Occupying vs. sacking vs. exterminating in the SSHIP

[Jurand of Cracow]

Hi Guys,
I've recently played Broken Crescent and got to think about many issues. One is what do to with a conquered settlement.
In the SSHIP (and other mods) I'd always occupy; for 6 reasons:
1. It pays off fast. This is now my province and I want it to be productive. Long term gains overtake the short term benefits after just few turns. Sacking/exterminating gives simply little money, it doesn't pay off to kill population.
2. Usually I want my generals to get Chivalry so that they can 'shepherd' settlements to upgrade. Occupying usually gives some points toward higher Chivalry.
3. I care about reputation in diplomacy and extermination is bad for it - other factions start hating you.
4. I'd take with me a good order-keeping general, so the unrest considerations were not present.
5. This is simply my style, I couldn't see benefits of behaving differently.
6. Historicality - the past times were not like 20th century: atrocities were rarer than we think, usually there's some sacking but most of the population would come unscathed. Exterminations were exceptional.

However, in the Broken Crescent I discovered that sacking, and even extermination are often useful. This is for 3 reasons:
1. big settlements have negative growth rates after being taken, even if I've got a very Chivalrous general. So the population would diminish in due course even without extermination (well, I think it's a faulty solution in the BC, but it is).
2. it's extremely difficult to control big settlements after taking them. Your generals don't have enough traits.
3. the amount of money from sacking/extermination can be huge. Eg. extermination of a city with 18k population can give you 54k florins while your seasonal budget can be 20k. Given that there's little budget surplus possible, getting this money means many investment in your core settlements. This can prompt your economy to jump.
All in all, short term gains are huge, while long term little (or rather problems).

Thus I've learnt to sack/exterminate in the BC. However, in SSHIP I would stick to occupying.

My questions to the players are:
1. what are the experience with this feature? Do you think that the numbers in the SSHIP are right? (or should they be increased?)
2. what is actually possible to mod as cost of sacking/exterminationg? I think 3 issues are already there:
-- diplomatic and reputation penalties,
-- generals' traits (Dread, traits)
-- destruction of some buildings
However, I don't know if it's possible
- to get some buildings destroyed totally (you cannot repair them, you need to build them from scratch)?
- to lower the level of a settlement (eg. a minor city becomes large town)?

cheers
JoC

[j.a.luna]

In my opinion, i often occupy or sack a settlement, sack due to i get a lot of money with no much casualties in the settlement, but for other hand when i play with the mongol horde i love exterminate population and burn the world
It would be good if exist in sship some ''feature'' that if you or IA exterminate the same settlement three or more times in at least 10 or 20 turns(5-10 years) the settlement be devastated and you can not get benefits from him due to the population shortage, in addition to having to rebuild the destroyed buildings
You could get a lot of money for "squeeze" all the settlement and region but you can not ''recover'' this region without benefits until a lot of turns after(grow population and rebuilt all) also with a lot of diplomatic penalties and dread with the rest of countries...
Similar to attila total war when the huns devastated the regions and destroy all

[Alavaria]

However, I don't know if it's possible
- to get some buildings destroyed totally (you cannot repair them, you need to build them from scratch)?

It happens already, so yes.

Of course if it is only one building you care about (eg: Master Thieves' Guild #13) then you can of course save and reload. But you tend to lose levels (harsher=more levels lost). Which is annoying enough when you realize that even occupying can remove the top barracks level

[XXZit]

3. I care about reputation in diplomacy and extermination is bad for it - other factions start hating you.
JoC

Occupying a settlement also lowers your reputation. Albeit, less than extermination does.

[MWY]

- to lower the level of a settlement (eg. a minor city becomes large town)?

While lowering the level of a settlement is not possible, through sacking or exterminating a settlement, the building within the settlement can get leveled down if a populationtreshold is reached.


- to get some buildings destroyed totally (you cannot repair them, you need to build them from scratch)?

It's not possible to destroy buildings within a settlement (via script) I think. As far as I know, you can only destroy all buildings of a sort factionwide.


I also think that sacking/extermination rewards the player with enough money as it is.

[Lifthrasir]

I tend to agree with MWY on that point. From my opinion, the feature is fine in its current form.

If I had to change something, that would be the reputation system to base it more on the culture or religion of your faction. For instance, if you go for sacking or exterminating a Muslim settlement as a Catholic or Orthodox faction, then your reputation is getting worse among the Muslim factions but getting unchanged among the others.

[Jurand of Cracow]

- to lower the level of a settlement (eg. a minor city becomes large town)?
.. the building within the settlement can get leveled down if a populationtreshold is reached.

That's interesting. In what conditions it happens? Eg. in the BC, I've got a castle with 4k population which was 15k before extermination, and the thresholds are 5/9/18 k. When it'll go down?

I also think that sacking/extermination rewards the player with enough money as it is.

Ok, I accept.

[MWY]

As far as I tested it, it happens when after taking a settlement, the population number goes below the base value in the descr_settlement_mechanics file for the level of the settlement.

[Mamlaz]

I exclusively occupy.

The sacking and exterminating not only kills innocents, but it also destroys buildings, and the last thing I want is to spend then next 20 turns rebuilding stuff I should already have.

[Jurand of Cracow]

I exclusively occupy.

The sacking and exterminating not only kills innocents, but it also destroys buildings, and the last thing I want is to spend then next 20 turns rebuilding stuff I should already have.

Yes, it's what do as well in most of the mods.
However, my point was that the values in the Broken Crescent are set in such a way that sometimes it's better to sack or even exterminate. I would claim that from the perspective of a moder this is a superior solution. As a mattero of fact, if there's a choice, it should be meaningful, i.e.: in some circumstances option 1 should be the right one, in the other 2, or 3. For each option a player should see pros and cons, and decide on his own. No option should be always superior to the others. Otherwise why to have three options at all? I think that's a virtue of a moder to foresee this issue and to fine-tune the values (in this case: number of florins gained and people lost) in a mod accordingly.
In our case: sometimes a player should occupy, but sometimes sacking or exterminating should be better solution, and perhaps sometimes it's the only solution (like: he doesn't have a general who can prevent the settlement from rioting).

[Swarbs]

2. it's extremely difficult to control big settlements after taking them. Your generals don't have enough traits.

This is a key consideration for me - I play exclusively on VH difficulty so keeping order in cities, particularly already huge cities like Palermo, can be very difficult depending on the distance to capital. Therefore my decision tends to rest on two things:

1. The existing walls / castle level of the settlement. The higher it is the more likely I am to sack or exterminate, as you need the breathing space to build the buildings which boost law and order. Nothing worse than choosing to occupy a city to find out it has 0% order even at very low taxes and you will need to conquer it again in a couple of turns, with associated damage from rioting. Then again, I will usually only occupy anything below a minor city / fortress as that way you keep the population and can grow the settlement sooner.

2. The general I am using to conquer and how I am developing them. I try to develop two types of generals:
- Chivalrous generals who boost growth and thus are deployed to settlements I want to grow
- Dread generals who keep order through fear in cities which are too large to control through chivalry
Whilst the chivalrous generals seem to boost order, they also boost growth. Boosted growth is only stopped when squalor rises, which also reduces order, so chivalrous generals can often make a city too large for them to control. Dread generals don't boost growth, so they keep the settlement smaller and control it through fear.

In most of my games I try to have some chivalrous and some dread generals, as I find it more realistic that some of my generals would be evil b*stards. Even with the most chivalrous leader in the world, some of the generals will want to burn and sack and loot!

So when conquering a settlement I will try to send in a general who fits the bill. If I plan to occupy I will bring a chivalrous general to try and boost his stats, if I plan to sack or exterminate I will bring a dreaded general and build up his fear to control more difficult settlements in the future.

I've found that to be the best approach in the long run, as in the late game you will have a good mix of generals able to build smaller cities and keep large ones pacified. More growth and less unrest makes for a strong economy and maximum victory!

[Jurand of Cracow]

I also think that sacking/extermination rewards the player with enough money as it is.

I tend to agree with MWY on that point. From my opinion, the feature is fine in its current form.

Ok, I accept.

While I've conceded and should not bring up this issue anymore, I just want to express a thought which popped to my mind recently (while playing Broken Crescent, again, and also visiting Armenia and reading a book on Kars and Ani).

The higher benefits of sacking would be also good for the gameplay and historicity in the SSHIP. It'd show that the settlements not only develop and get bigger during the course of the game, but may also degredate and crumble. If there're more benefits for sacking/exterminating then it will happen more often, and a border region may fall after a couple of conquest. Which would be historical (think of the city of Ani, for instance). So it's not only about (ahistorica) killing of useful labourforce, but also about different economic features of the region which gets degradeted permanently if the region is on the front with the frequent wars.

For the moment the dominant strategy is rather of Mamlaz than of Swarbs (thanks guys for the info - very intersting. Share also experience/strategy on the other parts of the game!)

I exclusively occupy.

The sacking and exterminating not only kills innocents, but it also destroys buildings, and the last thing I want is to spend then next 20 turns rebuilding stuff I should already have.

[Lifthrasir]

I disagree.
1. Most of the time, not all the population was exterminated but rather a specific community.
2. The amount of money gained when exterminating/sacking a settlement is already quite important.

As said, I don't see the benefit for the gameplay to modify that feature in that way. Accuracy is one thing but I won't sacrify the gameplay for it. We need to keep the right balance between both.

[MWY]

When I play, I already mix between sacking and occupying, depending on public order, my faction income and the power of the enemy faction.

I don't think theres a dominant strategy currently (besides exterminating as a lesser option, which is intended). Also, the settlement would have to change hands often and quickly. And I don't think this happens much, so settlements declining would still be rare.


Realistically, you would need to base growth factor to slowly increase over time. When a settlement changes hands, this growth factor would be cut by a certain amount (depending on the chosen option) and slowly regrow. But this is not how it works in mtw2.


Also, in terms of historical accuracy it would be fitting (to further balance things) if your troops would get either a moral bonus by raiding or a moral malus/disband chance when you occupy a settlement. While the morale aspect might be possible in a way, the disband chance is not I think.

[bigdaddy1204]

I've never successfully occupied a large city in SSHIP. Always exterminate, unless it's a castle.

This is especially true when for example Byzantines capture Konya from Turks. Occupy? Not an option, unless you want the city to rebel and you lose control the next turn.

[z0quete]

I was thinking that it would be interesting to have the option to sack a settlements without actually having to occupy it and take ownership of them.

It would be cool that while marching with your army on campaign to a far way location (e.g. on crusade) we could sack and loot a some juicy settlements in an opportunistic way, without having then own them (as they could be in disadvantageous places to controll and we would have to leave troops behind).

It would be also especially interesting if rebel stacks could sack our cities while we are not paying attention. Sure would give a new feel to game.

Question is if this is even mechanically possible and what the general opinion on the subject (maybe as a mini mod?). I also don't really know if it would be historically accurate or not.

[Lifthrasir]

Thread merged with the one here as they are basically about the same topic

[Lifthrasir]

@ z0quete, no need to create something that exists already in game somehow. Nothing prevents you to conquer a settlement, to sack it and to leave it, all in 1 turn.

[MWY]

@ z0quete: Altough I would like such a feature, I dont think its possible do to it in a good way. It might be with some heavy scripting (&potential bugs), but I don't think thats worth it right now.

[Bruno_Magno]

My standard action in TW games is sack or pillage senttlements, i always wanted the enemy to pay the costs of war, not myself. Nevertheles, in Shogun 2 the penatie we sofered in the Damyo Honor was a real pain in the ass, and kept me from sacking in a lot of Campaigns.