Occupy, Sack or Exterminate

[Budwise]

I am sure this was asked before but what do you all choose after the successful seige and why?

Honestly I usually pick Occupy but after getting rebellious nations back, I choose exterminate when I loose a nation. Lately, I have been picking sack because you really get more money and don't really use much.

So, what do you pick and why. Plus, what are the pros and cons of all of them.

[Moral55]

Unless the settlement will give no gold at all (happened once) or I really want a general to be chivralous I sack, for gold or exterminate for dread.

[Csargo]

I occupy almost 75-80% of the time and sack when I'm in dire need of cash. Only exterminate when I'm really pissed off.

[jigster]

lol why bother even trying to hold it? Just sack it, sell all the buildings, build a church to recruit priests(they'll eventually become cardinals, trust me)before the city revolts, and then move on to the next city. In about every campaign I've played, I've had no problem steamrolling the egyptians with just a stack. It's pretty good income in early game and you won't have any trouble pumping out units and building improvements. I usually leave Gaza and Acre intact so the Egyptians recoup and eventually I get to go on another crusade.

[Shahed]

Depends... mostly 90% occupy, 9% sack, 1% exterminate. Reputation is about the only thing that holds the diplomacy game. If you lose that it's Medieval 2: Total Chaos Arcade Game.

Sack if profit is above 20K, exterminate if population is too far from capital and is greater than 10K, occupy to boost reputation, and to preserve the population (they can be taxed for long term profit).

[Foz]

I tend to go with occupy if the army's general already has chivalry: occupying gets you chivalry, while exterminating gets dread. Sacking gets you... money. You can get some dread just from kicking ass with the general BG unit on the battlefield and from other sources, but to really have great dread generally you will have to exterminate some cities.

The decision has mitigating factors, though. Exterminating comes with a price, both to the settlement, and to your reputation. The settlement gets knocked backward in tech level, not to mention population (and thus income). And then, of course, the rest of the world doesn't like you slaughtering peasants (peasants the medieval peons, not the game unit). Is it worth is? I'm not sure, really. Certainly you benefit more economically from sacking or occupying cities that will be substantially set back by extermination: any settlement of decent size will make you far more money if you keep it largely intact. Usually if the settlement is decently sized but a dread general has encountered it, I will sack it (to avoid setting it back w/ extermination or hurting his dread w/ occupation). The reason I avoid exterminating them is economics in the case of settlements, and army building in the case of castles: city-level and above really make good money from sea trade, and fortresses/citadels really boost army production and tech. Settlements below city/fortress, though, are easy to exterminate if the general calls for it: the setback is minimal. Outside of that, I try to avoid extermination of decent sized settlements, except as a PO control method. The easiest way to keep a settlement in line is to kill off droves of its population, but this shouldn't ever be needed until late-ish into the campaign when your faction is very spread out, or else for holy-land crusade holdings you may get.

[_Tristan_]

For my part, I would sack 80% of the time to keep cash coming, occupy when there is no money to gain and I can't remember any time where I have exterminated...

Sometimes, if I've taken a province that has no real strategic value to me (as being stranded after a crusade ends somewhere in turkey or other...) I would sack, destroy all that can be destroyed and then give the region to get any diplomatic advantage or in exchange for a more useful province (the cash from the sacking and destruction of building can then be really handy...) Moreover it let the accpting faction with a city that will nedd a lot of investments to become useful or might even revolt and be good to be taken once more...

[Omisan]

I sack nearly all the times, exterminate if the city has rebelled and occupy if I take back a city that was lost to enemy forces.

[_Tristan_]

I sack nearly all the times, exterminate if the city has rebelled and occupy if I take back a city that was lost to enemy forces.

Same here...

[fenir]

If you are regaining a lost city/region.....I recommend occupy.

If you are taking a large enemy City.........SACK IT.

Small to medium enemy city that you have invested time with your religious folks in converting the population accordingly.....occupy.

If longway for your capital.......SACK it.

huge city.....long way from home....hated vermin enemy scum.........KILL THEM, KILL THEM ALL, god will recongise his own.


fenir

[Erik Bloodaxe]

I always exterminate each time I lay my hands on a Huge city. If not..

Red face = KILL
Yellow = sack
Green = KILL if it's HRE but normally leave alone

[Darkgreen]

Nifty idea, thanks.

As an update, things are going much better. I’ve decided to ignore the French assassins and just add a couple more spies. I boxed in the inquisitor and got rid of him.
I’ve taken a couple more French settlements and managed to convince the pope to call a crusade on Marseilles, though right before my full crusading army of cavalry, mortars, and culverins arrived the pope died and the new pope decided to call of the crusade- doh! So now that army is just hanging out on a hill outside of Marseilles waiting until I can manage another crusade to be called against Marseilles or until I get bored and I just try to rush the last 3-4 French settlements.
Denmark decided to attack me, five times now, but they only do so at Antwerp, and my 5 mortars there often cause their army of mostly heavy infantry (6-7 units) to retreat before I even release my cavalry on them.

[Furious Mental]

I almost always sack, for the money. I would have thought extermination would entail more thorough pillaging and hence more money, but for whatever reason it doesn't.

[Darkgreen]

Woops, my above post ended up on the wrong thread, sorry about that. Someone can remove it if they like.
What I meant to say:

Hmm, I’ve been exterminating all settlements that I take, perhaps that is something that I want to re-think.
In the long run, will exterminating settlements benefit me in any way. Such as having all settlements with a British identity? (I’m playing England right now) Is there any sort of cultural conflict penalty to happiness for settlement?
Needless to say, I have some kick butt dread generals at the moment that are working well with what I like to call my “shock and awe” stacks full of culverins and mortars and heavy cavalry. If I had the battle game details on the high setting, I bet I would see the enemy wetting itself as they run from the field.

[Furious Mental]

I guess if you like to move your armies away quickly extermination is the way to go since it is pretty good insurance against rebellion.

[Bobo]

I usually occupy castles (since they won't rebel) to keep my reputation up and sack cities for the cash (I use large stacks so I don't have to exterminate to keep the city from rebelling). In late game I sack castles too, because my reputation is invariably (but inappropriately) 'untrustworthy' by then anyway...

[HoreTore]

I sack about 90% of the time. Can't deny the soldiers their booty...

I occupy only when the settlement is small and I wont get any money from it anyway, and when I want to advance the general in chivalry. I rarely exterminate, and the times I do are when I capture a big city of a different religion and I really need to to keep it under control.

Oh, and I routinely exterminate Edinburgh. Gotta kill them filthy scots...

[gardibolt]

Except for some sacking as I was trying to recover from the Black Death, I occupy unless the face is red. If it's red, then I kill them all. If a city revolts (which happens much less in M2TW than it did in RTW thanks to all the happiness buildings), I kill them all too, just out of spite.

[Omisan]

Woops, my above post ended up on the wrong thread, sorry about that. Someone can remove it if they like.
What I meant to say:

Hmm, I’ve been exterminating all settlements that I take, perhaps that is something that I want to re-think.
In the long run, will exterminating settlements benefit me in any way. Such as having all settlements with a British identity? (I’m playing England right now) Is there any sort of cultural conflict penalty to happiness for settlement?

You are losing a lot of money by doing this. You don't loot and you kill the population which weakens the economy to the settlement.

Exterminating only means that you will reduce the chance orfriots and rebellions, but that can easily be done by lowering taxes and by leaving a general with a decent army in the settlement for a few turns.

[Henry the Fifth]

I occupy early in the game so I can get population levels up for taxes and advance through the tech tree. Any other time I sack for the money although I usually leave castles alone if I'm going to convert it to a city. I only exterminate on occasion say when I have just taken an old huge city from a faction especially one of another religion in order to make squalor and religous unrest less of a problem.

[Traffik]

Sacking major trade centers that you conquer early on (i.e Milan, Venice) can provide just enough money to jumpstart your empire. Otherwise I mostly occupy if playing with chivalry and being a reputable nation, or exterminate if playing with dread and becoming an evil empire that everyone loathes.

[Darkgreen]

You are losing a lot of money by doing this. You don't loot and you kill the population which weakens the economy to the settlement.

Exterminating only means that you will reduce the chance orfriots and rebellions, but that can easily be done by lowering taxes and by leaving a general with a decent army in the settlement for a few turns.

Isn’t lowering taxes to stop rebellion then also loosing you money then? After about 90 turns into my campaign with England, after only exterminating I have about 18 settlements, 15 of which are cities and all of those are at the very high tax rate. I have had no problem with money, especially in the past 30 turns where I’ve had more than I need.

[invalidopcode]

<Dalek voice>

You will be exterminated! Exterminate! Exterminate! EXTERMINATE!

</Dalek voice>

I typically exterminate and use the money to improve my cities in the core of my conquered lands. This way, I am always strengthening the center and growing outwards while limiting the enemies ability to counterattack and reconquer. Plus I can quickly move my army out and leave behind a skeleton garrison.

[Darkgreen]

<Dalek voice>

You will be exterminated! Exterminate! Exterminate! EXTERMINATE!

</Dalek voice>

I typically exterminate and use the money to improve my cities in the core of my conquered lands. This way, I am always strengthening the center and growing outwards while limiting the enemies ability to counterattack and reconquer. Plus I can quickly move my army out and leave behind a skeleton garrison.

Hey, thanks. It is good to know that I am not the only one to use this strategy. Do you also find it is nice to have 2-3 generals with really high dread?