occupy, sack or exterminate?

[Harald Hardrade]

What do people find best in the long run when u capture a town? I always exterminate but it really is a pain to rebuild.

[Tony83]

I think it depends on the circumstances.

Early in the game I usually occupy smaller settlements as the cash return for sacking isn't that lucrative and I'd rather build up the population as quickly as possible.

Mid game onwards I usually sack large towns and cities as it can be a nice little earner and, I believe, has little effect on your faction's reputation.

I only ever exterminate in extremis! If it's a huge city and I don't have the manpower to garrison it effectively, or it's a different culture which gives a major unrest hit. Extermination also hits your reputation, especially if the settlement is of the same religion.

[pwijnands]

To answer your question: occupy is the best in the long run for cities that haven't grown too large in size. Occupying a huge city can give you problems with public order because of high squalor (on top of the usual unrest). In Rome it was a more easy choice, there I always exterminated huge cities to alleviate population problems.

Just to clarify: Sacking also lowers your global reputation.

The option I chose depends on what kind of faction I play. If I'm playing an Islamic faction I never occupy, I always sack (and exterminate when absolutely necessary) as no-one will like me anyway. If I'm playing Catholic I occupy only and adjust my speed of conquest to this (convert the population of a region before taking it).

[Trajan]

For me, it absolutely depends on the happiness factor, how long the war has been going, the religion of the people in the city/castle, and most importantly, how many men I lost in the siege.

[Sonny WiFiHr]

Sack anything with stone walls, exterminate different religion ,occupy small towns with your religion.
To raise global reputation just relase prisoners after battle and don't use assasins. But you will always end up in total war so global reputation in kingdom is useless.

[pwijnands]

Is it just me or is it impossible to release enemy prisoners taken during a siege? I never have this option after sieges and sieges are the majority of battles I'm in, so releasing prisoners can't be done on a regular basis in my games.

Just for the record: assassins don't lower global reputation directly, wars resulting from using them do.

[Boz]

When is a little settlement and sack does not report me more than 2000 or so I occupy. If it is a Large Town or city normally I sack. And only when is a big city (like dublin in kingdoms) or it has rebelled from me then I exterminate.

But if I'am with bad economy I always sack.

[Vindahl]

I once heard a good advice upon this topic...

When you have taken a settlement or a castle, scroll the window to the side so you can see the happiness indicator of the newly conquerred settlement or castle...

- If it is green, just occuppy...
- If it is yellow, sack it...
- Red means that the best is to exterminate the whole thing...

BUT
of course this is a personal thing... If you really need money and you have taken a place where you can get a lot of cash from extermanitating it, you can do it....

Otherwise, roleplay it...
A cruel leader would always exterminate and kill, while a chivalric conquerror would spare the population!

[Callawyn]

[quote=Vindahl;2569350]I once heard a good advice upon this topic...

When you have taken a settlement or a castle, scroll the window to the side so you can see the happiness indicator of the newly conquerred settlement or castle...

- If it is green, just occuppy...
- If it is yellow, sack it...
- Red means that the best is to exterminate the whole thing...


This works, but be aware that these color codes assume 'normal' tax rate, and I have serious doubts if it considers any garrison at all. Safe to say, if its green or yellow, you can occupy, if its red you can probably get away with only sacking it. But use some common sense, if you Catholic and you're taking Cairo, it had Huge Walls and you didn't bring any priests with you, exterminating is probably a good option.

-Occupy: You can gain +Chiv when you do this (or lose Dread if you have the antitrait), up to +5 Chiv, 85%chance of a +1 with threshholds at 1,2,4,8,16 (works out to an average of about 1,2,5,9,19 Occupies to gain 1,2,3,4,5 Chiv).
The cash you can gain from Occupying isn't bad, and of course none of the citizens die.
I usually Occupy all rebel settlements I take at the start of the game, and any settlement I take later that is too small to give much money from sacking (pretty much all villages, small towns and castles. Lg Towns/Minor cities are a toss up. Lg/Huge cities the cash from sacking is too tempting and the pop loss meaningless). Exception is if the general commanding is working on Dread, rather than +Chiv, in which case I never Occupy.

-Sack: You can gain +dread for this (really, you are losing Chiv), but its rare and slow, and negligible if the territory has <50% same religion as you.
The population loss from sacking really isn't that much, and with the way squalor works you'll eventually close in on the population you would have had if you Occupy. I've watched this in practice a lot, and IMO if you're taking at least a Large Town, don't worry at all about the population loss from sacking. Villages and Small Towns not only have low population but also low pop growth because of lack of access to buildings that can speed growth, they also aren't very lucrative to sack, so why do it? For castles, if I intend to convert to a city, I may sack, if I'm going to keep it I never sack unless, again, my general is a Dread general. Population growth in castles can really be a problem and prevents access to high end units.
You do take a reputation hit, globally, for sacking. In my experience, it is negligible. I've stopped worrying about it entirely. Its simply too small to be a factor in the decision.

-Exterminate: The population loss from this is massive compared to that for sacking. It will take half the game before you fully recover. If you take a castle and exterminate, you might as well sell off the ranges/stables and convert to a city right away.
The money you get from exterminating is significantly less than sacking.
You will gain Dread for your general (or if he's Chivalrous, lose Chiv). There are plenty of other ways to get +Dread, you can easily get 10 Dread without ever Exterminating.
You will take a big hit on your global reputation. If you Exterminate rarely, when you really need to to maintain order in a new conquest, this isn't an issue. If you're exterminating everything you conquer, all other factions will be hating you and you WILL notice a big increase in unwanted wars and refusals to your diplomatic requests. This is very important early in the game, later on you may not care.

[Laconian]

i just occupy little villages and cities where I can get little profit from but I ussualy sack all cities due to the good amount of cash it generates unless the city I take is of a different relegion then I exterminate because I'll get unrest and the city will rebel.

[Kawligia]

Settlement near my power-base(s) that I want to build up -> Occupy

All other settlements that do not have serious happiness problems, or I don't care if I keep or not, or know I will probably lose -> Sack

All other settlements that DO have happiness problems and I DO want to keep -> Exterminate

But in all cases, if I desperately need money -> Sack

[Armoured_Crusader]

I sack everything; it gets you money and it tells the population who's boss by only killing a few, allowing you to build it up easily.
Hope this helps.

[Bolshevik]

What do people find best in the long run when u capture a town? I always exterminate but it really is a pain to rebuild.

Wouldn't do that. Only exterminate if there is really, really a civil revolt.
I sack almost always, only villages, towns and most castle-like structures.
The last ones I just occupy. Even if the face is red, sacking may be enough.
Sacking kills less people, destroys less buidlings, but gains more money.

[Dracula]

You must think on the long run. The best option is "occupy" cause the town that grows will bring you much more money than these that you take once from it when it was still so small(a big developed city gives per turn more than the sack of the same place when you captured it). However in a territory where you are not accepted easily,facing red revolt or blue that'll grow into red,the best option is to kill them all. But again don't use "exterminate","enslave" will give you the necessary growth to enrich your other cities. I use exterminate option only when I hate the place and am ready to neglect it for future. "Exterminate" is loosing money, population and the place itself as any source for more time than you can usually afford.

[Viking Prince]

My style is to occupy so this response is from a bias.

When money is tight sacking is tempting in the short run. That is why I try to keep my taxes on normal or low. For me, the tax adjustment is a better shortterm solution. As Dracula stated (better than I could) shortterm solutions can cause longterm problems.

However, if my faction had a Carthage for an opponant, it would be exterminated. Hope all conflicts can be decided in a shorter period of time than Rome dealt with Carthage. Carthage certainly was persistent.

[Yojimbo]

I occupy early on when the cities are small but exterminate diffrent culture cities like Muslim ones since the culture penalty sucks i exterminate large settlements as well if i need to blitzkrig the enemy and not hang around trainign garrion troops. so basicly occupy rich settlements or small ones exterminate native amercain/muslim (or cathloic if your muslim) and sack ones you dotn really care about. very late game when its slash and burn, kill and loot when your about to win i exterminate everythign to give me lots of money

I also tend to focus all my generals on having high dread and always execute prisoners except when I'm desperate for money so exterminating helps. I also just tend to like playing the cruel and ruthless type since I'm liek that in real life sometimes.

[Lethe]

I almost always sack. Why? It's great for your cash flow and helps instill order. I find occupying anything that's decently far from your capital is an invitation for public disorder and possible overthrow.

I do occupy a very few locations early on in the game, or very late in the game, when I have the manpower to put in the settlement.

I rarely execute a city. The only time I usually do is if it's been a particularly tough battle and the faction has been ticking me off a ton. I know it's not a rationale reason, but it makes me feel better.

[Guderian's Duck]

When playing as Russia, I usually must exterminate rebel and enemy settlements lest they rebel after a few turns. Distance from the capital as well as distance between cities seems to be a major factor.

[SuperStick]

I usually just sacked and looted everything since, its like in the middle, you dont really kill a lot of the population but you get a lot of cash and you make them happy. I only exterminate when it is a really big settlement or the people just hate me.

[Yojimbo]

I usually just sacked and looted everything since, its like in the middle, you dont really kill a lot of the population but you get a lot of cash and you make them happy. I only exterminate when it is a really big settlement or the people just hate me.

i also exterminate cities of factions i really hate as a sort of twisted revenge. Also its good to exterminate if your not sure if you can hold the settlement. Exterminate, destroy all buildings and withdraw.