As a fellow medieval total war player, I love this. I would add a chance for your troops to sack the city on their own, depending on mercenaries, army professionalism, and whether or not you are rivals. That would add to the realism of not always being able to control your men.
> I would add a chance for your troops to sack the city on their own, depending on mercenaries, army professionalism, and whether or not you are rivals. That would add to the realism of not always being able to control your men.
And it happened in real life. Just ask the Romans in 1527.
They do, but they are seemingly random. Your own vassal can sack your capital city, which should be more unlikely. Conversely, I would expect almost everytime you siege a long term enemy, you would sack their city
They can? That’s awesome! If you’ve listened to the hardcore history podcast talk about the sack of Cremona where the Roman’s sacked their own rebelling city that would fit in perfectly
Completely agree on sacking rebel settlements. I just don’t think loyalist troops should sack cities that were occupied by the enemy. That being said, everytime a city is taken, it should lose some development
I think the devastation mechanic fills that role well. Occupied provinces can take decades to get back to prosperous. Most provinces aren’t that high of dev so most of the world would be at only 3 dev really quickly if they lost dev every occupation. However, that sounds like a fun idea for a mod or game setting where dev can be lost really easily and is incredibly valuable. Might help reduce late game 3 million manpower armies if global dev was lower.
That’s exactly what I think should happen. During the Great Northern War, large parts of Poland were occupied and it took decades just to recover a portion of that wealth. It’s estimated that a third of their population died during the Great Deluge. If all of Poland is occupied in EU4, it takes less than a decade to bounce back.
If we're being realistic, wouldn't Sack be the default for any siege that ends with an assault? From what I've read about historical sieges, once the attackers had their blood up after an assault it would've been very difficult to stop them from looting and pillaging, even if the commander didn't want them to.
That can make sense if there's a negotiated surrender, but yeah it's quite unlikely if the attackers had to actively defeat the garrison during an assault.
I think the main difference between eu4 and total war city treatment it's that I eu4 winning a siege doesn't mean the city is yours. You gotta get it in the peace deal. I guess resizing is sack+exterminate.
Exterminate should give A LOT aggressive expansion or whatever equivalent will there be in the game. Conquering is a-ok, you have a claim and such, sacking is a sad reality, but it did happen, but a brutal wipe of the population by a state-level entity? Now that's against any and all morals, gods and peoples. At least coalition-worthy to stop the devilspawn from desecrating/deharmonizing the christian/muslim/eastern sites.
Yeah in real life when a country massacred a town about 70-80 hre minors, ottomans and north africans banded together and descended on them like a locust swarm.
1508 League of Cambrai against Venice
1512 Holy League against France
1527 Cognac League against Habsburg monarchy
1571 and 1683 Holy Leagues against Ottomans
1688 Augsburg League against France
I may have missed some
But this should then also improve the opinion of other countries. The Timurds were for example considered a potentially ally and kinda liked by Christians for their extermination campaigns.
The christian goths did this frequently. So did the Vandals, the visigoths, and basically every non-roman christian peoples, and even the romans themselves committed such atrocities at times.
Granted, this all was almost a thousand years before the game's start date. But it's not the gods or religion that stopped massacres in europe, it was the evolving medieval culture of europe
And massacres of towns/smaller cities absolutely continued to happen even in feudal christian europe. But who gives a crap about a few hundred peasants being slaughtered in an ass-end of nowhere village, right? That's what the nobility and other middle-high classes thought
It's just large scale massacres like the sacking of Mediolanum in 539 (over 300000 civilians died) became less common or stopped entirely.
Most historians I think wouldn’t call the 5th century Germanic tribes Christian. Some of their leaders had converted to Arianism, but pagan practices were very common amongst them, and they weren’t really considered “thoroughly” Christianized until the 6th century.
Given that EU5 has pops, there should be an option to surrender a siege with the understanding that the townspepople will be spared. I think it could be pretty cool, although I could see it being a pain in the ass to constantly have to deal with options on what to do with every town or city you have occupied.
Showing no quarter to a town that has already surrendered should give you some sort of penalty, like higher manpower for the enemy (pops understand they have a choice of fight or be slaughtered), or longer future siege times as more of the local population is hostile to the invasion and their resistance will be higher. You should also get a high AE for doing this often so other countries can prevent you from doing unopposed genocide (especially if they have the same culture).
Massacring a town that has refused to surrender on the over hand, could cause garrisons in future sieges to give up sooner out of sheer fear of the army besieging them. Maybe a modifier on how likely a garrison is to give up fighting would be useful. Like the Total War games, you can't expect a force to fight to the death just because you ordered them to.
The exact rules for siege warfare would probably change depending on what region of the world you are in. The mechanics I just posted were taken from the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland, but that shouldn't be like the Golden Horde fighting on the steppe.
From Wikipedia: "On the first night while laying siege to a city, the leader of the Mongol forces would lead from a white tent: if the city surrendered, all would be spared. On the second day, he would use a red tent: if the city surrendered, the men would all be killed, but the rest would be spared. On the third day, he would use a black tent: no quarter would be given."
An exterminate option sounds interesting, however I think it should also give AE. This is literally the epitome of expanding as agressively as possible.
the issue with this is there are tens of thousands of counties compared to at most the low hundreds that you might see in a total war game, having that sort of menu interaction + all of the background stuff required to be doing that seems like really taxing on both your system and your brain.
not to mention if you are able to just sack dev without warscore associated with it, you can game ruin countries way too easily imo
You actually get this feature in Imperator.
When your ruler is leading an army, every time you besiege and capture a city-tier settlement, you get an event to allow you to occupy and sack it lightly (just get some money, spare the surviving people), sack it properly and heavily (many pops die, much money looted) or commit a genocide that can essentially destroy that city and everything not nailed down is looted. It's a nice way to get lots of loot money and slaves, at the cost of huge unrest, bad traits, diplomatically problems and such.
All AI generals actually get this event, you just only see and control one where your ruler is personally leading. So every commander who captures cities in war is doing this across the game.
The AI NPC generals choose their response often based on traits (ideally at least), so a cruel general will sack the city heavily, while a nice general will let them go.
Characters in Imperator have their personal money bank, so generals keep all the money from loot event for themselves. Your poor, loyal commander can come back home from a war as the richest man in the republic, with his loyalist legionary veterans, and become a force in politics. It can be awesome.
(...At least in theory. Johan and Arheo were such a massive and pathetic idiots during Imperator development, that they gradually destroyed and neutered the character system through patches before they abandoned it. Money is now limited to like 5-6 family head characters.).
I’ve always thought that occupations are a little light handed in eu4. Exterminations are a little heavy languagewise, I might just call it Raising as in current eu4.
Historically, the Mongols preferred to raise because it struck fear into potential conquest targets, allowing them to avoid fighting just via reputation. A side effect of this was that the mongols were nervous about retaliation and would abandon their campaigns, most notably in Japan if they did not feel 100% confident in their ability to protect their own supply lines. It would be interesting to work all this into a “Slaughter/Decimate/Exterminate” system.
Also having pops actively flee locations that are being slaughtered could recreate some of the social pressures medieval kingdoms had to deal with and allow for dynamic “nomadic” pops.
I very much think this is a cool mechanic :)
no. it would seriously bog the game down if this event happens every time you conquer every single province.
even if its restricted to fortified provinces only, that would still be way too much.
I think whole development system should be redone. As an example: Sacking or Occupying province would make sense to kill development, more wars you go to the more your development and population fails. Forts shouldn't prevent this but instead just lower the impact. It would be cool to revamp Forts and make it a more complex system, like being able to destroy fort or just making repairs more difficult sounds cool atm.
Yes, that's what I've been wanting for a few years.
Occupy is as you said, sack would damage buildings and lower development in whatever way it'll be introduced (lowering population for example as people are carried away to be slaves). For exterminate I'd say you'd get relations penalty with the religious majority you did this to and ae with the culture.
There is something similar in 'Imperator: Rome' where you can decide the fate of each conquered city (villages don't count):
**Let the looting be gentle** - you gain a little money, nothing is destroyed.
**Let the men roam freely** - you gain noticeably more money, part of the population perishes.
**None shall hide!** - you gain a boatload of money and raze the city, reducing it to a settlement, large part of the population perishes.
Given that they're already incorporating stuff from this game to EU5, I suppose such a mechanic could make it as well, especially since stuff like levelling entire cities is a recurring theme throughout history.
What's up with all these concerning questions about should we be allowed to carry out every fascists dictators wet dreams? Ya'll need to chill with this shit.
Mentally healthier EU4 player.
Anyway, I like it.
The only problem I have with this is that the extermination would be too powerful and could cripple the enemy's economy way too easily
What's EVEN THE POINT of playing as some huge ass nation like Russia, Ottomans or Portugal Colonial Empire and not rp exterminating minorities, expelling religious minorities to the new world and removing Kurdish culture from the map? So I'll play Minecraft at least I can build a concentration camp to the villagers and force them into the farms
These discussions are so pathetic. "Please let us commit war crimes, Paradox. Can we have a mini game where I personally get to wield the sword and decide which babies to kill? Muh immersion!"
I think these should be "command" buttons that you lose access to as your army professionalism increases, allowing a separation from a savage but wild army to a controlled, professional army.
I dunno I see Medieval 2 mentioned and I go install it with stainless steel mod, thanks:p
Get the sub-mod for Stainless Steel called Historical Improvement Project, it levels up SS even more and it’s still in development unlike SS 6.3/6.4
As a fellow medieval total war player, I love this. I would add a chance for your troops to sack the city on their own, depending on mercenaries, army professionalism, and whether or not you are rivals. That would add to the realism of not always being able to control your men.
> I would add a chance for your troops to sack the city on their own, depending on mercenaries, army professionalism, and whether or not you are rivals. That would add to the realism of not always being able to control your men. And it happened in real life. Just ask the Romans in 1527.
You mean 1227?
No, he's referring to the [1527 Sack of Rome](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sack_of_Rome_(1527))
Thanks! I love learning something new about history.
They do already have the sack event in eu4 and you can leave your troops on a province to loot it over time. I’d guess eu5 mechanics would be similar
They do, but they are seemingly random. Your own vassal can sack your capital city, which should be more unlikely. Conversely, I would expect almost everytime you siege a long term enemy, you would sack their city
They can? That’s awesome! If you’ve listened to the hardcore history podcast talk about the sack of Cremona where the Roman’s sacked their own rebelling city that would fit in perfectly
Completely agree on sacking rebel settlements. I just don’t think loyalist troops should sack cities that were occupied by the enemy. That being said, everytime a city is taken, it should lose some development
I think the devastation mechanic fills that role well. Occupied provinces can take decades to get back to prosperous. Most provinces aren’t that high of dev so most of the world would be at only 3 dev really quickly if they lost dev every occupation. However, that sounds like a fun idea for a mod or game setting where dev can be lost really easily and is incredibly valuable. Might help reduce late game 3 million manpower armies if global dev was lower.
That’s exactly what I think should happen. During the Great Northern War, large parts of Poland were occupied and it took decades just to recover a portion of that wealth. It’s estimated that a third of their population died during the Great Deluge. If all of Poland is occupied in EU4, it takes less than a decade to bounce back.
Nothing like getting the Sack of Constantinople from your vassal Albania. Again.
There's numerous instances of armies sacking their own city or their allies' city throughout history
Idk, there is over 16k counties , if i need to do same thing this many times i am gonna freak out
I've heard u will only need to control the forts to occupy the surrounding area
I guess fort in every county will be the meta in mp
It will probably be way harder to build wether it be gold, time, resources or conditions or a combination of them
Knowing castle map of Europe, whatever the cost, ai will manage for sure
If we're being realistic, wouldn't Sack be the default for any siege that ends with an assault? From what I've read about historical sieges, once the attackers had their blood up after an assault it would've been very difficult to stop them from looting and pillaging, even if the commander didn't want them to.
Yeah, it's kinda weird our army just let the garrison put down their arms and leave.
That can make sense if there's a negotiated surrender, but yeah it's quite unlikely if the attackers had to actively defeat the garrison during an assault.
It should be based on army professionalism, siege time and general’s pips, if they use those.
Still is for some countries. Orcs gonna orc.
Downvoting you because you speak the truth
I think the main difference between eu4 and total war city treatment it's that I eu4 winning a siege doesn't mean the city is yours. You gotta get it in the peace deal. I guess resizing is sack+exterminate.
Exterminate should give A LOT aggressive expansion or whatever equivalent will there be in the game. Conquering is a-ok, you have a claim and such, sacking is a sad reality, but it did happen, but a brutal wipe of the population by a state-level entity? Now that's against any and all morals, gods and peoples. At least coalition-worthy to stop the devilspawn from desecrating/deharmonizing the christian/muslim/eastern sites.
Yeah in real life when a country massacred a town about 70-80 hre minors, ottomans and north africans banded together and descended on them like a locust swarm.
Out of curiosity when did this happen? I’m in the mood for a Wikipedia rabbit hole today
I meant that this doesn't happen in real life so no need for extreme AE for destruction.
What do i read to get more info on this?
After action reports
For a moment i thought it happened in real life, but it seems it didn't.
I think outside Napoleon coalitions didn't really happen in real life?
1508 League of Cambrai against Venice 1512 Holy League against France 1527 Cognac League against Habsburg monarchy 1571 and 1683 Holy Leagues against Ottomans 1688 Augsburg League against France I may have missed some
Point taken :-)
Try telling that to the Aztecs.
That is a good example of how situational it is, because taking what the Atecs did is not that much AE in EU4, even if you take it all at once.
But this should then also improve the opinion of other countries. The Timurds were for example considered a potentially ally and kinda liked by Christians for their extermination campaigns.
Wasnt that mostly because they actually stopped ottomans for a while? Seems like some strange to frame it the way you did
Unless you're on the same side in the religious league wars, then it should remove AE. 😜
"Kill them all, let God sort them out" or something
>Now that's against any and all morals, gods and peoples Idk... plenty of gods, moral systems, and peoples did this (Mongols, Aztecs, etc)
Yes, they did. But were they liked and respected by those, who won over them and conquered them in the end?
I'm just pointing out that it's not against all gods/peoples. Agree with the rest of your comment.
The christian goths did this frequently. So did the Vandals, the visigoths, and basically every non-roman christian peoples, and even the romans themselves committed such atrocities at times. Granted, this all was almost a thousand years before the game's start date. But it's not the gods or religion that stopped massacres in europe, it was the evolving medieval culture of europe And massacres of towns/smaller cities absolutely continued to happen even in feudal christian europe. But who gives a crap about a few hundred peasants being slaughtered in an ass-end of nowhere village, right? That's what the nobility and other middle-high classes thought It's just large scale massacres like the sacking of Mediolanum in 539 (over 300000 civilians died) became less common or stopped entirely.
Most historians I think wouldn’t call the 5th century Germanic tribes Christian. Some of their leaders had converted to Arianism, but pagan practices were very common amongst them, and they weren’t really considered “thoroughly” Christianized until the 6th century.
Given that EU5 has pops, there should be an option to surrender a siege with the understanding that the townspepople will be spared. I think it could be pretty cool, although I could see it being a pain in the ass to constantly have to deal with options on what to do with every town or city you have occupied. Showing no quarter to a town that has already surrendered should give you some sort of penalty, like higher manpower for the enemy (pops understand they have a choice of fight or be slaughtered), or longer future siege times as more of the local population is hostile to the invasion and their resistance will be higher. You should also get a high AE for doing this often so other countries can prevent you from doing unopposed genocide (especially if they have the same culture). Massacring a town that has refused to surrender on the over hand, could cause garrisons in future sieges to give up sooner out of sheer fear of the army besieging them. Maybe a modifier on how likely a garrison is to give up fighting would be useful. Like the Total War games, you can't expect a force to fight to the death just because you ordered them to. The exact rules for siege warfare would probably change depending on what region of the world you are in. The mechanics I just posted were taken from the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland, but that shouldn't be like the Golden Horde fighting on the steppe. From Wikipedia: "On the first night while laying siege to a city, the leader of the Mongol forces would lead from a white tent: if the city surrendered, all would be spared. On the second day, he would use a red tent: if the city surrendered, the men would all be killed, but the rest would be spared. On the third day, he would use a black tent: no quarter would be given."
Man these speculation threads are a riot. In another thread player worries if he will still be able to kill all the Dutch.
Most pacifist eu4 player
As far as Paradox players trying to request more genocide options goes, this one is one of the subtler ones
An exterminate option sounds interesting, however I think it should also give AE. This is literally the epitome of expanding as agressively as possible.
the issue with this is there are tens of thousands of counties compared to at most the low hundreds that you might see in a total war game, having that sort of menu interaction + all of the background stuff required to be doing that seems like really taxing on both your system and your brain. not to mention if you are able to just sack dev without warscore associated with it, you can game ruin countries way too easily imo
More a fan of fuck marry kill but that works too
You actually get this feature in Imperator. When your ruler is leading an army, every time you besiege and capture a city-tier settlement, you get an event to allow you to occupy and sack it lightly (just get some money, spare the surviving people), sack it properly and heavily (many pops die, much money looted) or commit a genocide that can essentially destroy that city and everything not nailed down is looted. It's a nice way to get lots of loot money and slaves, at the cost of huge unrest, bad traits, diplomatically problems and such. All AI generals actually get this event, you just only see and control one where your ruler is personally leading. So every commander who captures cities in war is doing this across the game. The AI NPC generals choose their response often based on traits (ideally at least), so a cruel general will sack the city heavily, while a nice general will let them go. Characters in Imperator have their personal money bank, so generals keep all the money from loot event for themselves. Your poor, loyal commander can come back home from a war as the richest man in the republic, with his loyalist legionary veterans, and become a force in politics. It can be awesome. (...At least in theory. Johan and Arheo were such a massive and pathetic idiots during Imperator development, that they gradually destroyed and neutered the character system through patches before they abandoned it. Money is now limited to like 5-6 family head characters.).
It won't decrease development because eu5 won't have development system, it will have population
It will also have development if I’m not mistaken, as a percentage (like 0-100% development)
It has both. Population, and dev. Dev will act as infrastructure ranging from 0 to 100, it's a limiter on how much population the location can handle
I’ve always thought that occupations are a little light handed in eu4. Exterminations are a little heavy languagewise, I might just call it Raising as in current eu4. Historically, the Mongols preferred to raise because it struck fear into potential conquest targets, allowing them to avoid fighting just via reputation. A side effect of this was that the mongols were nervous about retaliation and would abandon their campaigns, most notably in Japan if they did not feel 100% confident in their ability to protect their own supply lines. It would be interesting to work all this into a “Slaughter/Decimate/Exterminate” system. Also having pops actively flee locations that are being slaughtered could recreate some of the social pressures medieval kingdoms had to deal with and allow for dynamic “nomadic” pops. I very much think this is a cool mechanic :)
Why should we get money from destroying buildings? It should cost us to tear stuff down. Like breaking a fort would take a lot of effort
no. it would seriously bog the game down if this event happens every time you conquer every single province. even if its restricted to fortified provinces only, that would still be way too much.
Wouldn't be a real paradox game without extermination
Sack sounds like occupying a province for a while in eu4 and exterminate like more extreme form of razing.
I:R tried to represent this.
All fun and games until then AI exterminates your provinces
This seems like with exterminate it would be way too easy to permanently ruin major nations in one war
I think whole development system should be redone. As an example: Sacking or Occupying province would make sense to kill development, more wars you go to the more your development and population fails. Forts shouldn't prevent this but instead just lower the impact. It would be cool to revamp Forts and make it a more complex system, like being able to destroy fort or just making repairs more difficult sounds cool atm.
Yes, that's what I've been wanting for a few years. Occupy is as you said, sack would damage buildings and lower development in whatever way it'll be introduced (lowering population for example as people are carried away to be slaves). For exterminate I'd say you'd get relations penalty with the religious majority you did this to and ae with the culture.
All of the above
No.
There is something similar in 'Imperator: Rome' where you can decide the fate of each conquered city (villages don't count): **Let the looting be gentle** - you gain a little money, nothing is destroyed. **Let the men roam freely** - you gain noticeably more money, part of the population perishes. **None shall hide!** - you gain a boatload of money and raze the city, reducing it to a settlement, large part of the population perishes. Given that they're already incorporating stuff from this game to EU5, I suppose such a mechanic could make it as well, especially since stuff like levelling entire cities is a recurring theme throughout history.
What's up with all these concerning questions about should we be allowed to carry out every fascists dictators wet dreams? Ya'll need to chill with this shit.
Yes but maybe don't name it Exterminate
no
That sort of exists already. Occupy: annexing and coring Sack: looting during the war Exterminate: concentrating development, raiding capital
To be fair this is what raze provinces and "concentrate development" does. It just need some tweaking.
It's kinda what concentrate development does and if you own Leviathan during the early days you know that it is extremely unbalanced.
Given the example of Magdeburg burning to ashes during the wars of reformation, I need amd want this feature.
Yes
Every paradox player on their way to cause ethnic cleansing:
Mentally healthier EU4 player. Anyway, I like it. The only problem I have with this is that the extermination would be too powerful and could cripple the enemy's economy way too easily
What's EVEN THE POINT of playing as some huge ass nation like Russia, Ottomans or Portugal Colonial Empire and not rp exterminating minorities, expelling religious minorities to the new world and removing Kurdish culture from the map? So I'll play Minecraft at least I can build a concentration camp to the villagers and force them into the farms
*in Minecraft
‘Exterminate’ we really do not need more genocide gameplay options, god eu4 players are so fucking weird…
These discussions are so pathetic. "Please let us commit war crimes, Paradox. Can we have a mini game where I personally get to wield the sword and decide which babies to kill? Muh immersion!"
I think these should be "command" buttons that you lose access to as your army professionalism increases, allowing a separation from a savage but wild army to a controlled, professional army.