Raze Over used

[wolfshart79]

After watching some of the twitch videos it appears that the raze option is used too frequently. Considering the harsh penalties it applies to the province and essentially cutting the number of usable towns every time it is used, I feel like it could be toned down a little. Before you know it half the available provinces will be wastelands by turn 50. It looks cool and all but it seems like a very harsh action that the horde factions use constantly for no reason. Anyone else noticed that?

[RedGuard]

yep, pretty much said through my clairvoyance that it would be a problem about 8 months ago but apparently CA begged to differ.

[Huberto]

Yes I noticed it another reason to wait, wait, wait until this game has been out a while and each apparent shortcoming is revealed.

That said the more I see, the less interesting this game gets. It looks as though very little effort was put into this game. Hard to know why but there are many possible reasons:

1.) "fixing" TWR2 and all the campaign pack DLC took a lot of time
2.) why bother people will buy anything
3.) Warhammer!
4.) All the talent has left the building

[EmperorBatman999]

This is concerning considering that this is pretty much all that the Huns can do if they take a settlement, which I consider poor design. This means that the Hun AI is just going to wreck the entire place. Sometimes I wonder if the damage the Huns ever did was overstated and overdramatified as time went on as proper historical sources become more and more obscure on the subject, leaving people today to assume that the Huns were interested and capable of destroying literally everything.

[Prof]

This is concerning considering that this is pretty much all that the Huns can do if they take a settlement, which I consider poor design. This means that the Hun AI is just going to wreck the entire place. Sometimes I wonder if the damage the Huns ever did was overstated and overdramatified as time went on as proper historical sources become more and more obscure on the subject, leaving people today to assume that the Huns were interested and capable of destroying literally everything.

Well...at least this gameplay mechanic will make the huns a pain in the a**, since it is now very expensive to lose even the most insignificant settlement and then retake it a few turns later.

[EmperorBatman999]

Well...at least this gameplay mechanic will make the huns a pain in the a**, since it is now very expensive to lose even the most insignificant settlement and then retake it a few turns later.

The damage doesn't need to that extensive though. The sacking feature in BI worked well for travelling hordes. It did a lot of damage, took a lot of loot, and the entire province was plunged into anarchy, but it could always be retake and rebuilt by the Romans or a horde faction wishing to settle down there.

[nameless]

This is concerning considering that this is pretty much all that the Huns can do if they take a settlement, which I consider poor design. This means that the Hun AI is just going to wreck the entire place. Sometimes I wonder if the damage the Huns ever did was overstated and overdramatified as time went on as proper historical sources become more and more obscure on the subject, leaving people today to assume that the Huns were interested and capable of destroying literally everything.

From the TWITCH don't the HUNs have SACK and RAZE? I would assume SACK it he money making move while RAZE is simply destroy everything.

[EmperorBatman999]

From the TWITCH don't the HUNs have SACK and RAZE? I would assume SACK it he money making move while RAZE is simply destroy everything.

I'm trying not to get myself excited and hyped by avoiding the advertisements, trailers, and "Let's Plays." Still, if there's a sack feature, then why should there be a raze feature? I doubt even the Huns were capable of the catastrophic fallout-like destruction we've been seeing with the raze feature. I doubt the Huns would've had the time and resources to ride around an entire province just torching everything. Sacking achieves the same goals and allows the Huns to repeatedly milk off settlements for gold. Very few faction will be able to truly repopulate a region.

[Caesar_1991]

This is concerning considering that this is pretty much all that the Huns can do if they take a settlement, which I consider poor design. This means that the Hun AI is just going to wreck the entire place. Sometimes I wonder if the damage the Huns ever did was overstated and overdramatified as time went on as proper historical sources become more and more obscure on the subject, leaving people today to assume that the Huns were interested and capable of destroying literally everything.

I agree 100%

[Bethencourt]

Guess what when they instatransport into the Mediterranean and reach the North African coast. I hope the rest of the factions are given the nukes tech, just for gameplay balance and fun. It will be funny this way, I tell you.

[Flavius Julius Nepos Augustus]

Guess what when they instatransport into the Mediterranean and reach the North African coast. I hope the rest of the factions are given the nukes tech, just for gameplay balance and fun. It will be funny this way, I tell you.

Last settlement standing mode?

[Bethencourt]

Yes with 200 turns to go in front of you. So you can recolonize the planet, like "Beyond earth" kind of concept but in a more pedestrian setting, I am just loving it.

[RedGuard]

but for real though, hopefully it wont be too much of a pain in the ass. I can see people rage quitting if its overpowered. waiting for reviews.

[Bethencourt]

Probably they wanted to conquer the land not to destroy it so much.

Let's see, instatransport, siege scalation, razing land.... AC/DC's "Highway to Hell".... or "Hell Bells"?

[Lionheart11]

The huns didnt destroy everything, they actually made a great eastern empire, i read somewhere his brothers actually did most of the work too and not just Atilla.

[RedGuard]

The huns didnt destroy everything, they actually made a great eastern empire, i read somewhere his brothers actually did most of the work too and not just Atilla.

yeah Attila basically let Bleda do all the work at the start then killed him when the empire reached its peak while hunting and took over for himself.

[PeonKing]

I don't know, I could see it going either way. It seems like something that is going to be a possible curb to the mid/late game steamroll. Instead of being able to continue conquering and taking settlements giving you a safe place to replenish and defend, you are going to run into desolate settlements. These desolate areas automatically cause attrition if you send an army through them, so just trying to skip over them and keep conquering will take a toll on your invading forces. If it's pricey to rebuild them, you might need to slow down to build up some capital or bypass some of your interior settlement high level upgrades in order to rebuild what is going to be an empty settlement. It's going to slow down your economic growth and stop you from being able to beeline to your enemies. Couple that with self-sustaining horde stacks that are very maneuverable, this combo might actually bring a defensive line of settlements into relevance. In Rome 2, it was rare for me to ever need to make a 'defensive' settlement, I did a few times, but it was usually easier to just make friends with the side of the world I'm not invading at that time. I look forward to the idea that I might need to hunker down for an extended period to build up enough money and forces to continue invading mid campaign.

Then again, yeah, I could see it being a pain if you were to say, fight your way through Europe as the Saxons, only to find that Asia Minor and everything to the East is desolate settlements.

[Cwenraed]

I can see some people (or maybe ill give them the idea in the next words i type) to try and raze every settlement on the map!

[RGA]

IMHO razing a settlement is too profitable (huge amount of instant money from a surely lost city) while re-settling it is prohibitively expensive. This leads to an unbalance favouring desolation of large sections of the map. As others have pointed out, no armies in ancient times have enough manpower and discipline to completely devastate large areas as in World war 2. More often than not, "scorched earth" tactics is not a form of economical warfare but a way of stalling advancing army.

I know CA would not change it so late in development but just a few suggestion for modders:

- Significantly lowering the money gained from razing a settlement => sacking is more profitable
- Significantly lowering the money required for resettlement. The new settlers already have to carry the burdens of building all buildings new, so why punishs them further? => increasing the chance of AI/ human players revive the desolated cities
- Increasing the penalty of all armies marching through desolated regions (attrition, food shortage, decrease in movement point and replenishment, decrease of intergrity etc.)

[damien007]

- Significantly lowering the money gained from razing a settlement => sacking is more profitable
- Significantly lowering the money required for resettlement. The new settlers already have to carry the burdens of building all buildings new, so why punishs them further? => increasing the chance of AI/ human players revive the desolated cities
- Increasing the penalty of all armies marching through desolated regions (attrition, food shortage, decrease in movement point and replenishment, decrease of intergrity etc.)

I would agree with all those, but if you watched the streams you should know that sacking is already more profitable then razing. But TBH it doesn't really make logical sense that razing should bring less money then sacking, because usually the army would sack the settlement before razing it anyway. The biggest reason you wouldn't want to Raze it the same reason most people don't bother sacking. because more often then not it's more profitable to capture or subjugate the settlement. So the amount of instant money you get needs to be high to make it worthwhile in the short term, that being said I think the cost of rebuilding settlements should be lower if you're worried about it being overused.

Also some other people have said the huns only option will be to raze/sack captured settlements which is wrong. They will also be able to liberate and subjugate settlements.