Razing armies not getting to plunder

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.

Kilotov of DokGthung wrote: Kumomoto wrote: Kilotov of DokGthung wrote: huuu dunno... people still attack those empty shells? Not all the cities recently razed were empty, Sir Killalot... ;) this means you messed up in the diplo department!

Edited by Kumomoto - 06 Oct 2011 at 01:23

Kilotov of DokGthung wrote: huuu dunno... people still attack those empty shells?

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).