Devastating Settlements

Currently viewing this thread:

Here's my thoughts on Devastating Settlement option after occupation

1) Will not lead to occupation, the invading army will sack the settlement and leave.

This rewards (10-15k for army leader, 5-7k for army members) are wholly not worth it for the Player to consider occupying afterwards.
The damage done to the settlement will take hundreds of days and hundreds of thousands of Denar to recover from.
The settlement will ultimately probably suffer a rebellion, and this will create more issues for the owner.

It should be utilized as a war tactic to force peace or surrender from the enemy by reducing their war score.
Similar to raiding, it should have its own factor in the War Screen towards total war score.

2) After being sacked, an icon will appear on the Campaign map indicating that this settlement was Devastated.
AI parties will not prioritize taking this settlement until the settlement has recovered.
They will only target the settlement if no other targets remain.

EDIT: It could function similarly to how raided villages work, in which after the settlement is raided it will not interactable for player or AI
for a certain period.

3) This hopefully could led to a scenario where Bandit Hordes or Foreign invaders simply go around sacking settlements.
Instead of creating yet another Kingdom or faction to deal with, these Hostile parties will seek to inflict as much damage as possible.
 
Last edited:

Tryvenyal

Sergeant at Arms
Far too rewarding IMO.

First - it takes days - weeks maybe - to loot a city.
Second - it takes another few days to destroy to the level you describe.

At least, alot of time need to pass from when siege is finished untill looted and devestated.
 
Far too rewarding IMO.

First - it takes days - weeks maybe - to loot a city.
Second - it takes another few days to destroy to the level you describe.

At least, alot of time need to pass from when siege is finished untill looted and devestated.
So if I'm getting you right

You are suggesting that the pillage and devastating options should require time to complete after selecting

1) Army occupies the city
2) If pillage is selected, Armies will rob settlement of resources and damage buildings in process (2-5 days)
3) Devastate would take around a week (7-14 days) depending on how rich the settlement is.
4) Same outcomes, but takes longer.

I suppose I can get behind that.

But I disagree with the rewarding aspect you mention. The rewards from pillaging and looting are minor at least in game.

My point was that devastating should be a tactic and not a occupying move.
It cripples their economy and creates a settlement that is more trouble than it is worth to the owner.
 

Tryvenyal

Sergeant at Arms
But I disagree with the rewarding aspect you mention. The rewards from pillaging and looting are minor at least in game.

My point is that Devestate != raid. :smile:

When raiding, you take things of value but does not care to destroy infrastucture etc. Some houses may burn, people are more scattered than killed.

With "devestate", I picture you burn down building, chase and kill inhabitants, with little care for what is in the buildings/pockets.

So if I'm getting you right

You are suggesting that the pillage and devastating options so would require time to complete after selecting

1) Army occupies the city
2) If pillage is selected, the army will slowly destroy buildings and robbed the town of its resources (2-5 days)
3) Devastate would take around a week (7-114 days) depending on how rich the settlement is.
4) Same outcomes, but takes longer.

I suppose I can get behind that.

Fine to me! But it´s "Loot, kill and Devestate"
 

Pentagathoos

Regular
I like the idea in principle but in practice, if the AI can do this we'd probably end up with all half of the towns on the map being heaps of rubble.
 
I like the idea in principle but in practice, if the AI can do this we'd probably end up with all half of the towns on the map being heaps of rubble.
Possibly, but we could variables to which the AI chooses to devastate settlements. Even now in base game, the AI vastly prefers to pillage a settlement as oppose to devastating. Devastating could only be utilized in situations in which:

A) Settlement is too far away from any other faction settlement, thus de-prioritizes capture
B) Vassals already have enough fiefs
C) Non-Kingdom parties will only devastate
D) Implement a waiting period in which devastating takes time to complete, giving occupants time to mount a saving operation.
 
Possibly, but we could variables to which the AI chooses to devastate settlements. Even now in base game, the AI vastly prefers to pillage a settlement as oppose to devastating. Devastating could only be utilized in situations in which:

A) Settlement is too far away from any other faction settlement, thus de-prioritizes capture
B) Vassals already have enough fiefs
C) Non-Kingdom parties will only devastate
D) Implement a waiting period in which devastating takes time to complete, giving occupants time to mount a saving operation.
I agree, to devastate would be a good choice for the AI if they notice a poorly defended fief far away from the border and holding on to it would be difficult.
I thing there should also me a mechanic that rebuilds devastated fiefs. Like merchant quests to deliver goods, or a lord paying money to invite extra caravans over a curtain period. Or a bonus to have people settle there from other towns.
I believe some of the caravan behavior happens automatically in the game, but it would be nice if the player can instigate this.
 
Top Bottom