It seems to me that while it make encourage it, the changes will not alter the fundamental calculus of simply denying your enemies their lands, and then later after they are utterly defeated rebuilding. It means that looting has an even greater tactical effect, but the same strategic effect. Ultimately the grand strategy of turning as many regions rogue as possible will remain as the balances is tilted too heavily in its favor.
A few things enter into the calculation of whether to loot or do a TO.
1) the location of the region. One can't TO a region that doesn't border one's own realm.
2) the duration of a TO vs. looting a region rogue. If looting it rogue is quicker, it encourages to do looting in order to take the financial and infrastructure benefits from the enemy as quickly as possible. If a TO is about as long or shorter, then a TO is encouraged because not only it takes the bonuses away from the enemy, but it grants them to your own realm
3) the number of nobles. While the new system put much less of a limit on growth than the last one, it still caps to a minimum of 1 noble per region. Small realms sometimes already have 1 noble per region. And I'm far from convinced that 1 city and 1 rural, with both of them having just their lord, produces as much wealth (due to efficiency) as having 1 city alone, with a lord and knight. Also, the closer your noble/realm ratio approaches 1, the less likely you would be able to properly repair and protect your new acquisition.
4) the time available: Sometimes you want to be able to abort half-way and still have caused lasting damage, or otherwise be able to leave as soon as you are done. Looting allows this, takeovers don't (as much).
