you don't have any governors?!?!)... This allows for massive recruiting in these cities...

[Ulug Beg]

I have to admit I’m rather partial to extermination at the moment, but that is because I need the dinarii. If I didn’t need the money then enslavement is the preferred option. The ancients were always afraid of conquered enemies rebelling.

I remember having rather idealistic views about the ancient Greeks - foundations of Western culture and democracy and all that – until I read Thucydides. The actions of both sides upon capturing an enemy city are nothing short of barbaric by today’s standards. The conditions within a besieged city must have been truly awful for them even to contemplate surrender, knowing what the likely outcome would be.

I haven’t done this yet, but I wonder if you take another Roman city and occupy it, the potential for unrest is reduced. I suppose it must as the game tracks cultural difference as a source of unrest, and there shouldn’t be any of those icons in the Public Order index when one Roman faction capture the (Roman) city of another. Perhaps the same should be true between the Britons and the Gauls - the Belgai (sp?) did live on both sides of the Channel.

[Sizzlorr]

My most recent campaign as the Brutii has so far been unmarred by rebellion. I think I've enslaved all of my conquered cities, and in cities that are farther away I've been building the temple of Juno, which is great for keeping the populace under control. Couple that with the Statue of Zeus wonder, and I've got a lot of very happy plebes.