| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
hydraa 
Wordsmith
Joined: 15 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 108
|
 Topic: Razing armies not getting to plunder
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
|
 |
Kilotov of DokGthung
Postmaster
Joined: 07 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 723
|
Posted: 06 Oct 2011 at 00:44 |
|
huuu
dunno...
people still attack those empty shells?
|
|
Kumomoto
Postmaster General
Joined: 19 Oct 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 2224
|
Posted: 06 Oct 2011 at 01:08 |
 Kilotov of DokGthung wrote:
huuu
dunno...
people still attack those empty shells?
|
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
Postmaster
Joined: 07 Jun 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 723
|
Posted: 06 Oct 2011 at 01:10 |
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! 
|
|
Kumomoto
Postmaster General
Joined: 19 Oct 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 2224
|
Posted: 06 Oct 2011 at 01:22 |
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!
|
Now that's a matter of opinion, sir! (I would argue that they messed up in the diplo department!) ;)
Edited by Kumomoto - 06 Oct 2011 at 01:23
|
|
Meagh
Forum Warrior
Joined: 16 Jul 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 224
|
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?
|
|
HonoredMule
Postmaster General
Joined: 05 Mar 2010
Location: Canada
Status: Offline
Points: 1650
|
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
|
|
Tweet
Razing armies not getting to plunder