Strategy: Slash and Burn

[Didz]

Having expanded the Eygptian Empire to the limits of what I planned I am currently engaged in a protracted war with Rome along with my Thacian Allies.

Apart from bolstering Thracian armies to resist the onslaught of Rome by feeding them 10,000 dinai a turn and fielding permanent garrison armies near their major cities, I am also launching occassional punitive expeditions to reduce the Roman ability to wage war.

These normally involve the targetting of specific Roman cities identified by my spies as major training centres for the Roman Army or Navy. At a time when their garrisons are depleted I send a large punitive force to seize the city, exterminate its population and raise it to the ground by selling off every building I can within its walls.

This usually net's a lot of gold some of which I can then distribute to Thrace.

The problem then is what to do with the ravaged city.

At first I thought I would give it to one of the non-Roman factions like Pathia who are still in the game. My assumption was that Pathia would try to hold on to the city and that Rome would have to declare war on Pathia in order to get it back. Thus, I thought I could cause a war between Rome and Pathia. However, I soon discovered that this didn't work because somehow Rome managed to regain the lost city without actually causing a war with Pathia at all.

Next, I thought I might cause dissent amongst the Romans themselves by giving the city to a different Roman faction than the one I took it from. So, I gave a Scipii City to the Julii thinking that at worst it would fragment the Roman factions and at best might even cause a civil war. But that didn't work either, instead the city rebelled against the Julii and gained a huge free army of Scipii.

BTW: Why is it that when a foriegn city previously occupied by Rome rebels, it rebels Roman?

Shouldn't Cathage rebel as Carthaginian or at least Rebel?

Never understood that.

In the end the best option seems to be to give the city back to the Roman faction you took it from. This seems a bit daft but at least that way the Romans don't get a free army out of the deal.

Does anyone know what determines the nature of a rebellion?

Is there any way to cause a Rebel rebellion in a Roman city?

I have reduce loyalty in Roman held cities to 0% in the past but they still don't turn rebel, let alone back to their original faction.

[Ziu]

I have also sabotaged a city down to 20%, all to no avail. The comp run roman cities do not revolt. Normally a city that revolts will revert back to the traditional owner if they still exist. This doesn't happen with roman held foreign cities? I know it does if the human player owns it!

Is it possible the Pathia problem you mentioned was because they were unable to garrison any troops before the end of the turn?

[Didz]

I have also sabotaged a city down to 20%, all to no avail. The comp run roman cities do not revolt. Normally a city that revolts will revert back to the traditional owner if they still exist. This doesn't happen with roman held foreign cities? I know it does if the human player owns it!

Its really annoying

But what puzzles me is that my spies in Northern Germany have revealed that some of the cities up there occupied by the Julii faction have indeed revolted to Rebel throwing out their Roman oppressors. Its just that I can't seem to encourage the process.

Really Frustrating

Is it possible the Pathia problem you mentioned was because they were unable to garrison any troops before the end of the turn?

Quite likely. But that doesn't explain why a foriegn city (say Cathage) liberated from Roman oppression by Eygpt (and thus occupied by Eygpt for a while) and then sold into slavery to the Pathian Empire would rebel back to Rome.

It just seems weird.

[Ziu]

Its really annoying

But what puzzles me is that my spies in Northern Germany have revealed that some of the cities up there occupied by the Julii faction have indeed revolted to Rebel throwing out their Roman oppressors. Its just that I can't seem to encourage the process.

Really Frustrating

Yes, it's extremely annoying. It seems to make the whole sabotage function pointless.

Quite likely. But that doesn't explain why a foriegn city (say Cathage) liberated from Roman oppression by Eygpt (and thus occupied by Eygpt for a while) and then sold into slavery to the Pathian Empire would rebel back to Rome.

It just seems weird.

I wonder if there are any set points as to when the city will no longer revert back to the founding civ. For example, after a certain amount of years or when all of the buildings have been replaced and the culture penalty is gone.

It certainly stops the slash and burn tactic. I know. I tried it in my first campaign, against the other Roman factions when the civil war broke out and I wasn't ready.

[Didz]

Yes, it's extremely annoying. It seems to make the whole sabotage function pointless.

Well, not entirely. I mean I still station a couple of assassin's outside most of the Roman main production area's to frustrate their attempts to build foundries and high level training centres. By continually destroying these I ensure that my armies and navies have the technical edge on the battlefield.

But destroying temples is pretty pointless.

I wonder if there are any set points as to when the city will no longer revert back to the founding civ. For example, after a certain amount of years or when all of the buildings have been replaced and the culture penalty is gone.

I would have thought it would be based upon the culture penalty but I'm not so sure now. After all if the culture penalty is based upon buildings and I have sold off every building in a city then I would have expected the city to revert to its base culture e.g. Cathaginian.

I actually think CA have missed a chance here. It would have been really cool if capturing a city like Cathage from Rome selling all the Roman buildings in it and letting it revolt caused a re-emergence of the Cathaginian dynasty.

[Oaty]

A 10 infuence governor who likes to exterminate can hold any city.


Warning a bit of an exploit

Another trick is to gather up 3-4 cities then completely leave. The huge rebellion will give them a big army they cannot support. It takes the A.I. forever to get it selfout of debt and by the time they do they'll probably get weakend by there neighbors.

[airjun]

give it back to them, thats the best course of action since they get it back anyway, this way the city could revolt and its a rebel army. Either way the original owners wont get a free army out of it

[Darius]

If you dont want the Romans to own it but dont want it yourself, then there is only one possible solution. Do what I always do as a Roman faction that despises competition for elected offices and assasinate any and all rival Roman faction family members. Use a group of spies and a half dozen assasins to get it done fast. Train the assasins on diplomats and captains before moving onto generals. Be sure to pick off all family members before going for the faction heir and then finally the faction leader. However be sure that you keep an assasin within a short distance of any of their roaming armies and their capital as when they get too low on family members they begin to start adopting captains and marrying off their daughters. Once they are wiped out all of their cities go rebel. Then you can either leave them as is or give them to a faction of your choice.

[Razor1952]

Of course the big exploit is to give away your own core cities to your enemies , then you get a free stack of troops when it revolts , or you recapture it if it doesn't revolt and exterminate for the money and population reduction.

I was Egypt's Protectorate in one game which allowed me to spend a long time assassinating and sabotaging their cities, eventually I only had an odd battle or two to completely eliminate them. I had little trouble getting their cities to revolt.