Occupy vs. Sack vs. Exterminate

#1danthechanPosted 1/22/2010 11:16:19 AM
who can fill me in on the long term effects of these options? when first spreading out i usually occupy but lately i've been going for the sack and i don't see much downside. will the death of some inhabitants hinder my earnings potential? does the smaller pop make it easier to keep rebellions from happening in faraway cities? when is extermination the best option? thx.
#2Insanity_184Posted 1/22/2010 12:22:13 PM
Ok first diplomatic differances....

Occupy-Other AI countrys see this as a plus, u gain rep by doing this as it is chivaric....

Sack- Minor loss to rep, its seen as bad because of the slaughter

Exterminate- Major loss of rep....obvious reason.

For the general and ur king.....

Occupy- achance of plus to general chilvrey and a much less chance of kings going up....

Sack- same but chance of dread not Chiv. also some sack spific traits...all negitive

Exterminate- major chance of dread gain again negitive traits (though a few can be seen as positive as long as that general stays fighting and doesnt goveren)

Taxes (biggerst area of importance)

When u occupya town it losses no population, so that means its tax revenue is maxed...but most important unless that town is already at its biggest (cidtel or huge city) u will be closer to an up grade....but if u sack or exterminate u will be that much farther from an upgrade and will hurt i taxes.
If u can without the city rebelling quickly u should always try for sack or occupy.....if theres no way ur gonna hold that city in the green but u want to keep it then exterminate it will give u a few turns to bring the city out of red....

side note....if u take a huge city or a cidtel and it has a LOT of ppl extermination may help keep squalor down....
---
GT: Insanity184
#3danthechan(Topic Creator)Posted 1/22/2010 1:10:00 PM
in my current game sacking is the only thing that kept any gold in my cofers. too many armies and not enough taxpayers. kind of like america now.
#4squitsquatPosted 1/24/2010 11:10:09 AM

you should probably only sack if you are ind debt/losing alot of money or you have taken over an enemy capital or something and they will most likely be angry for awhile.

Occupy is the best long term option and you should probably never exterminate unless you are RPing

#5danthechan(Topic Creator)Posted 1/24/2010 2:08:56 PM
my problem with occupying now is the muslim influence of the moors next door. the unrest make cities very hard to hold once taken.
#6CrossLOPERPosted 1/25/2010 9:05:05 AM

Only exterminate if you have absolutely no intention of keeping the city/town.

#7darkaznkrnangelPosted 1/25/2010 11:08:11 PM
Exterminate is the BEST thing you can do. It removes unrest and ensures that you can continue your expansion without worrying about riots. If you just occupy, there's always going to be unrest and it screws you up.


---
desu
#8zyxosPosted 1/26/2010 2:31:05 AM

At the start of the game, it's best to just occupy when taking rebel or same religion enemy AI. Keeping/improving your global reputation is very important at the start. Then later I will sack if it's a castle (any religion), or a city with same religion (if I'm catholic and take an orthodox city, sacking is 95% of the time enough to keep unrest under control). But if I take a muslin city and i want to keep it, then I'll exterminate the population and build as high a church building as possible ASAP.

An alternative I sometimes do when on a early crusade is to sack cities in the holy land, remove all troops and build a 1600 gold church (you'll have 3 turns before it rebels). Then while it's a rebel city, the church will convert the population so that when I come back later I have a good catholic base to just sack the city again but still keep control of it. This work very well with Alexandria and Cairo, since Egypt becomes to weak to take them back.

But exterminating will always hit hard on the global reputation, so it's best to send your priest to convert the population in advance.