Occupy, enslave, or exterminate?

What are the positive and negative consequences of each of these choices? The difference between enslavement and occupation is particularly puzzling to me: Enslavement makes a new town much easier to control and distributes the population among older, more developed centers. At a glance, there doesn't seem to exist a good reason to ever choose occupation.

Solution 1:

Exterminate

• Maximum Loot
• Reduce population by 3/4 (to a minimum of 400)

PRO:

• highest money option
• easiest way to control large enemy settlements

CON:

• loss of population
• could take a while for the settlement to recover/become useful

Enslave

• Regular Loot
• Reduce the population by 1/2 (to a minimum of 400)
• The population that this settlement is reduced by gets immediately distributed to all Governed settlements.
• This settlement now has Slaves as a resource (for 20 turns), which boosts economy and population

PRO:

• Distribute Population to specific areas
• Create Slaves Resource to further boost populations
• easier to control large populations
• no loss of population

CON:

• need to have govornors in place before taking the settlement to ensure that the extra population goes where you want it to

Occupy

• Regular Loot
• All population stays in new settlement

PRO:

• no loss of population
• new settlement stays at highest population

CON:

• hardest to control

Summary

Exterminate when you need cash now or need to control a large foreign settlement.

Enslave when you want to increase the population of your core cities (both by slaves now and slaves for the next 20 turns).

Occupy when you have taken a town or other small settlement (especially one that will grow slowly), and you don't want to hobble its development.

Solution 2:

You exterminate if the town's infrastructure is of no use to you and you just want to loot and pillage, this one goes without saying.

You occupy if the city possesses buildings and resources that you actually want to use and get the most out of in the long run. If you capture a huge city with amazing infrastructure and buildings, you'll want to have as many people living there as possible to generate max tax revenue, etc.

You enslave if you would rather just distribute the population amongst your other settlements.

So the amount of unrest that results is inversely proportional to how much you want to get out of the city in the long run. To completely assimilate it with minimal damage costs you the biggest up front investment of garrisoned troops, whereas totally destroying it for some quick cash now will pretty much eliminate any resistance but also make it very hard to actually take advantage of the city's pre-existing buildings in the future.