Occupy, loot, sack, raze the city? What is the point of loot, or sacking without occupying?

[clop1000]

Can someone explain me what is the exact difference between these.

And what is the purpose of looting the city without occupying it on the same turn (loot, and the occupy). You let enemies to backstab you?

What is the point razing the cities? isn't to occupy is always better option? At least you get some coins from buildings for several turns even if you can't defend it long term and don't feel safe to invest in it.

[Elitewrecker PT]

"without occupying it on the same turn"
Getting more money.

"What is the point razing the cities?"
If it's a major settlement you might not want to give the AI a chance of getting it only 2 tiers below, instead of having to build it from scratch again. And/or you'd rather not have rebels there either (maybe even a major faction revival).

[Kaaz]

raze if you cant support it right now/ its too far out of your powerbase, to deny your enemies its use.

sack to weaken it and gain income yourself, ie sack a minor and raze the major so you can make them waste more money if they want to keep it working. it keeps up pressure in an area that they technically still own so you can force them into favourable positions for you, it also affects PO in the rest of the province.

[funkmonster7]

Occupy if you want to build on it.

Sack if you just want to grab some gold, experience, or just griefing the enemy faction.

Loot if you want to hold on to the settlement for a bit, but you need some cash on hand.

There are multiple reasons why you'd loot instead of occupy/sack. Here are some examples:

If you need to replenish that army and sacking isn't going to cut it, then you loot. The "loot" option actually says "Loot and Occupy" in the game, so that should clarify things a bit. Some factions such as Dark Elves need to maintain their slaves count, so looting is better than occupying to do exactly that. The downside is they'll have to rebuild cities if they want to keep them.

If say, your army will be sitting outside after the attack and suffer attrition damage, it's better to loot than sack. Of course, you can always go for sacking then occupying on the same turn, provided you have enough movement speed left to do so.

If I go around looting cities, I generally don't build on them, I'll just let the rebellion destroy them. If the enemy's going to take them back, they can since I won't even bother repairing the cities.

Occupying obviously means I will keep that city. Sacking and occupy if I can do it all in the same turn, is more a gimmick for replenishment. Looting does it all in one go.

And finally, razing: you do that if you're not gonna get much out of looting anyway, and just want to raze it to the ground so the AI will need to build it from scratch all over again.

[Froz7y]

You sack one settlement many times, you get skill points. Your army also get experience, you also lower down public order and cause instability and rebellion. After that you can set ambush and let the enemy take the settlement and you destroy them. You get pre battle loot and you also get more experience and skill.

Razing is when you cant defend that era, so you raze all those settlements preventing them from gaining a ground so you can attack in another direction. Lets say you want to focus on killing Bretonians but you are getting harassed by Orks, just raze their settlements as far as possible, divide your armies and clear those areas and it will take some time for the Orks to attack you there.

Looting is when you have no interest in keeping that place but you need a place to replenish men and need gold. Loot that settlement, either leave or conquer else where, let the enemy take them so you can take them back again since its closer to your base.

In the beginning its better to just keep saking,looting or razing cities until you considered which side you want to expand and what kind of army build you are going for. The major settlements is the most strategic and most fortified.

[normandy04]

Also looting and sacking gives post battle replenishment, the other two options don't. This becomes very significant for dark elves as they get a ton of post battle replenishment through a very high casualties captured post battle number.

[Danny Z. Ninja]

Aside from gold influx, destabilizing enemy provinces' PO, and (most factions) replenishment?

[clop1000]

Does public order damage works for AI on hard/very hard?
Or AI just gets so much buffs that it even doesn't bother by such not important matters?

Is there a reason to sack the city and don't occupy/raze it afterwards at the same time (of course if i have movement points).
Am i right that the only case is when you going to ambush the enemy?
Is there a reason to let the city live so you can sack it on the next turn? (But i suppose you will get a laughable ammout of money)

Is there any reason to raid the province if you can sack it?

[Xaphnir]

Originally posted by normandy04:

Also looting and sacking gives post battle replenishment, the other two options don't. This becomes very significant for dark elves as they get a ton of post battle replenishment through a very high casualties captured post battle number.

And, importantly, they also get slaves.

[Elitewrecker PT]

Originally posted by clop1000:

Does public order damage works for AI on hard/very hard?
Or AI just gets so much buffs that it even doesn't bother by such not important matters?

Is there a reason to sack the city and don't occupy/raze it afterwards at the same time (of course if i have movement points).
Am i right that the only case is when you going to ambush the enemy?
Is there a reason to let the city live so you can sack it on the next turn? (But i suppose you will get a laughable ammout of money)

Is there any reason to raid the province if you can sack it?

The AI doesn't have public order bonuses any more (they used to).
All these answers are situational. You choose the better one depending on the immediate circumstances.

[Xaphnir]

Originally posted by clop1000:

Is there a reason to sack the city and don't occupy/raze it afterwards at the same time (of course if i have movement points).

Yes. There are three common reasons you would avoid capturing a city after sacking it: you just want the gold from sacking, and do not want to support that city right now, you're using it as a "sack city," where you repeatedly sack it to level up a lord quickly, or you want to be able to move the army further on the same turn after winning the battle.

DE Black Arks are another thing you may want to only sack with. They can earn upwards of 50k from sacking a rich settlement.

Originally posted by clop1000:

Does public order damage works for AI on hard/very hard?
Or AI just gets so much buffs that it even doesn't bother by such not important matters?

Attacking an enemy's public order usually isn't worth it. It takes too long, takes too many resources, and a rebellion is more likely to make the enemy stronger than anything else.

[Danny Z. Ninja]

Originally posted by clop1000:

Does public order damage works for AI on hard/very hard?
Or AI just gets so much buffs that it even doesn't bother by such not important matters?

Is there a reason to sack the city and don't occupy/raze it afterwards at the same time (of course if i have movement points).
Am i right that the only case is when you going to ambush the enemy?
Is there a reason to let the city live so you can sack it on the next turn? (But i suppose you will get a laughable ammout of money)

Is there any reason to raid the province if you can sack it?

In order: Don't have the experience for hard and up, but yeah, it's minimal at best; rebellions tend to start small enough anyway, and unless the area is remote and lacking in the faction's main force, it would be quashed quickly.

Not really, admittedly.
No idea.
Just that, though not immediate.

Provoke the enemy to send their forces to try and get you to knock it off (preferably with an ambusher nearby)