Scorched Earth Policy

[Iudaean]

I've been playing RTR for a while now and I've often noticed that a particular strategy of mine is useful for interfering with my enemy's income and overall growth. I start by forming a core territory of well defended cities with as advanced buildings as possible. These cities become troop mills, while outer cities i conquer are razed and minimally defended, just enough to keep the population quiet. As I claim more territories I expand my core. The real trick comes when the AI lay's siege to one of my outer territories. If it is impossible to save the city from conquest, i manually destroy the city's buildings. Once the AI claims it, it essentially own a pile of rubble, with super low popularity and an even lower population. Even better, the city is easy to take, particularly after a few turns of reconstruction under the enemy AI. Thus I can claim my territory, take a huge chunk out of their revenue, and force uprisings all with relative ease.

Comments?

[Preskinn]

I've been playing RTR for a while now and I've often noticed that a particular strategy of mine is useful for interfering with my enemy's income and overall growth. I start by forming a core territory of well defended cities with as advanced buildings as possible. These cities become troop mills, while outer cities i conquer are razed and minimally defended, just enough to keep the population quiet. As I claim more territories I expand my core. The real trick comes when the AI lay's siege to one of my outer territories. If it is impossible to save the city from conquest, i manually destroy the city's buildings. Once the AI claims it, it essentially own a pile of rubble, with super low popularity and an even lower population. Even better, the city is easy to take, particularly after a few turns of reconstruction under the enemy AI. Thus I can claim my territory, take a huge chunk out of their revenue, and force uprisings all with relative ease.

Comments?

I think it might not be so god.

1. You loose a lot of taxes with low population. Enslave when you conquer instead.
2. It doesn't give you a fun game... and it is not kewl... the AI never does it, and it gives you an unfair advantage.

[PraetorianXVI]

War wasn't meant to be fair. Besides the Russians did it back in World War II.

[Preskinn]

War wasn't meant to be fair. Besides the Russians did it back in World War II.

So by cheating against a allready inferior AI in a computer game, it makes it somhow more realistic?

War isn't fair... yet it allways seems to be so for the player

[Brusilov]

So by cheating against a allready inferior AI in a computer game, it makes it somhow more realistic?

War isn't fair... yet it allways seems to be so for the player

They aren't cheating - that would imply using something outside of the game engine to change the course of events (which for me includes the use of the console to add_money etc). This does include modifying the files to give a larger starting income or bonus income each turn.

It may be a "cheese tactic" (like only fighting bridge defense battles or surrounding the town centre with phalanx units) but it isn't cheating.

For me it takes so long to build up the infrastructure to make a settlement truly yours (in that it's happy, generates income with a low number of garrison units) that I won't destroy structures (AI temples are destroyed). A happy settlement is one that can be taxed to the maximum while the occupants are happy!

The only time that I destroy all the buildings is when I launch an attack against the enemy's rearward settlements . I will take the settlement, kill all the inhabitants and destroy all the buildings. I will either then set the tax to the maximum possible and leave it to revolt (hopefully to the rebels) or give it as a 'gift' to an enemy faction (not the original owners).

[PraetorianXVI]

Put everything on very hard, I've never done it, but from what I've heard the computer kinda cheats too.

[Zoomastigaphora]

I use roughly the same strategy when playing as Rome since the provinces in Italy are so closely placed and coupled with superior Roman infrastructure, it makes churning out full stacks quick and easy.

On the other hand, it's virtually impossible to duplicate the strategy in my Parthian campaign. Provinces are often huge, making it hard to form a core. The Parthian faction seems to compensate for this by having no infantry of any real value, forcing me to use largely cavalry armies. Thankfully the AI is stupid

[sumaznguy]

I think I am going to have to use this tactic as Pontus on VH/VH. I tried it twice and Selucid Empire ravages me .Well its easier to defend when I only have the two starting cities since they only ready have nice infrastructure going on, BUT too much farms I get mass squalor real quick, =(.

[FMvonKleist]

Unless it is early in the game and I need population in my core Italian Peninsula cities, I advise always exterminating. And for that matter, yes the AI DOES exterminate cities. I have seen it many times and don't know how anyone couldn't have not seen such in any of their campaigns. Extermination gives you a nice clean slate to build a "Romanized" city. Furthermore, destroying the buildings is a good policy of leaving the enemy nothing to work with.

[Lost In Transition]

I'm a newbie and not a great expert, but I found this discussion interesting. If I can add two points:

1. I think the AI does exterminate populations at some point in the game. I seem to recall once, while playing Macedonia, another faction invaded Greece and took Elis, then exterminated the entire city.

2. I find it strange when people are accused of "cheating" when they're actually playing the game in a way which was intended. You are given the opportunity to exterminate cities and, if you do so, you have negative consequence - you loose tax revenue. If you sent the game on VH/H (VH for battles, Hard for campaign - the VH campaign setting seems to make it easier), you'll find that weak AI units can suddenly overpower your best units, etc. So, on certain settings, the AI has an advantage that you don't have.

Anyway, my only thought about this strategy is how you can afford to build your core cities if you keep destroying you exterior cities. You loose tax revenue which I find I need to develop armies. Maybe your empire grows at a rate sufficient to make such actions justifiable, but the idea of tearing down potentially useful buildings does not appeal to me. To quote Patton (or George C. Scott playing Patton): I hate to pay for the same real estate twice.

But maybe I'll give your idea a whirl . . .

[Preskinn]

@ Lost In Transition, Brusilov, PraetorianXVI

My thoughts came out a bit wrong, sorry if I made it sound like you guys cheat. I allso use this way of playing sometimes to a certain extent.
I might exterminate a populace if they are extremly disobedient, or if they are my mortal enemies. But i still never destroy bulidings, since I think it is cheesy. Same thing with fighting only bridgebattles, i fight them when they happen

I agree that the AI is cheating, I usualy don't play VH campaign or Battle dificulity for that reason. It breaks the balance imo, like big nations being unable to beat small petty nations since they muster big armies every turn even thogh they are very small. and cavalry gets killed by slingers.

In the end of course it is up to the player, and of course it is all about having fun. But I think that just because it isn't a cheat code, it doesn't mean an exploit can't be cheating on some level, they are game flaws imo. I myself have found that the game becomes so much more fun without using these exploits, it simply becomes more challenging.

Please understand that I do not concider exterminating to be any form of exploit, I just meant that I find it more rewarding in all aspects to enslave, or maybe in some cases occupy

Darn i sound serious

[Praetori]

This post might get a bit threadnoughty but bare with me.

I just started a fresh game on a brand new rig and RTR 1.9. I play as the romans (I do have a weakspot for them) on VH Campaign and Hard battles (in retrospect I should have set battles to VH as well since I'm now steamrolling the enemy).

I'm currently at 215BC with the Italian penninsula conqered and most of the greek and macedon territories as well. 362 Wins and 48 losses. It started out kinda simple since Phyrrus on round 9 got trapped inside Corfinium and wouldn't come out and fight til it was all over (I massed up with what I could afford during that intermission). I went directly towards Tarentum and Croton (being lightly defended) and took these with ease. I then moved on to Sicily (leaving Syracuse be since it was heavily defended).
As always I got into war with Carthage and they proved to be easy to drive off from Sicily (though those cities aren't easy to hold on to). Here is where I started slaughtering the population and destroying every building in them I didn't want. This gave me alot of money quickly and saved me the tons of troops usually needed to garrison them. Troops and money well spent on my quest to drive the greeks off and form an alliance with the macedons. Later in game the macedonians attacked without warning (after I took Apollonia from the greeks between two Macedon sieges). As the Macedons had way much more troops and money than I did I could not hope to fight them on their terms. I started deploying the few spies I could afford. The trick played out nicely and I could take Thermon, Antigonea and Larissa with open gates (lightly defended) though my small armies had several full stacked macedonian armies chasing them.

Holding the cities was not an option, so I sacked them, slaughtering the population and taking what gold I could from the destroyed buildings and then moved on deeper in to enemy territory (leaving a lightly defended city to occupy the enemy for a turn or two). This gold was then used to build up my roman cities and paying Carthage for a truce (wich still holds). The macedons (still at war with greece) never really got back in the game and I have now taken all of their cities except Tylis and Byzantion using the same tactics. The extra money is well spent on roaming mercenaries to boost up my armies as they move along.

I usually play dirty when it comes to politics aswell, fueling wars between my neighbours. But the best tactic so far (even better than early game city razing) is using spies and assassins together with plague. As soon as plague starts in a city I rush my spies there. Then by plagueship I transport them to my enemies most promising cities infecting them over and over. When the population gets unruly I use my assassins to destroy temples, sanitation and other unrest-lowering buildings and watch the cities riot. This in combination with lightning raids on their lightly held back territories with enslavement or slaughter has given me the breethingspace I needed to get ahead of everyone on the charts except for the Egyptians (wich are HUGE).

Taking control over Corinth was priority since the Statue of Zeus gives that extra happiness in the cities wich I need soo dearly.
I'm currently planning on a possible raid scenario of Alexandria and Tyre to slow the egyptians a bit.

Ok this one was a bit long. I hope noone is offended by it.

Edit: Oh and I never save/load if I lose....

[Mr_Ace]

So there is basically an unfair advantage for players who are under the VH setting for both campaign and battles, eh?

Perhaps the creaters should fix this bug or balance this out, if it is not considered a bug. Since I'am currently playing the game on VH mode lol

[svramj]

So there is basically an unfair advantage for players who are under the VH setting for both campaign and battles, eh?

Perhaps the creaters should fix this bug or balance this out, if it is not considered a bug. Since I'am currently playing the game on VE mode lol

i agree with u Mr_Ace....we must set all building indestructible when build once....excerpt for temples to manage the culture penalty....other buildings must be indestructible

[Companion Cavalry]

I think it's pretty realistic exhausted men after finally taking the city

will set down and release their stress by massacre, torching everything, etc.

[Exekutor]

I have no problem with extermination. I try to occupy cities which are under 6k or the same culture, anything else get's most probably enslaved, if it's too big or I don't need slaves, I exterminate. Especially when it's far away from my capital. It gives me time to build up the city and I won't need too much garrison. You get less tax revenue, but you won't have to leave your army as garrison or fear revolts, the pop grows back fast anyway.
But I would never destroy all the buildings in a city and then leave again, I just find it sort of lame. Exterminating and then leaving again is ok though.