Destroying enemy territory

[C.Maximus]

A few of the people on this forum and the release of the new Hobbit movie have inspired me to start another Dwarven campaign. The Campaign is going well for now, having already taken Gunabad and Dains halls. I am holding the plains on the western side with Gimli. Now I employed an interesting tactic that a friend suggested to me. He was playing Rome as Carthage and was suffering attacks from Numidia while taking land from Rome. What he did was send 1 demolition stack to eliminate the population of every numidian city that he could get his hands on. He also destroyed/sold all the buildings he could.

I tried this same tactic with an unsuspecting Rhun. Now if i actually wanted to hold and make use of the cities i took over I would have had to use two-four full stacks. But instead I pillaged and burnt all those desert cities. I see some positives and negatives to this tactic.

Positives: 1. Takes less men to acomplish a complete campaign.
2. Makes the Rhun settlements worthless, the Rhun cant really recruit from or tax a city with nobody in it
3. Desert land is practically worthless to the Dwarves.
4. Allows Dale to come in and be strong instead of become wiped out by the Rhun.
5. Lots of cash from pillaging (short term cash)

Neg: 1. Cities in enemy territory always rebell back to the owner.
2. Rhun can still eventually rebuild these cities to be wealthy
3. Gives allies the cities and not you.
4. Your army eventually runs out with hardly anything to show for it.


-I'd like to open this thread for discussion of this tactic.. if anyone uses it, other ways to use it.. or if it really just messes things up. For me it allowed Dale to man up and push Rhun all the way to the end of the map. Though the 2 full emergency stacks just came out from the east, I am holding my breath to see how Dale deals with them, might have to send another half or full stack or Rhun could very well take back everything they lost.

[paradamed]

This is an interesting tactic. I generally avoid it but I had to use it sometimes to stall the enemy. I used in my current campaign as Dunland against the High Elves. It is hard to face both HE and Eriador at the same time, specially HE cause they cause massive losses in my battles against them. I took one of their settlements, razed the buildings and increased taxes so I gained money and the settlement rebelled with a full stack of rebels in it. It seem to have stopped the HE for a while and also my territories got easier to defend. I get attacked by them still but I can concentrate my forces defending a single territory because I really need huge stacks to defend against them. I generally use this tactic as a last option cause it is better to increase territory than to progress slower but sometimes it is necessary when you are fighting in 2 fronts. I mean, the russians proved it can be used succesfully. I just avoid doing it in my own territories.

[Macilrille]

In EB, where the insane RTW AI will attack you relentlessly and never make peace- edit as long as you have a land boder, I use it a lot when turtling. In TATW, not as much. But ocassionally as Gondor along the Harad coastline. Usually as they start their Corsair Invasion script. With Umbar burnt and in rebel hands, and money in my coffer to invest in infrastructure, I am happy.

[FC Groningen]

I use it currently in my high elven campaign to decimate Harad, but I don't see the point in giving territory away you conquered in such a fashion. Their lands should still count as rich and you need the provinces to meet your victory conditions too. Of course, there's a tactical aspect to have Dale and Rhun share a border for as long as possible, but again, I don't see the point to give most of it away.

[C.Maximus]

I do not just give the cities to Dale but by leveling their cities and killing off their population, the Rhun have become weak and are being overrun by the Dale. I am strenghening my allies so to speak.

[Peahead]

"1. Cities in enemy territory always rebell back to the owner."

I just got the kingdoms expansion so i could try this mod out, and its going well... a little too well now. I remember in med2 having to exterminate population in newly conquered territories with different religions or they would be on the brink of rebellion even with a full stack and low taxes... but in kingdoms I can occupy settlement and if taxes are set to low I can move my stack on to the next province after 2 turns leaving only a general with 1 militia to keep the peace. Is anyone else having this experience or have i got a corrupted file or something? Also noticed my generals don't seem to be dying of natural causes.

[muller227]

I use this tactic against Harad, playing MOS. It is generally useful in at least delaying the onset of Mumakils. I don't use exterminate though, preferring several sacks. I also used it in the MOS version of 2.1 for OotMM largely to stop them from getting Dragonslayers I do use exterminate when playing an orc faction.

[FC Groningen]

I've read it partially wrong I guess. Although I really don't think you have to break down all buildings in these regions, unless you're 100% sure you will lose it. If you just keep going, the AI will be too confused and will march their armies back to friendly territory first and then set up a new plan, which is a process of several turns. IF you simply keep capturing, nothing can stand in your way. Got a perfect example of this in the AAR forum.

[k/t]

Public order in TATW is not usually a problem.

Generals in TATW will start to die at around 130 or so.

[Mhaedros]

I believe 150-160 is the max age

[Galain_Ironhide]

I must admit, I contemplated using this tactic against Harad in my current Gondor MOS(+expanded map) campaign, however I decided sacking, then keeping all buildings was of better use to me - gave me a small boost to income to either build buildings or recruit / replenish troops. All I had to maintain was sending additional militia troops to my main force as I had to leave behind 1-2 units to look after newly acquired cities and castles.

Haven't lost a province yet, turn 91 and Harad down to 7-8 cities. Sacking Umbar was not as profitable as I would have liked however the 800 or so that it's adding to my economy each turn is nice. Even had enough Generals to put one in as a Governer there.

My population has gone through the roof since adding many Harad-born territories to my own thanks to their populations bonuses.

[Mikail Mengsk]

In Rome, recruiting units draws pop from the settlements, but not in M2TW. So, as long as the AI has moneys and buildings, it will recruit even from a 1 pop settlement. So, you better just go for a good old sacking than to exterminate. Remember to sell every building and you are fine. Dropping enemy taxes don't really change anything: AI get moneys from scripts.

Also, the "dreadstack razing" is an ooold strategy, always effective. Destrying buildings will deny high-level units to the AI (saved those obtained by events), and you'll make tons of moneys. AI doesn't hold his inland settlements with much units, so you'll take most of them by assault with few casualities (very few with dwarves) and quickly. Also, the dreadstack will draw many enemy troops from the main frontline, allowing you to build up economy and military safely.

Best of the best is to give razed settlements to you allies: you'll get more money and new troops will be spawned at those cities, strenghtening your ally and making hard for the AI to take them back. So, keep a couple of Diplomats ready and close to an ally, ready to give them the settlements you take. Dale is the best choice, but you can also use that tactic to "save" a good faction that is facing a crushing defeat.

[k/t]

I no longer give settlements to other factions unless it's realistic (next to their territory or part of their homeland). It makes no sense for a whole bunch of Dale units to appear in the middle of the Harad desert just because I gave them the keys to the city, so I would just let it rebel, if it so wishes. Cranking the taxes to Very High will cause additional unrest and more of the Harad units that appear in the settlement will be killed in the riots.

[C.Maximus]

Well thats the thing.. Asthe dwarves i dont want the deserts of rhun... Wtf are dwarves gonna do in the desert... I would nver fully destroy a mountain settlement or something i will eventually make use of

[GiddeeUpp]

I do this occasionally, but it is often more useful to trade multiple cities away before they rebel if you can get 2-3 of them and trade for a single city closer to your home base. strengthens your home infrastructure and distracts neutral/ally armies. often can cause war between your ally and enemy also which is great.

[robindevo]

I generally avoid it but I had to use it sometimes to stall the enemy.

[Mikail Mengsk]

I no longer give settlements to other factions unless it's realistic (next to their territory or part of their homeland). It makes no sense for a whole bunch of Dale units to appear in the middle of the Harad desert just because I gave them the keys to the city, so I would just let it rebel, if it so wishes. Cranking the taxes to Very High will cause additional unrest and more of the Harad units that appear in the settlement will be killed in the riots.

You'll risk a Loyalist Revolt, in which good-level enemy troops will retake the city. This will mean more free troops for him.

[k/t]

Can those units be made to be low-level ones?

I play with Carl, so those "free" units will still take a chunk out of the AI's money with their upkeep. Still, I'd rather make only low-level units appear.

[Mikail Mengsk]

THey will take nothing to upkeep: the moneyscript will kick in and nothing will change.

[Flinn]

I never found such a tactic useful, I mean you have to spend valuable troops to conquer those territories and even if you can get some revenue immediatly, the real problem (the enemy) has not been solved yet, as when the settlment rebles it goes back to them.

if you manage to get those settlements on the borders and gift/sold them to your allies to strenghten them / weaken a common enemy it is a completely different story, very useful also if you want to cut off a land border between you and an annoying enemy which is not your first goal (i.e as Mordor I always took settlements from Dale bordering mine and selling them to Rhun).

Ciao

Flinn