Capturing Cities

[Decimus Attius Arbiter]

If it's green, I'll consider occupying. What's the point if say a previous conqueror exterminated the population?

If yellow, I enslave; red exterminate.

[CaesarAugustus]

I tend to enslave in most cases, but many times I eradicate the population if I am ticked off at how hard the city was to capture or have suffered greatly at the hands of that particular faction. When i set out to destroy a faction completely I will often exterminate their cities as a form of 'ethnic cleansing', purely for roleplaying. The only time I occupy is if I re-capture a city that has been fully intergrated into my empire and only held by the enemy for a couple of turns.

[ombudsman]

Wy is rhodes allways in dept no matter howe hard i try to make the city usefull? any hints/tactics to improve the city?

@matte89 it´s because the city doesn´t show how much it makes, but it counts how many ppl there is in the settlement and divides the army upkeep cost across the cities, so for example if you have rhodes and another small village, and rhodes show -900 and the village shows +200, it doesn´t mean that the village makes more money, just that the inhabitants are so few that the money you make from that settlement is more then the army upkeep for each inhabitant. there are several ways you can make a city improve income-wise, upgrade the trade buildings, farming output or build mines, though i dont think rhodes can build mines... i would suggest you focus on trade on rhodes...anyways, hope it makes sense, too tired to really go trough and see if my ramblings all makes sense.

about your other questions, been along time since i played KH, so i cant really answer about if the spartan agoge or the hellenic colony system is to prefer. and i have yet to see a roman invasion of greece in my EB games, and i dont think you have to worry about that too much.

[The Gonzo]

I usually occupy my conquered cities, except when I encounter particularly ferocious resistance, rebellion or the capitals of hated enemies (Carthage etc.). Then I exterminate.

[matte89]

@matte89 it´s because the city doesn´t show how much it makes, but it counts how many ppl there is in the settlement and divides the army upkeep cost across the cities, so for example if you have rhodes and another small village, and rhodes show -900 and the village shows +200, it doesn´t mean that the village makes more money, just that the inhabitants are so few that the money you make from that settlement is more then the army upkeep for each inhabitant. there are several ways you can make a city improve income-wise, upgrade the trade buildings, farming output or build mines, though i dont think rhodes can build mines... i would suggest you focus on trade on rhodes...anyways, hope it makes sense, too tired to really go trough and see if my ramblings all makes sense.

about your other questions, been along time since i played KH, so i cant really answer about if the spartan agoge or the hellenic colony system is to prefer. and i have yet to see a roman invasion of greece in my EB games, and i dont think you have to worry about that too much.

Thanks for this information, i knew it was something whit this money system i didnt coop whit. Anyway i allways counquer kerte and the macedonian islands fast and get a stable income. Perhaps rhodes also gives better tradeing to the other citys?.. in my tactics i allways improve trade and income before growth and military, ho needs a barrack if you dont have any income ^^

Another quike of topic question is that if its possible to play a more historical path during the KH campain? after a turn or two you out of money and cant hope to defend athens or sparta for a longer period. Wile we at it, about athen, wy do large macedonian armys allways stuck outside, if thier ram burns up they just stay outside the walls getting cut down by the tower archers, not moveing. After they lose half thier force then they attack whit the ladders.

[ombudsman]

Another quike of topic question is that if its possible to play a more historical path during the KH campain? after a turn or two you out of money and cant hope to defend athens or sparta for a longer period. Wile we at it, about athen, wy do large macedonian armys allways stuck outside, if thier ram burns up they just stay outside the walls getting cut down by the tower archers, not moveing. After they lose half thier force then they attack whit the ladders.

My guess is probably hard coded AI stupidity. i always try to stay off city battles, send a unit or two from Sparta and fight a open ground battle, the battle AI seems to function better then.

[matte89]

My guess is probably hard coded AI stupidity. i always try to stay off city battles, send a unit or two from Sparta and fight a open ground battle, the battle AI seems to function better then.

Indeed, but levy milita hoplite cant possibly stand up against a macedonian army 7 times it sieze outside the city walls

Maby not the best place to discuss bugs, v1.0 is a great realese, even though the macedonian had this bug i lost athen for a few turns, that never happen on 0.80 versions ^^

[EdwardL]

There is a system for this something along the lines...

If it's green, I'll consider occupying. What's the point if say a previous conqueror exterminated the population?
If yellow, I enslave; red exterminate.

Of course there just are some areas that need to be put to the sword no questions asked.

Iberia being a good example of this. I will always raze Iberia to the ground, except for a couple of the south and eastern cities. They will often spike unhappiness if you leave adequate size native populations.

Beyond that, distance to capital and culture will determine if a settlement flames up.

Remember you can import your own "culture" by having stacks of cheap units on standby ready to be disbanded in newly aquired city. Is it cheating? no. powers of antiquity, er.. throughout all history for that matter have often settled newly aquired conquered territories.

[sgsandor]

I have a problem with slavery (just dont like it, my own reasons) however i KILL EVERYBODY!!! I ususally go out with 2 generals, one for fighting and one with some cheapo garrisons units to govern the city. I dont like that i cant kill everybody so i will console code add_population -(whatever), Any time I dont kill them all is if they are homeland provinces(unlsess they rebell) or want to use them to produce more garrison troops.

[Thaatu]

Isn't enslavement bugged somehow? I seem to remember it giving the slavery growth bonus to the enslaved settlement. Anyway, I think it's a little absurd that you can disperse the foreign populace to your own cities and recruit factional elites out of them. In my mind the population level doesn't include slaves.

[The Celtic Viking]

I rarely do anything else than occupy. My generals tend to be unselfish, and so going on murdersprees isn't really their "style". Rome would probably be the exception. I can't recall ever enslaving a settlement since last time I played vanilla, but if everything goes as planned in my current campaign, I will sooner or later change that.

[dominique]

Isn't enslavement bugged somehow? I seem to remember it giving the slavery growth bonus to the enslaved settlement. Anyway, I think it's a little absurd that you can disperse the foreign populace to your own cities and recruit factional elites out of them. In my mind the population level doesn't include slaves.

Don't forget that classical slavery isn't american slavery.

Some slaves or freedmen were pretty high in the social strata. Sulla used freedmen like Chrysogonus to run his kelptocracy/dictatorship. Claudius used highly trained freedmen (I think of Polybius) to run the roman bureaucracy.

It was a career move for some greek academics to sell themselves in slavery and working as teacher in roman patrician families.


---I simplify a little bit in this section, I don't wan't to explain the comitias and all that stuff so I took a few shortcuts without altering the big picture!---

It was also a good move for some roman politicians to free a part of their slaves. The freedmen became clients of their tribe. So they had to vote for their ancient masters. It was really important for families like the Graccii, or the Cornelius Sylla. In the late republic, a consul was lame if he didn't have a tribune of the Plebs to back him up. To have a tribune, you needed to have a big tribe to pull one of your clients through the vote. If you were a new man and you didn't float in denarii, you needed people to vote for you. So, you hope you get a good war in your career, get a lot of slave, freed them, give them property so they could vote in the right century, register them in your tribe and tell them to vote for C. Johnus Doeus in the next election if they didn't wan't to have a private meeting with one of your gladiators/veterans.

T. Sempronius Gracchus tried to pull a stunt like that by giving away lot of farmland to beggars, destitutes and slaves, which would have moved a couple hundred thousand people in his tribe and who would have been his clients. He would have been able to rig the elections forever and become a virtual dictator.
----

So, to answer you, slaves were an important part of the population level of the classical world. The way they disperse the slaves throughout the cities is a simplified but effective way of simulating their importance.

[bovi]

As an aside, kelptocracy is of course rule by seaweed, as opposed to algastocracy which is rule by algae pond scum .

[Leão magno]

If I can control the city and it is matching my desires (rpg) I preserve the city under a pupet ruler. I only exterminate capitals of ferocous enimies or impossible to control cities