why do paradox games never get pillaging or sacking right? Soldiers sacking recently captured territory was such a huge part of what made war so brutal, historically reconquering a piece of territory in a war didn't mean much beyond logistics if the city was completely destroyed, not to mention that most of a soldier's pay came from sacking cities. Yet in paradox games when you siege a province the consequences are totally minimal. Development isn't loss, at most the autonomy/control is just decreased/increased. Imperator rome has the biggest effects for capturing land, however that's only under specific conditions (your nation's ruler is commanding the levy sieging the fort) and even the harshest option doesn't reflect how devastating sacking cities were historically, this takes place in a period where cities were completely razed to the ground, either never to be settled again or refounded hundreds of years later.
>>2470053Why can't paradox do anything right? Why must you be such an utter braindead dipshit that 15 other paradox threads including a dedicated ck general is insufficient? We might never know.
CK2 actually got this right. While you wouldn't be able to get as much money as the Vikings during raiding, even as a Christian ruler it's usually in your best interest to siege down the local counts your are fighting in the HRE completely to get that juicy money you get from sieging down their holding. If you used mercenaries, disbanded them and sieged them down with your own units, you would usually get enough money to pay half of the initial hiring cost. Waging war can actually be profitable. It wasn't unreasonable to join the war of your ally actively and siege down stuff for him, because you'd get the money.>>2470056This is not /vg/. We can talk about strategy stuff freely here. It's weird to complain about this, when there are months old threads on /vst/, who deserve to be replaced by a newer tread.
