Occupy, enslave or exterminate?

[screwtype]

I'm having a bit of trouble as Scythia (economically), should I exterminate a lot from now on? I'm about to lose a city to Parthia as well so that's going to cut my income even more :(

I was hard up for cash in my last campaign as Thrace so I exterminated everything for the fast bucks. I think I destroyed my own potential tax base by doing that. 3000 denarii seems like a lot when the coffers are empty but it's gone in a turn or two. And then by exterminating, it takes ages to rebuild the pop again.

[PseRamesses]

I occupy rebels and towns with the same culture as myself.
I enslave all of a different culture than myself.
I only exterminate as a revenge or if I want to give the town away to an ally.

[Quietus]

I occupy everything within a reasonable distance (regardless of culture). I enslave when the city is too far away from the capital.

[ToranagaSama]

Since my disenchantment with this game has subsided, I've recently returned to it since the 1.2 patch.

Yes, indeed, Squalor is easier to manage, or, more accurrately Squalor is now manageable, whereas prior to 1.2 it was not---or, at least, it was too damn annoying.

On principal, I refrain from Extermination, as it appears a Cheesy was to gain money. Occupation is my standard procedure. It reduces the *immediate* monetary gain; allows for a conscriptable population; but, the greatest benefit, for those seeking a Challenging game, it forces you to pay close attention to the Subjugation (sp??) of the city.

An Occupation policy, helps to limit the speed of expansion, and forces the Player to not simply plan to Take the city, but you must be prepared to Hold the city. A player needs to *plan ahead*.

Slavery, for me, unfortunately, isn't much of an option, as its presently implemented. The reason being that *effectively managing Squalor is a bit of a delicate balancing act. One which, I believe, I beginning to master. The fact that Slaves will be sent to ALL your cities (with govenors ??) is just not what I want. I have my cities' populations under control, growing or not-growing at a rate I find satisfactory and to my purposes---Slavery will through this balance out of wack---don't need that!

Now, if a player had the capability to *Direct* Slaves to a Specific city or cities, as well as the capability to Allocate the distribution percentage to each city---THEN, Slaver would be *truly* useful.

Taking a City, particularly one of a foreign culture, and holding would be facilitated by instituting Slavery, and being able to direct the Slaves to a particular city(ies) needing population for development.

Not being able to direct and allocate the slave population is a bit infuriating. Sincerely hope this will be implemented in the Expansion.

----

Extermination s/h a more Strategic purpose (rather than the Cheesy monetary gain). Realistically, Extermination was used, either as Punishment and/or to induce Terror and Fear. Someone correct me, if I'm wrong, but this is not effectively simulated within the game.

That is Extermination was used NOT to effect the City conquered, BUT, rather, the City *next* to be conquered. There s/b a Zone of Effect with regard to Extermination. That is certain *positive* effects s/b applied to cities within this Zone of Effect, mitigated by distance.

For example, Exterminate a City, and the the nearest city, be it an Enemy city, the Units set to defend it might have an induced *fear* effect (or something); consquently, it might make conquering that city easier.

Or, in the alternative, perhaps, that city's population might become more unruly, maybe a revolt might ensue; and/or that city's govenor might become more suseptible to Bribing.

That's for an Enemy city, the effect might be somewhat similar for one of your own nearby cities. Extermination might cause a neaby same-faction city to become MORE ruly. Perhaps, all Governors within the Zone of Effect might gain increased Influence; Corruption might decrease, etc.

I think implementing something to above effect, will make Extermination and Occupation more **Strategic** in effect. More strategic options equals more fun, at least for the Strategy Gamers!!

---

For now, I take heart, that Occupation means that the conquering army isn't going anywhere too soon, until I find a sitting Govenor, build up the Town Watch, destrory and rebuild some buildings (if possible), and some time passes....

[tibilicus]

THe only city i tend to sack id Antioch. There having non of it when i try to get in.....

[The Stranger]

Since my disenchantment with this game has subsided, I've recently returned to it since the 1.2 patch.

Yes, indeed, Squalor is easier to manage, or, more accurrately Squalor is now manageable, whereas prior to 1.2 it was not---or, at least, it was too damn annoying.

On principal, I refrain from Extermination, as it appears a Cheesy was to gain money. Occupation is my standard procedure. It reduces the *immediate* monetary gain; allows for a conscriptable population; but, the greatest benefit, for those seeking a Challenging game, it forces you to pay close attention to the Subjugation (sp??) of the city.

An Occupation policy, helps to limit the speed of expansion, and forces the Player to not simply plan to Take the city, but you must be prepared to Hold the city. A player needs to *plan ahead*.

Slavery, for me, unfortunately, isn't much of an option, as its presently implemented. The reason being that *effectively managing Squalor is a bit of a delicate balancing act. One which, I believe, I beginning to master. The fact that Slaves will be sent to ALL your cities (with govenors ??) is just not what I want. I have my cities' populations under control, growing or not-growing at a rate I find satisfactory and to my purposes---Slavery will through this balance out of wack---don't need that!

Now, if a player had the capability to *Direct* Slaves to a Specific city or cities, as well as the capability to Allocate the distribution percentage to each city---THEN, Slaver would be *truly* useful.

Taking a City, particularly one of a foreign culture, and holding would be facilitated by instituting Slavery, and being able to direct the Slaves to a particular city(ies) needing population for development.

Not being able to direct and allocate the slave population is a bit infuriating. Sincerely hope this will be implemented in the Expansion.

----

Extermination s/h a more Strategic purpose (rather than the Cheesy monetary gain). Realistically, Extermination was used, either as Punishment and/or to induce Terror and Fear. Someone correct me, if I'm wrong, but this is not effectively simulated within the game.

That is Extermination was used NOT to effect the City conquered, BUT, rather, the City *next* to be conquered. There s/b a Zone of Effect with regard to Extermination. That is certain *positive* effects s/b applied to cities within this Zone of Effect, mitigated by distance.

For example, Exterminate a City, and the the nearest city, be it an Enemy city, the Units set to defend it might have an induced *fear* effect (or something); consquently, it might make conquering that city easier.

Or, in the alternative, perhaps, that city's population might become more unruly, maybe a revolt might ensue; and/or that city's govenor might become more suseptible to Bribing.

That's for an Enemy city, the effect might be somewhat similar for one of your own nearby cities. Extermination might cause a neaby same-faction city to become MORE ruly. Perhaps, all Governors within the Zone of Effect might gain increased Influence; Corruption might decrease, etc.

I think implementing something to above effect, will make Extermination and Occupation more **Strategic** in effect. More strategic options equals more fun, at least for the Strategy Gamers!!

---

For now, I take heart, that Occupation means that the conquering army isn't going anywhere too soon, until I find a sitting Govenor, build up the Town Watch, destrory and rebuild some buildings (if possible), and some time passes....

i totally agree with you about slavery

[RollingWave]

In 1.2, my usual idea is...
Early on, if you capture a relatively big city, enslave, if it's a very small town, occupy, main point is to get ur core city populations to the 6000 and 12000 lvl, so you can start building some decent units and get all ur important economic structures up.

Later on, the main idea is, if you can hold it without it revolting, occupy, if you can't and/or is short on cash, extreminate. don't enslave later on... espically after ur core cities reach the final level, the extra squalor you get in those cities usually throws off the economic bonus on slave trade.

[Kraxis]

Actually you can choose which cities to send the slaves to. It is even quite easy.
Only cities with governors get the slaves, so how can one direct the slaves? Well you merely have to move out the governors of the cities you don't want slaves to appear in, before you take the enemy city. Just a very short move is enough, and you can move him back again for the management and influence gains he gives the city before the turn is over. And if you have too many governors in cities the impact of the slaves will be rather slight putting perhaps a few hundred to the population (which at that point should be quite a lot less than what the city itself grows each turn).
The gain of the 'slaves' as a trade item is very good as it grants a good value in sales.