EXTERMINATE THOSE DARN cities!!!!

[Swiss Bezerker]

I have seen alot of people thinking the best way to capture a city is to occupy it, thinking it the most humain way and thus the best. however, lets look at pros and cons. (ill excluse enslave from this.)

reasons for extermination
-tons of loot cash, plus i usualy find myself with a much bigger surplus from an exterminated city.
-Citizens are much happier, barely any garrison is needed.

reasons for occupy
-you get more people. WTH? All that means is you get more buildings. No, you get the oppurtunity to build buildings. But ocuppying criples your econimy.No building money availble, the population has no use. so in theory this population is good, in practise, no.
-Unhappy citizens. Because we all love a challenge.

IN a game as armenia, I have around 40 territories, from greece to egypt. I exterminated all the populated cities i captured, which fuels my econimy like crazy, im finding myself with over 20000 dinarii from some settlements by extermination. I have a very wide definition of populated settlement. I devise this table.

-under 1000 dinarii: occupy
-between 1000 and 2000: enslave
-over 2000 dinarii: exterminate

If you occupy settlements, you will suffer in your military. Dont worry about losing population from settlements, because they can still build the things they could before.So try it, next time you capture corinth, do what the Daleks do best: EXTERMINATE!!!!!

What do you people say?

 

[Dark Ascendant]

I have seen alot of people thinking the best way to capture a city is to occupy it, thinking it the most humain way and thus the best. however, lets look at pros and cons. (ill excluse enslave from this.)

Who the hell is this "a lot of people"?! Humanitarism in a computer game? Enslave for the early game, exterminate for the late game.

 

[shortguy]

reasons for occupy
-you get more people. WTH? All that means is you get more buildings. No, you get the oppurtunity to build buildings. But ocuppying criples your econimy.No building money availble, the population has no use. so in theory this population is good, in practise, no.

You will make the money that you didn't get by exterminating back in a couple of turns through tax money on those that are still alive.

That said, the happiness penalty of not exterminating is too harsh, and I usually do it.

 

[Sashie VII]

You exterminate in cities where you're not planning to do heavy recruitment. Since your core cities should be the only ones with infrastructure to recruit good troops, exterminating is definitely better than occupying. More population means more unhappiness especially due to the culture difference when newly captured. And the population will grow back anyways

 

[Swiss Bezerker]

You will make the money that you didn't get by exterminating back in a couple of turns through tax money on those that are still alive.

That said, the happiness penalty of not exterminating is too harsh, and I usually do it.

Actually, from my experiences, an exterminated city can make more money. Im not sure though.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

I exterminate the first city I capture from a nation I'm at war with for the first time, as an example (though that doesn't really mean anything to that nation in game). Or if the city overthrows the garrison, I'll exterminate the populace upon capture, again as an example. If the city is fairly docile or I have a massive army assaulting it I will simply occupy. But in most cases I enslave, so I can have my home cities (they generally have family members as governors) will grow in population, so I can advance them more.

As for known trouble-making cities, I exterminate. Rarely occupy, and 80% of the time enslave.

 

[Sashie VII]

Actually, from my experiences, an exterminated city can make more money. Im not sure though.

I'm inclined to agree. Most of the time, newly captured cities can't generate that much money since you need to pacify them by lowering taxes and building happiness structures. And your army really wouldn't be babysitting these cities anyway, so the garrison is not that big. Exterminating is easier for waging a war.

 

[Takhisis]

I always occupy and start levying people to make them calm down in the beginning. but once you´ve gt territory and prosperous cities enough, plunder is the best answer!!!!

 

[Sashie VII]

I always occupy and start levying people to make them calm down in the beginning.

In the beginning I prefer to enslave to boost the population at home (my core cities) so that they get bigger and allows access to better troops faster.

but once you´ve gt territory and prosperous cities enough, plunder is the best answer!!!!

I'll say yea to that

 

[Theoden]

reasons for extermination
-tons of loot cash, plus i usualy find myself with a much bigger surplus from an exterminated city.

You're right that the income shown will generally be higher for exterminated cities. This does not however, mean that the city is making more cash. Military expenses are diveded throughout your cities dependant on their population, so when you exterminate the military upkeep cost will drop significantly in the city. You are not saving money though, because the upkeep total isn't changed. If you don't exterminate a city you will notice a that your other cities increase their income, because they now need to pay a smaller part of the upkeep.
Bottom line, there is no expenses of running a large city (besides needing a large garrison). Population does not cost upkeep by itself. Generally it is a very bad idea to look at the income for seperaqte cities. Rather you should look at the finances screen to see the big picture.

That said, I think extermination is preferable to occupying when takin large cities, mostly to avoid the unhappiness problems.

 

[Sashie VII]

Just a thought..

Sometimes after exterminating, certain cities would still be in disorder (happiness below blue). In these cases, I move my army out of it after exterminating and let it revolt. Then, I take it again and then exterminate (again!). Nets more dinarii, extra experience for my soldiers and reduces the population even further for easier pacification.

It will cost some men though, so I only do this when I have men to spare (usually I use obsolete units) and/or secure front.

Comments?

 

[Swiss Bezerker]

Comments?

I have one. Its even better when playing as romans, because the senate offers 10000 dinarii to take back rebel settlements.

 

[Sashie VII]

Thanks SB, forgot about that

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

i always exterminate, unless the pop is under 1000, because then you cant build any units in there. Also, exterminated cities seem to ahve huge food surplus, and have as high as an 8% growth rate. In one game as the Scipii, Carthage would grow to about 25000 people every 10-15 years or so, rebel, i would put down the rebellion, and then exterminate the pop, putting it back down to about 4000 inhabitants. At this point, she pulled in about 3000 denarii a turn, plus my initial pilliaging surplus of about 15000 denarii; it gave me an easy senate mission to boot.

 

[Takhisis]

That´s like an eternal goldmine... But surely don´t such constant rebellions have an effect on other cities?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

yep. I had about two legions in N Africa always busy putting down rebellious cities, often Gladiator Uprisings, so they had crack troops. It IS a goldmine, however, but it can be real pain in the butt too, cause its only the real big cities that rebel. When I was raising my horde in preparation for an invasion of Egypt - the egyptians were so good and so powerful that i took 15000 men into Egypt, just to secure the job. We'd been at war for a while, and 4000 men task forces werent getting the job done; they'd get worn down before any real gains had been made - I wanted the best men to do the job, but with cities rebelling everwhere, it took quite a while, and the Egyptians pushed me back past the Gulf of Sidra, before my Grand Army of the Republic ( go ahead and laugh, but thats what it was) was ready to march. Yea, the momentum from that push took me around the Mediterranean all the way to Antioch, and then everything east of there to the end of the map

 

[diablodelmar]

I agree extermination is a good way to go.

 

[Takhisis]

yep. I had about two legions in N Africa always busy putting down rebellious cities, often Gladiator Uprisings, so they had crack troops. It IS a goldmine, however, but it can be real pain in the butt too, cause its only the real big cities that rebel. When I was raising my horde in preparation for an invasion of Egypt - the egyptians were so good and so powerful that i took 15000 men into Egypt, just to secure the job. We'd been at war for a while, and 4000 men task forces werent getting the job done; they'd get worn down before any real gains had been made - I wanted the best men to do the job, but with cities rebelling everwhere, it took quite a while, and the Egyptians pushed me back past the Gulf of Sidra, before my Grand Army of the Republic ( go ahead and laugh, but thats what it was) was ready to march. Yea, the momentum from that push took me around the Mediterranean all the way to Antioch, and then everything east of there to the end of the map

In what scale do you play? How many men does a full division of Triarii have?, for example?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

a triarii has 41 men in mine. wait... maybe its 42. i forget, but its one of those two.

Now, when i installed it on my friend's pc and played it, the units were like 80-90 a piece, and his pc is better than this one. Inversely, on my crappier pc, i had size 20 units.

 

[Takhisis]

So 15000 men is... a lot of armies! How many were there in each army?