Do you ever sack a city?

[kharille]

I don't know, maybe I should do an evil playthrough after my first game. So far I've never found a good reason to lay waste to a city. Doesn't seem to be a good thing to do since I hope they'll give me the city afterwards.

How often do you sack a city?

[flyingscot1066]

I will do it on occasion, but only for a few reasons.
1. I have no intention of ever taking the city for my own.
2. I will take it later, but I'm currently a mercenary and I want it to rebel so I can come back as an independent and get it.
3. The local populace refuses to embrace Pastafarianism. DIE HERETICS!!

So yeah, only 2 reasons, rarely happens.

[kharille]

Now I'm thinking about scorched earth tactis. Wonder if theres a mod to let you sack your own towns and villages?....

[Teralitha]

For one thing there is NO point in sacking a city for gold for the AI. The economy is arbitrary and getting excess gold etc for the AI does nothing. It just makes the world as a whole, poorer.

The sacked town becomes weaker and therefore has a smaller and smaller garrison, making it a target for sieges again and again until the town has nothing left. Its a bad feature.

[Urmel]

the option to sack a city is not bad.

but AI not able to improve the buildings of a fief and avoid rebellion is bad.

[flyingscot1066]

Originally posted by Urmel:

the option to sack a city is not bad.

but AI not able to improve the buildings of a fief and avoid rebellion is bad.

AI can improve the fief, it just does so at a glacially slow pace. If you conquer a town or castle that has been untouched for the most part it will have higher level improvements than ones you take at the earlier stages of the game.

[Action Man]

I never do. The short term money/morale gain isn't worth the loyalty hit and the in game years it can take a fief to recover. It takes even longer for the AI to recover because they're really bad at fief management.

I get plenty of gold through battle loot and prisoner ransom.

[ElderDays]

I wish you could completely raze towns and villages.

[The Mau Corporation]

If you ever choose to play a long (proper) playthrough you'll get to see a different game where sacking and some other activities become legit useful making your own towns more economically viable and changing the strategic landscape of the game by degrees.

No real reson to do it if you just wanna win tho it does soften your enemies if you're paying attention. It does have some strategic significance against multiple enemies.

[Teralitha]

I suppose sacking a fief that is in the back line of your enemy territory would be useful, if you wanted to siege far from your own lands.

[kharille]

I remember Raganvald gave me Lageta. They totally trashed it, loyalty was at 0. I guess its running better now but I had to hang around micromanaging it for about 3 days. I suppose having a big garrison helps prevent rebellion.

One of my main issue is the starvation when someone raids a nearby village. No food for the garrison. I suppose, selling a large load of grain alleviates it to some extent.

[LunaticMethod]

Fiefs with their walls and siege workshops destroyed are easier to retake if you don't expect to hold onto it.

This isn't something you'll think about unless you're running your own kingdom, and thus have a reason to care about the finer details of whatever war you're currently in.

[Lamiosa]

I never really sack a city, because I plan to conquer all. That means you lower prosperity for just some coins.

[kharille]

Maybe if it made the others push for peace earlier.... The Khuzaits should make a habit of it, build mountains of skulls...

[kristianjakob]

No. There is just very little to be gained from it and potentially more you could even loose from it (might spark a rebellion creating more clans to deal with Down the Road).