Sack vs Occupy?

[PiratePower]

What are the disadvantages of sacking a newly captured town/city other than damage to reputation and population loss?


As far as I can see, sacking is so lucrative that you should always do it.

The only scenario (I can envisage) where occupying is better than sacking, is when a town is small and you want it to grow quickly.

Thoughts?

Also, can someone explain the free unit upkeep from cities thing. What units are subject to it? Where do they have to be? What buildings should you construct?

Thanks.

[Spart]

I usually sack them. It doesn't have that big effect to population afterall, and I'm always short of money :p

And about the upkeep: It's really simple. You get free upkeep for certain number of militia units in a city. Number of free units depends on a city size, I think you get 6 free units in huge cities..
So there has to be "militia" in the unit name.

[johnny5000]

Does sacking have an effect on dread/chivalry?

I think another (minor) disadvantage to sacking is since it damages buildings, it takes a turn or so before you get them all repaired. Usually it's not a big deal, but sometimes you really need to start cranking out new units (or replenishing your battle-weakened units) from the city, and damaged buildings can prevent that from happening.

[Lavastein]

Does sacking have an effect on dread/chivalry?

I think another (minor) disadvantage to sacking is since it damages buildings, it takes a turn or so before you get them all repaired. Usually it's not a big deal, but sometimes you really need to start cranking out new units (or replenishing your battle-weakened units) from the city, and damaged buildings can prevent that from happening.

never occupy. Always and i mean ALWAYS SACK OR EXTERMINATE the population. For castles i always sack and cities i generaly exterminate. It will help in the long run because squalor goes down and you get cash. Yes sacking gains you dread. But dread is better than chivalry anyways because it casues your enemies to run in fear.

[CynicalMagician]

Cities of the same religion as you - sack.

Cities of different religion that you don't plan on keeping - sack.

Cities of different religion that you do plan on keeping - exterminate.

Occupation is only good for tiny tiny cities that you capture when they're under 800 or so people, like Durazzo, or the two western mediterranean islands.

[Ahiga]

never occupy. Always and i mean ALWAYS SACK OR EXTERMINATE the population. For castles i always sack and cities i generaly exterminate. It will help in the long run because squalor goes down and you get cash. Yes sacking gains you dread. But dread is better than chivalry anyways because it casues your enemies to run in fear.

But dread does not seem to help in controlling the peace of a city, I think only chivalry does.

What I would suggest is specializing two generals for it - if you're hitting a rich city, then bring the dread general. If you're sacking a normal city, then the chivalric one. However, you can have a chivalric one on occassion sack a city, and have only a nominal hurt to your chivalry. I'll usually release prisoners right before or after sacking to help balance it out.

[CynicalMagician]

But dread does not seem to help in controlling the peace of a city, I think only chivalry does.

Dread helps with public order too. Does anyone know how big the effect of dread/chivalry is vs authority? I would expect high chivalry/dread would give smaller bonuses than high authority but I've never really investigated it.

[Janissary]

It all depends, but if the circumstances let me then there is a good chance I would pick occupy above any other. Simply because chivalry has more benefits then dread. It is olmost a certainty. If I am playing with a Catholic Faction and i get the conquer other Catholic city's. Why would you sack or exterminate ? They won't rebel if you manage them as you would with your other cities. Only way i would extermintate or sack is.

- If I am broke: 0 $$$
- Exterminate if I know 100% this will lead in a rebel against my authority

[Elephant Eyelash]

Does sacking have an effect on dread/chivalry?

I think another (minor) disadvantage to sacking is since it damages buildings, it takes a turn or so before you get them all repaired. Usually it's not a big deal, but sometimes you really need to start cranking out new units (or replenishing your battle-weakened units) from the city, and damaged buildings can prevent that from happening.

Sacking cities reduces chivalry and increases dread, just like tax rates and P.O.W.s do.

[maganism]

I prefer joining the Crusade, not to rescue the holy cities from the non-catholics, but to sack and pillage professionally.

1. You declare crusade with really bad city militias.

2. You hire a boat to get there fast.

3. Once you land start hiring crusade units, and attack any other cities or castles except the THE TARGET.

4. Sack and Pillage. Usually all the cities and citadels are lightly defended.

5. Once occupied, sell off all buildings.

6. Let the city rebel, and you can again sack the city again, at least two times.

7. Lastly, sack and pillage the THE TARGET city. Make sure you sell off all the buldings.

7.5 Do it fast, before you troops start to desert.

8. By this time, your homeland would be so rich that economy would not matter anymore. Of course, you need to sack again in 20 turns because you become so used to spending funds so crazy, such as fielding 3 separate armies at the same time.

[Red Paladin]

I think sacking lower the building level of the city by one, and maybe a little cash bonus too. Extermination also kills taxes, your main source of income (for most city).

Sacking is useful if you don't plan on keeping the settlement, or you can exterminate to break the economic back of your enemy, but doing either would probably hurt you in the long run if you keep the city as you would have to pay for rebuilding the city.

I've found the population less rebellious in this game, and this is after successful crusade on the holy land.

[CynicalMagician]

I think sacking lower the building level of the city by one, and maybe a little cash bonus too. Extermination also kills taxes, your main source of income (for most city).

Sacking is useful if you don't plan on keeping the settlement, or you can exterminate to break the economic back of your enemy, but doing either would probably hurt you in the long run if you keep the city as you would have to pay for rebuilding the city.

I've found the population less rebellious in this game, and this is after successful crusade on the holy land.

Wrong. Sacking damages buildings but you always make more than enough to repair them unless the city has really expensive buildings ~and~ it's been exterminated recently. Sacking income is a function of the population of a city, it has nothing to do with what buildings are present. Sacking or exterminating does nothing to the level of city.

[Janissary]

It all depends, but if the circumstances let me then there is a good chance I would pick occupy above any other. Simply because chivalry has more benefits then dread. It is olmost a certainty. If I am playing with a Catholic Faction and i get the conquer other Catholic city's. Why would you sack or exterminate ? They won't rebel if you manage them as you would with your other cities. Only way i would extermintate or sack is.

- If i am very low money meaning: 0
- Exterminate if I know 100% this will lead in a rebel against my authority

[Kalis]

The reputation effect actually means something though.

By not sacking, people far away won't declare war on you (and send armies!) for absolutely no reason, and you can actually get ceasefires.
And not sacking means your allies will stay allies longer.

And frankly, sacking makes the game a bit too easy. Unlimited gold practically!

edit:
and the population does mean something. I mean, most settles you capture are at like 4000-8000 pop, and sacking would kill a good 1000-2000. Getting a fortress and later tier units is delayed say... 20-30 turns if you sack.