To exterminate, sack, or occupy

[shelton p]

I've only been playing for about 5 days now, though I played MTW for years prior. I need some advice though on taking cities.

What are the pros and cons in deciding to exterminate, sack, and occupy? I've not tried extermination yet but when I sack a city I still occupy it (literally).

Are there certain circumstances in which I'd be better off killing the proles?

I'm holding Jerusalem right now for instance (I'm England), but having troubles keeping public order. Maybe I should have killed off some before occupying.

Also what exactly gets destroyed when I sack?

[easts1d3raider]

Well when you exterminate you basically destroy all the populace except for 1/3 of it I think.. or something along those lines. Basically look at it as killing off all the people who were against your rule and keeping those who are fine with it. Now the population that accumulates in the years to come will be growing under your regime and ur culture so the public order will be good.

Sacking is good for getting money and basically I do this to most of the settlements especially if they are large cities.

Occupying is best for small settlements where exterminating, or sacking won't benefit you much. Also if the public order is good enough you can just occupy and start pumping out troops, if you exterminate there might not be that many people for you to recruit.

[Carl von Döbeln]

Sack

[zeuxis the mighty]

I try not to sack cities that are my own religion because it destroys or downgrades certain buildings within the settlement. Sacking I find useful only in the first 50-70 turns because more often than not you need the money and you can easily rebuild what you destroyed.

Extermination is very useful when you know the populace will not obey you in that settlement (generally when its a different religion or very far from your capital).

When settlements are my own religion, large cities, or remotely close to my capital I simply occupy because its very easy to make money from the settlement right away because the population and buildings are all in place and soldiers can be recruited from that settlement much quicker.

[mikeon]

When the option shows up, you can scroll over to see what the current settlement is at. Green face, occupy, red face, exterminate. Also, if I lose a general, it's exterminate no matter what.

[Wheelchair]

Ok, the search button is in place for a reason, please use it, as this thread has been created 50+ times!@#$%!

But I'll answer it anyways.

Occupy IF: The amount of money from sacking is low

Sack IF: You need money

Exterminate IF: The town is of opposite religion OR has been in enemy hands for a large number of turns.

IF your town is red and of no importance economically to you, move all of your garrison forces out, let them rebel, retake the city and exterminate.

[Mithrane]

Few things to remember, what you do with your generals affects their traits and your reputation.

If you exterminate, you gain dread.

If you sack often, you gain dread.

If you occupy, you gain chivalry.

If you exterminate, you gain bad reputation, and other factions will be more hostile to you.

If you sack often, you will gain some bad reputation, as well.

If you occupy, you don't gain bad reputation, and might even gain good reputation.


If you are in the early game, and not trying to grow chivalry, go ahead and sack. The money will usually be a lot of help. If the town/fort is small, and you intend to get something out of it, don't exterminate. If you are not trying to gain dread, the only reason to exterminate is for public order. The times this is needed are when the region is mostly another religion, when it is far from your capital, or when you don't have the funds/forces to leave a large garrison and it is a huge city.

If you are playing a catholic nation, and you gain a bad reputation for exterminating, you will often find yourself on the Pope's bad side, and quickly be excommunicated, thus removing the option of crusades and having all other catholic nations look at you as an enemy.

[Gigantus]

When the option shows up, you can scroll over to see what the current settlement is at. Green face, occupy, red face, exterminate. Also, if I lose a general, it's exterminate no matter what.

How do you loose a general in a siege? Letting the AI manage your armies?

Besides this rather hilarious incident: there is a faction standing file that will judge your actions (reflected in dilomacy standing\reputation): everyone expects you to sack, so nothing happens to your standing. You want to be the darling of your part of the world, occupy. Gives positive rep for your general as well. Not advisable if you are on a crusade to Cairo, unless you intend to leave the city straight after conquest (same round). Exterminate should be the last option and only used if you need to hold the setlement at all costs (bottleneck for defense, part of winning condition). The repercussions are simply to great to justify anything else. Otherwise don't be surprised if the other factions are having a Jalta conference and start attacking you from all sides. Reputation DOES play a rule in this game, not only for the individual character.

[Leutrim]

sack

[Ex Tenebris Lux]

sack as often as you can but some cities, if you really dont have to sack, you should occupy, even if sacking would give you an insane amount of florins. some cities are so advanced its better to take advantage of what they can offer at that level than trying to repair an repopulate.

and i rarely ever exterminate, mostly do it if a city rebels and kicks me out, the second time i take it then i exterminate.

[Celsius]

I occupy most time. But if Im playin as a catholic faction and take an Islamic faction, I exterminate the population to avoid revolts.

[Wizzerdrix]

Good answers. I also like to make cities with constant low public order rebel on purpose by setting the taxes to very high and moving all my troops outside so the city will revolt and become a rebel settlement in the next turn. Then I can move in with my army standing outside and exterminate the place. I enjoy doing that to settlements with arse weasels who don't want to be a part of my glorious empire. That will teach them, mwuahahahah!

[Ex Tenebris Lux]

Good answers. I also like to make cities with constant low public order rebel on purpose by setting the taxes to very high and moving all my troops outside so the city will revolt and become a rebel settlement in the next turn. Then I can move in with my army stading outside and exterminate the place. I enjoy doing that to settlements with arse weasels who don't want to be a part of my glorious empire.

welcome to your first +rep

[KoS]

If you've got a general in command of the army, if you occupy the settlement, he'll get a chivalry bonus. Likewise, he'll become more dreaded if you exterminate. But sacking is more profitable regardless.

Also, if a settlement has rebelled, it's likely because the population has grown too high, so exterminate it and it'll stay content for some time.

[Gigantus]

That pretty much sums up what I wanted to tell (somewhat convoluted perhaps). Sacking because of profit shouldn't really be an issue in the later stages of the game. I try to build my reputation up by only occupying, the money side I leave to the AI (believe me, no one is better then the AI in squeezing money out of your settlements).

[Dumanthis]

I exterminate everything. That's my way. No problems with the population in a long run. No matter what others think. There's no one to say that there even happened anyhting inhuman....

[Magno]

The only way to ensure peace and harmony within your growing empire is to make an example of those who would otherwise plot against you, exterminate anything and everything that is big,different culture, different religion, and just very annoying.

[Double A]

You think they would be happy that you didn't kill them...