As Kart-Hadast, I'd just finished conquering Gaul, and was setting about organising my people to make them profitable and happy, in that order. Most settlements were pretty stable, with moderate-sized garrisons to help enforce the happiness, and growing steadily. 1 had a little plague (possible due to some war and famine going around), but this didn't bother me too much.
Then Cenabum started revolting. Happiness dropped from 80% to 45% within a turn, so I sent some more levy spearmen over to bump up the garrison. This didn't do the trick, and pretty soon I had a full garrison, the best governor I had available, and happiness still around 50%. What to do?
Since I couldn't increase the garrison any further, I decided that the quickest solution would be to reduce my population. So I sent a spy from the settlement with plague and "shared the pestilence".
This worked a treat, and soon my population was dropping 6% per turn, and happiness was up to 90%. I had time to build more "happiness" buildings before the plague burnt itself out, and Cenabum has been profitable and happy ever since. The tactic worked so well that I've since used it twice more, always on Gauls.
Now, you could argue that I'm a bad ruler, needlessly sacrificing the lives of my people for the sake of profit and stability. Purposely spreading plague couldn't be a good thing to do, could it?
But I choose to look at it like this: If the settlement in question revolted entirely, I would have been forced to re-take it, resulting in the senseless slaughter of innocent revoltees. The population would have been exterminated (again), so even more people would have died. Seen in that light, letting loose a tiny little bit of plague was a much more humane thing to do, right?
There's nothing like a little war, famine, pestilence (and what was that other one?) to make those people left remember just how good they have it...
Bookmarks