Reason, Revenge or Roleplay? How do you decide when to occupy, sack or raze?

[Alwyn]

Usually, when I take a city, I choose to occupy rather than sack or raze. Logically, this seems like the best option for incorporating a new region into my empire. Sometimes when an AI faction loots or razes one of my cities, I do the same to one of theirs. This is partly revenge - "they put one of yours in the hospital, you put one of theirs in the morgue" - and partly to discourage AI factions from similar attacks in future (I don't know whether this actually affects their behaviour).

Some factions may be better-suited to looting and razing than others. If I remember correctly, in the Grand Campaign the Iceni victory conditions in the Grand Campaig require sacking or razing a number of settlements, and in the Rise of the Republic the Senones can only sack or raze, they can't occupy.

I wonder how other players make the choice between occupying, looting and razing. Do you always occupy, or occupy but take revenge on factions which loot or raze your cities, or roleplay based on the style of warfare of your factions, or do you decide in a different way?

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

I'm more the revengeful typ...

So Option 2.

[Dismounted Feudal Knight]

Option 3, sprinkled with 4. What the general is partial to, first of all, and if the general is partial but would be influenced by circumstance. Sometimes sometimes the faction leader will instill a policy based on their preferences or manipulations that changes the baseline from before or with particular factions, sometimes the general predates the faction leader and has more agency/isn't as inclined to follow, sometimes there is a cultural urge that almost entirely overwhelms (ie: faction that is fundamentally a raider for hit and runs probably won't use occupy terribly often). I use convoluted logic to decide the answer, and I love the process it entails. Comes from Medieval 2 and I've done it with every entry before and after.

[Alwyn]

Morticia, thanks, I use the 'revenge' option too, it's good to see I'm not the only one!

Commodus, I like the idea of this being a mix of the preferences of your general, the circumstances, the culture and the policies of your faction leader.

[King Athelstan]

When I play I try to go into the broader strategic point of view. I try to expand in "blocks" and when pushing across a front line I occupy cities, as I intend for them to be part of the empire. However, if I've ended up in a war where the enemy has territories I don't want to incorporate into my empire I'll send a force to sack the city instead to weaken them while still overall benefiting from the situation.

[kesa82]

I habitually play Sparta , and roleplay / strategic objectives play a significant role here.

Early game , Sparta is fighting Greek factions anyway. I NEVER sack or raze Greek / Macedonian cities. Likewise I rarely enslave , and never execute , Greek prisoners. ( Though as I understand it , the Spartans were notorious for enslaving Greeks . But then a Spartan empire is a bit un - historical too . So I assume some cultural changes in Sparta . )

As a practical matter , I want to absorb these cities and provinces as painlessly as possible into my pan - Hellenic Spartan empire anyway. And , in this early - game point , even sacking cities isn't going to change the fact that I'm not making much money anyway. Sacking a city at this point equates to robbing my left trouser pocket to pay my right trouser pocket.

After uniting Hellas , and annexing Thrace , I invariably turn eastward.

Sack or no sack , the further east you go the more your exchequer improves anyway , and by the time you absorb Syria you are swimming in money.

Again I want to absorb these cities and provinces into my Greek empire as painlessly as possible.

Fighting here is always in good weather , and against opponents I like fighting. I never seem to get in a spiteful mood in the East.

---

Things tend to take a turn toward the savage when I turn west though.

Annexing Illyria and Dacia tends to drag me into wars with northern Celtic / Germanic barbarians.

I certainly get dragged into wars with Celtic / Germanic barbarians if I annex Illyria , Dacia , and Italia.

I HATE fighting Celtic / Germanic barbarians in the snow.

And wars in Germania or Gaul never seem to be half as profitable as wars in the east.

Finally , by this stage of the game , the Barbarians have typically built up their cities , full of buildings that are of zero use to me.

So I'm commonly in a very spiteful mood.

So , sacking becomes routine . And all prisoners are enslaved , even if I'm already swimming in slaves.

[Alwyn]

King Athelstan's strategy sounds very logical.

This sounds like a great way to enjoy a Sparta campaign, kesa82! I see what you mean about fighting in good weather in the east, and getting bogged down in unprofitable wars in the snow in the west. I imagine that you could write a great After Action Report about a campaign like that - if you're ever tempted to do that, AARs are welcome in the Writers' Study.

[LuckyPistol]

I'm definitely a fan of the strategic sacking of an enemy city solely to cripple them. It doesn't do much against larger factions/late game, but in the early game you can really make some lasting changes. Often times when I let the city either rebel or get retaken, the AI seems to be open to peace.

If I'm barbarian, then I'm definitely more open to the occasional sacking as I don't have to worry about occupying the territory.

[Alwyn]

Yes, sacking enemy cities can tip the balance in your favour, especially in the early game.

I think sacking causes your cities to have a big increase in slaves, which can reduce public order and cause slave rebellions, is that right? You mentioned 'occasional' sackings, so maybe you avoid this problem by avoiding sacking too often - or do you have a different solution?

[LuckyPistol]

Yes, sacking enemy cities can tip the balance in your favour, especially in the early game.

I think sacking causes your cities to have a big increase in slaves, which can reduce public order and cause slave rebellions, is that right? You mentioned 'occasional' sackings, so maybe you avoid this problem by avoiding sacking too often - or do you have a different solution?

Slaves aren't only really a problem while you're battling culture issues (usually during expansion) or are small enough where the spread stays in one or two provinces. You only have to be careful when enemy champions are around. As long as your economy isn't dependent on slaves (slave buildings, slave edicts, etc) you may have one or two slave rebellions that you'll definitely be able to see coming and prepare for.

For example, my current Tylis campaign has put me in a position where I can't sack Macedon's cities because Tylis is always battling public order and rebellions until they convert the culture to at least 70% Celtic. While sacking Pella would be helpful in slowing down the Macedonian war machine, it's not worth the prolonged public order problems that Tylis literally cannot afford to maintain. I got lucky that the Seleucids had a brush of competence and killed Bithynia, so maybe I'll have a chance to just raze Pella so that I can focus on securing Thracia.

[RafSwi7]

I roleplay depending on faction I am playing but I will sometimes sack/loot if I need some quick cash.