Any reason to sack and raze now?

[happyscrub]

...when you can take a settlement, get replenish, demolish buildings, and sell off the settlement on the next turn?

[Lady MacBeth]

Well you get hit with a public order penalty for abandoning the settlement in all your other provinces. But its probably not a big enough one to worry about.

[Carog the Fat]

Does occupying do some damage to the building so you would make less selling them than sacking?

Also some races can get some very nice bonuses to sacking/looting which would not apply to selling it

[Ape-tier Buffoonery]

Sacking is still a very viable option because of experience you gain for winning/fighting a battle.

Razing is what I usually am questioning myself about now. Unless Brettonia (attacking an evil faction), or a faction that is forced to raze I really don't see why you wouldn't take the city, and then abandon it the next turn. At the very least for the sweet sweet replenishment.

So where I used to Sack -> Raze/conquer depending on circumstances. I now Sack -> Conquer -> Abandon.

[Inardesco]

Originally posted by happyscrub:

...when you can take a settlement, get replenish, demolish buildings, and sell off the settlement on the next turn?

Because you earn more through sacking.

[Zane87]

Originally posted by Ming:

Well you get hit with a public order penalty for abandoning the settlement in all your other provinces. But its probably not a big enough one to worry about.

It can become huge, especially if you do that 2 times or more each turn.

Had a 170 PO hit once for abandoning naggarond as WE ^^

[happyscrub]

Originally posted by Inardesco:

Originally posted by happyscrub:

...when you can take a settlement, get replenish, demolish buildings, and sell off the settlement on the next turn?

Because you earn more through sacking.

but you don't. I was looking and I was making much more money capturing and selling off the buildings.

[Ruinae Retroque Rursus]

It makes sense on special provinces like The Galleon's Graveyeard and the Gates of Ulthuan

[happyscrub]

Originally posted by Agent Orange:

Does occupying do some damage to the building so you would make less selling them than sacking?

Also some races can get some very nice bonuses to sacking/looting which would not apply to selling it

The bonuses from sacking be like 15% or crap like that. I was making much more money occupying and manually selling

[Zane87]

Originally posted by happyscrub:

Originally posted by Inardesco:

Because you earn more through sacking.

but you don't. I was looking and I was making much more money capturing and selling off the buildings.

This depends entirely on the faction and the Lord. With sacking bonuses that some factions get you can make a lot more money without the global PO hit.

[wrought82]

If you conquer, the buildings you get are rarely worth as much as the sack value. something must be off if you think selling buildings would net you anywhere near sack money

[happyscrub]

I guess I was looking at the numbers wrong. There was barely a difference between selling and sacking. 2,960 vs 3115 gold. But I still get free replenishment in hostile territory

[Empiro]

With a faction like the dark elves, you might get about 100k sacking, versus much less for looting. Still, you can always sack then occupy then abandon if you like.

[Holy Fool Sehrael]

Originally posted by happyscrub:

I guess I was looking at the numbers wrong. There was barely a difference between selling and sacking. 2,960 vs 3115 gold. But I still get free replenishment in hostile territory

The replenishment can be worth a lot as well as leftover garrison units should the settlement be so lucky to have a wall building afterwards and enemies decide to attack.

[Barser]

Depends on the faction you play as