Razing armies not getting to plunder
Printed From: Illyriad
Category: Strategies, Guides & Help
Forum Name: General Questions
Forum Description: If your gameplay question isn't answered in the help files, please post it here.
URL: http://forum.illyriad.co.uk/forum_posts.asp?TID=2552
Printed Date: 17 Apr 2022 at 19:31
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.03 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Razing armies not getting to plunder
Posted By: hydraa
Subject: Razing armies not getting to plunder
Date Posted: 06 Oct 2011 at 00:31
|
Why does a army (at least on a abandoned town) not get to plunder the resources(at least ones that a army can normally carry) when it razes ( and cause the town to move). I know the respawned city gets a new set of basic resources but the ones at the time it is razed should be fair game for the army that razes the city
|
Replies:
Posted By: Kilotov of DokGthung
Date Posted: 06 Oct 2011 at 00:44
|
huuu dunno... people still attack those empty shells? -------------  my words on this forum are from me alone. DLords official words only come from HighKing Belargyle |
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 06 Oct 2011 at 01:08
Good question! Imo, they should get to carry the juiciest of the resources remaining in the city away with them... Not all the cities recently razed were empty, Sir Killalot... ;)
|
Kilotov of DokGthung wrote:Posted By: Kilotov of DokGthung
Date Posted: 06 Oct 2011 at 01:10
this means you messed up in the diplo department!  ------------- my words on this forum are from me alone. DLords official words only come from HighKing Belargyle |
Posted By: Kumomoto
Date Posted: 06 Oct 2011 at 01:22
Now that's a matter of opinion, sir! (I would argue that they messed up in the diplo department!) ;) |
Posted By: Meagh
Date Posted: 06 Oct 2011 at 01:55
| i have always suspected that when u raze a city you burn everything down.. when you do a normal attack you get loot.. is this not right? |
Posted By: HonoredMule
Date Posted: 06 Oct 2011 at 03:02
|
Traditionally (at least with other strategy games), conquering a city would plunder maybe a third of its wealth and leave the rest in the city, while razing it would recover perhaps 90% of it. I'm not sure how realistic that is, but when you raze a city, you are going to take it for all its worth. So long as the primary objective is not compromised (destroy the enemy utterly) you'd preserve for yourself as much as you can. The only reason you'd destroy wealth is that it may not be feasible to take it with you or practical to recover it/prevent the collateral damage. Given that the storehouse and warehouse would already have been lowered by substantial but random destruction, the concept of "collateral damage" is already represented. So why wouldn't your soldiers carry home whatever survived the siege bombardments? There's plenty of time to pillage after the slaughter and before most of the burning. ------------- "Apparently, quoting me is a 'thing' now." - HonoredMule |