Loot? Raze?..... stupid

[ZIM001]

Why would razing a city give you 0 income?! Who would go through the trouble of razing a city, demolishing buildings and eliminating its populous without looting it first?

[ZIM001]

Again, the very notion of destroying a city in antiquity and gaining 0 (ZERO) income from it is fundementally absurd. No one with an once of intelligence is going to completely destroy a city and and kill its people then just leave the riches and wealth of the city to burn with it. The thought is completely asinine. It may be a somewhat useful function in the game, but it clearly demonstrates that some aspects of this game were not clearly thought out to put it mildly.

[Fonzaano]

I think you better go back in real history and see what Romans , and many many tribes and nations did to each other. In the strategy game there are pros to looting . I loot distant settlements for the better of Rome. If I need 7 more thousand Cisterci to build somthing cool in Rome then the legions will loot. If I know the enemy army is larger and im cut off from supply and need reinforcements far from home I will loot for merc money. After enemy retakes thier city corner and destory them completley I raze and leave the area and allow them to take it back. So basically if enemy is going to reinhabit the place and its been looted enough it will be razed.

[Jesus]

WELL, i had a town that was rebelling all the time,(alexandria), town got captured like 3-4 times by other factions, and they started rebelling SO I RAZED THE SHT OUT OF THEM. and everything was quiet then =p <3

[Suisight]

Since looting does not occupies the city: do loot. "attack" again. raze. problem solved

[Fonzaano]

considering when you loot in rl you basically raze as well.

[CoverMePorkins!]

It really doesn't make any sense....Looting implied that soldiers would grab stuff ,but generally leave the place intact and raze implied soldiers looted and burned everything.

Why would anyone burn...and then pillage 0_o

[Fonzaano]

Because its fun fun fun if your a viking or a hun.

[Fonzaano]

Why would a Barbarian army go all the way to rome and seige it then not sack the place? Now that is illogical especiallty if you hate romans....

[Shaka]

I see the raze city as strategic as already mentioned. I got war deced by most of gaul. So i raid deep into there terroritory looting on the way but when i got to a city that has alot of commerce or wealth building i raise it because i dont want to hold it yet. next ten turns he is sending his skirmershers at me. by the time i am ready to march north again its cake.

[Mastaloui]

CoverMePorkins! eredeti hozzászólása:

It really doesn't make any sense....Looting implied that soldiers would grab stuff ,but generally leave the place intact and raze implied soldiers looted and burned everything.

Why would anyone burn...and then pillage 0_o

Well if you burn the place and then loot, it saves you time.
All soft materials will be ashes so all you do is take the harder coins.
I don't know.

[Ritter Ayla]

calamanci eredeti hozzászólása:

if you cant see the sense of flattening completely your enemies capital then I sigh with despair to think you really understand much strategy at all. It has to be a basic human desire to destroy ♥♥♥♥

It made sense in Medieval 2 because you would get some money and the locals would be too scared to rebel against you, in Rome 2 however it gives you too little money and the population becomes even more hostile so its not really worth it at all if you plan to keep it. And if you dont plan to keep it then just get a mod that enables sacking like the barbarians.

[Berserk Breton]

Ha, 4 years between posts. Where's Rick Grimes when you need him.

[Comander-07]

wow another necro.

[Ritter Ayla]

Uhtred son of Uhtred eredeti hozzászólása:

Ha, 4 years between posts. Where's Rick Grimes when you need him.

Lol I got the game not too long ago and I had the same questions about looting and razing so I found this post, didnt realize it was so old tho. btw your name is from The Last Kingdom book series right?

[Levie]

I wonder if my original reply still holds true today? Hmm..