Sacking question

[YellowMelon]

Plus they have to retake the city from the rebels ;)

[Poncho400]

I like the idea of sacking it but not taking it.

When you take the settlement and destroy all the buildings:

-When it revolts, a huge garrison of ultra-good units will be spawned
-It would take an extremely long time to rebuild the settlement if you ever decide to keep it or take it.
-It'd be kinda dumb to take a perfectly good settlement and then purposely let it rebel

The no-take-but-sack option would be great for raiding cities that you may later conquer.

The purposeful rebellion would only be good for cities that you don't care about or will never need, such as settlements on the opposite side of europe, or settlements in areas of different religions.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Surround n Pound... smash and gash... slash and burn... then let revolt.

It's the only way to be a merciless exterminating warlord. We aren't farmers, we are pillagers and pirates.

[Old Geezer]

Sacking, selling all improvements, and leaving a settlement to revolt is a good tactic to do to a city which is the target for the Mongols, such as Kiev. They get a nearly worthless city and the losses of taking out a nasty garrisson. This is so devious that only the Byzantines should be allowed to do such. Personally, I have been giving these cities to the Pope or my "best friend" ally.