Sacking and looting should give you attrition.

[cupoftea]

Whenever you take a city and decide to let your soldiers loot and pillage, I find it hard to image that no soldier would get killed in the proces. I can imagine that a brave peasant might take up arms whenever an enemy soldier tries to take his wife or kids. They should also increase the procent of casualties with the tier of the city. For example a minor city would cost you 5% of your troops, while a huge city would cost you 15% or something. Might be more or less.

Also, they should adress that 10 soldiers are able to loot and sack a city of 50 000 people, but I don't know how they should solve that. You maybe have to have more than X % of your army to do that.

[Julio-Claudian]

I doubt you'd lose any significant amount of men to an unarmed populace who have been besieged and had their city conquered.

[Strifeblade]

15% casualties isn't an uncommon percentage for a battle. I doubt veteran troops would take so many losses suppressing unarmed peasants, but I think an amount of 1-2% would be reasonable.

[Julio-Claudian]

It could depend on the army. Seeing as legions will now have traits, sort of reckless and unruly legions might suffer more casualties when sacking a city as they'd do it in a far less orderly manner.

[Rikx]

It could depend on the army. Seeing as legions will now have traits, a sort of reckless and unruly legions might suffer more casualties when sacking a city as they'd do it in a far less orderly manner.

Yep. This makes sense. And the amount that is looted could also be proportional to the city's wealth and the looting army's size.

[Destraex]

Whenever you take a city and decide to let your soldiers loot and pillage, I find it hard to image that no soldier would get killed in the proces. I can imagine that a brave peasant might take up arms whenever an enemy soldier tries to take his wife or kids. They should also increase the procent of casualties with the tier of the city. For example a minor city would cost you 5% of your troops, while a huge city would cost you 15% or something. Might be more or less.

Also, they should adress that 10 soldiers are able to loot and sack a city of 50 000 people, but I don't know how they should solve that. You maybe have to have more than X % of your army to do that.

I do not agree with most of this.
Army sizes are abstracted in game. We just have to deal with 10 soldiers taking a city of 50,000

Also generally I do not think looting soldiers would be challenged at all.
If soldiers did die with their comrades all around them it would be 0.000000000000000001 of the legion. Not even enough to be shown.

[AgentGB]

I think you would lose more troops due to desertion if your just looted a city, then losses to the city populace. Since if your a merc, or joined the army for a quick payday, your most likely want to leave with your spoils i would imagine? But seems a bit of a unnecessary mechanic tbh.... Or Generals often let there troops loot to avoid mass desertion/upset has a reward if the siege's had been bloody and long.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_o...80%93212_BC%29

Probably would be better represented if you could share the spoils, or allow your troops to keep a share of the spoil to keep the favour of the army, while losing a percentage of your total loot, or if to say you choose the option to return all loot to your capital treasury instead of giving the army a share?