Is there any reason for raiding territory, and not sacking cities?

[clop1000]

Is there any reason to raid territories? I seems to me that this time best used to just sack cities. What is the point of this system?

Am I right that if you sieging this province you can't get any income from raiding?

[Kaaz]

raiding gives you continuous income and hurts their public order, leading to increased pressure on them due to rebellions.

a stack can also raid even if they aren't strong enough to take a city.

[Elitewrecker PT]

Yes. You might not be in a position to conquer or actually sack the city itself (due to big garrison plus reinforcing armies). If you don't have somewhere else to be, you can just stay put raiding for some money to improve your settlements so you can recruit better units so you can assault the city itself.

I think so.

[Khan Boyzitbig of Mercia]

Raiding also gives the army leader xp, and can provide more than your normal income in some cases. Tomb Kings benefit a lot from raiding as a single army can generate more income than a whole province.

[wpegg]

As Skaven the workflow is Sack City for 4/5 food, Raid for 3 food, wait a turn, repeat. The money is almost irrelevant.

[Aleera]

Not to mention, raiding as Greenskins gives scrap constantly, not a small spike.
Norscan armies get a huge upkeep reduction if they're in raiding stance. Etc etc.

[Dani :3]

Raiding is an excellent tool for luring out an army garrisoning a city. One tiny army in raiding stance next to a full stack in ambush stance baits the AI into marching out of the settlement to kill the small army and right into the ambush.

[lumina]

Different factions have different mechanics that will each have a different answer for your question. Some factions get huge bonuses for sacking settlements and should probably just keep moving around sacking/razing everything, like Chaos. Others have bonus for raiding lands, and some like Skaven almost require it as it's also a source of food for them.

In the end though. Sacking is a single payout, and then wait a long time for them to build back up. If you sack them multiple times in a few turns, you aren't getting anything else from them. If you raid their land, you get that same income continually until they force you off of the land, while also having to deal with things like rebellions.

[DeepDorkFantasy]

raiding for public order is pointless since public order's cheats for AI

[Elitewrecker PT]

AI no longer receives public order buffs from difficulty.

[Khan Boyzitbig of Mercia]

Originally posted by Elitewrecker PT:

AI no longer receives public order buffs from difficulty.

And even when it did you could overcome the buff with multiple raiding armies and or rapid corruption spreading passives (Might as well grab passives that boost corruption spread if you are raiding, make their life more annoying).

[zefyris]

raiding makes you immune to attrition so except for Vampire coast it's the fastest way to move through a zone with attrition for several turns without taking damage.
...While getting money out of it. And upkeep reduction if playing as Norsca.

[Greg Bahm]

On lower difficulty you can sit around raiding while expanding very cautiously. On the higher difficulties, you can't expect to win by sitting around playing sim-city.

On these difficulties, raiding is only relevant as a thing the enemy can do to you. For example, if the AI plans to declare war on you later, they'll start raiding your lands while preparing for their "surprise" war.

On Legendary difficulty, there are only a few esoteric reasons to raid: satisfying quest conditions, or slightly subsidizing the cost of an army on guard duty by having them raid a nearby province that isn't worth capturing. But even in those weird edge cases, it's usually more efficient to lose territory and recapture it versus sitting around with an army not destroying anyone.

[happyscrub]

You don't want to go deep in someone's territory but want to be productive (like if you want to defend a spot so you don't want to wonder too far).

To make someone pissed at you to get them to attack you (defensive alliances).

[Jukelo]

Raiding for the sake of raiding makes no sense. You're always better off attacking something than wasting your time raiding. Also looting is better than raiding: a big upfront influx of money now is better than spreading it over many turns. Raiding is not even more profitable in the long run either: armies cost an arm and a leg, by the time you've made as much via raiding as you would make from just a few siege battles, you should have already conquered whatever faction you were raiding anyway.

Raiding only makes sense when you're just out of attack range, in which case you might as well end your turn in raid stance if you're confident it's safe, or to lure the enemy out.

[A.Pot]

Its very situational. Maybe your forces don't have the strength or numbers to capture a town or city, maybe you need the money to hire those extra troops. Raiding also give you attrition immunity which is extremely useful for if you are fighting certain groups like Wood Elves, Norscans, Vampires, etc.

Its more useful for some groups like Dark Elves or Skaven as it can provide a continuous number of slaves and Food or for Vampire Coast if your Admirals have the Plunderer trait.