still confused: expel, enslave - what are these options really?

[Kleitos]

ok, first i tried to find in older threads what is really meant with those options - but i´m now more confused then before... i have the feeling this is would be something for the FAQ´s since it is a change from vanilla RTW.

in order to play more realistic and not to act after conquering often as a cruel monster i really want to know what is meant with those options.

the expel option which seem to be the most human option (apart from just occupying) seems to me totally unrealistic - cant believe that in antiquity after conquering a settlement in order to avoid rebellions a great part of the population where cart around into other provinces... just to live there - free as before. (alone when i think of the effort and expense to do so - without any benefit except of avoiding rebellions in those cities)
expel in terms of well-directed relocation like how it happens in the game - not just as banishment.

but as stated somewhere that the expel option in game just means enslavement in reality - then why does not the cash pour in after choosing this option?

if i choose enslave - which i often do at least with large cities - i try to salve my conscience, thinkin´ i "only" enslave them at least and don´t kill them all (the 75%) ..but then the confusing picture which was used in RTW for plagues show up together with the sounds of slaughtering and on the strategy map the burning of the settlement.

but if enslave means exterminate - why pours all the cash in after this option - should this option not be the least profitable one? ..i mean the looting took place anyway when the conuqerors in reality enslaved the population (or a great part of it). so the most profitable option in my opinion should be enslavement (in Game then expel??) ...and also, if enslave means exterminate: why this picture/message of a plague - and not the original one from RTW?)

i would be very pleased to get a definite explanation how this change (from vanilla to EB options) is meant.


thanks,

Kleitos

[The Celtic Viking]

AFAIK, it's just name changes and nothing else. When you press expel, in the EB universe you are expelling people (btw, that's not the same thing as "relocate" - you're just expelling people from the city leaving them to fend for themselves). However, in pure technical terms, the same thing happens as when you enslave in regular RTW. When you choose "enslave" in EB, you are enslaving people in the EB universe, but in technical terms, you're exterminating them.

[Kleitos]

thanks celtic viking - but if i expel the population it is definitely a well-directed relocation: the 50% will be dispersed among governed settlements. the population in these settlements together increase exactly about the population which was expelled from the conquered one. that´s not banishment in terms of chased away to fend for themselves as i see it. (hope my english is sufficient enough to be understood - so sorry if i use inproper words and such ;-)

and what you mean with enslave in the EB universe is enslavement but in technical terms its extermination?
did i actually enslave them now or did i exterminate them? ..thats just what i want to know.

i mean of course its only game and to reach the victory conditions quickly the option named in EB "enslave" is most of the time the easiest way. ..but when roleplaying and try to be more realistic i want to know what my faction is doing there so i can play according to these own made "houserules".

correct me if im wrong, but i think - the most common method back then was enslaving and not exterminating (except for smaller settlements or for settlements where the cultural diversity is not great - so just occupying is sufficient)
..i doubt it very much if well-directed relocations took place back then.
so actually the options in RTW seem to me coherent - and not confusing.

..i do not like to use the enslave option to much when actually this means extermination.

to be honest: i dont get it why this advancement from RTW to EB should be historically more accurate (in this specific point of course only :-) ..this EB Mod is just awesome!)

please enlighten me if im just wrong!

[Ludens]

"Expell" doesn't mean the victor chases the population away. That's a risky strategy: at worst it will cause a resurgence of resistance, at best the resulting migration wreaks havoc on neighbouring provinces. In EB, "expell" indicates a forcefull relocation, like the Assyrians frequently did. It was not common in the EB era, but the Romans resorted to this on occasion, for example after Pompey defeated the pirates. Pompey realised these people would soon turn to piracy again because their lands couldn't support them. So he moved them to better lands. This had the added advantages of breaking up their society and putting them under the watchfull eye of other tribes.

The EB team changed "exterminate" into "enslave", because slaves shouldn't be added to the recruiting population of other cities. They are not citizens, but economical workforce. Since the team could only change the names, and not effects, of the occupation-options, they decided to let "exterminate" represent enslavement (reduction of population + financial benefits), and "enslave" into relocation (moving population to other provinces).

[Kleitos]

thank you very much Ludens - i think i´ll get it now slowly.

didnt know that forced relocation took place back then - but as you said the assyrians did it frequently and in the EB era Pompey Magnus with the pirates - besides that it was not common in the EB era.

just checked these options in vanilla RTW now after more then two years - well yes: the occupation-options there sound coherent in name only but´ illogical in the effects. - my memory tricked me.


i see it exactly the same way - why should slaves be counted to the recruiting population of other cities ...and why doesnt pour all the cash in when choosing the enslave option.

so actually the EB expell option isnt something which was common in this era but anyway now available in opposition RTW.?

the EB enslave option is really meant as enslavement and not extermination.? - so when playin´: we must ignore the slaughter sounds, the message and the burning of the settlements? (they only appear because it is hardcoded)

then only: the real extermination option is missing now in EB - ...but all together the best compromise because this stuff is hardcoded in the RTW engine.?
in other words - when playing EB - we play the factions more human then they actually were sometimes.? :yes:

please let me know if i got it right now?

[Ludens]

Yes, we can't change this feature: the game is programmed to give you three options with hardcoded effects. The team could only rename them.

Incidentally, I think extermination was a pretty rare event in the classical age, for economical reasons alone. Slaves are worth money, corpses aren't. For a a person living in that period it may have amounted to much the same thing, anyway. A slave ceased to be a freeman and member of his tribe. He became property, and could never hold his head up high again.

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

Well, if you think about it, enslavement was often combined with extermination historically.

The most desirable slaves were healthy, young adults, or teenage children. After that came mature adults for manual work, or highly-educated older men as tutors.

But younger children (especially babies), still dependent on their mothers and too young to do a hard day's work, were little more than useless mouths to a conqueror. The same applies to the elderly, people over 50 and either too old to do a hard day's work or too old to be a good long-term investment for a slave owner. So people unfortunate enough to fall into those categories very often got 'exterminated' when a city was sacked.

The only plus point was that usually, it was the big cities that got sacked, not the smaller hamlets and villages - unless they happened to be in the path of an advancing enemy army.

So - enslaving in EB means enslaving the people worth selling on the slave market, and killing those not worth selling. In the ancient world, that was simply good economics, not a moral issue.

[Ludens]

But younger children (especially babies), still dependent on their mothers and too young to do a hard day's work, were little more than useless mouths to a conqueror. The same applies to the elderly, people over 50 and either too old to do a hard day's work or too old to be a good long-term investment for a slave owner. So people unfortunate enough to fall into those categories very often got 'exterminated' when a city was sacked.

Very true.


The only plus point was that usually, it was the big cities that got sacked, not the smaller hamlets and villages - unless they happened to be in the path of an advancing enemy army.

Unfortunately not true. Without proper siegecraft, even minor cities are very hard to take. If the attackers waited a few days before beginning the assault, every nearby village would be plundered by patrols and bored soldiers. If the attacking army could not mount a succesful assault and settled down for a siege, even distant villages could expect to be raided for lifestock and crops to supply the besiegers. There's a reason villagers generally retreated behind the city walls.

And war wasn't limited to sieges and major battles.

[TheLastDays]

I roleplay the extermination/enslavement option however it's "applicable" in the situation of my campaign. Since the effects (reduction of local population, income from looting/selling of slaves) are basically the same it works for me.

[Kleitos]

thanks - now everything is clear ...well yes - enslavement was surley combined with extermination in some degree ..so the indicated burning of the cities with the smoke out of it afterwards is not a conflict with this EB occupation-option.

anyway - i think in that way its really a good compromise compared to the RTW options. i also dont think that extermination in history was so widespread as indicated with the the RTW options.

[Arjos]

Sometimes I occupy, and via console relocate the population in other settlements for roleplay, don't like the expel distributing system :P

[Cute Wolf]

and to sheer ridiculousness of "Peaceful occupation" in RTW, being the least profitable option..... if we can change the hardcoded things, changing the occupation effect to provide small public order bonus (or reduce unrest) will be nice

[Titus Marcellus Scato]

'Peaceful occupation' could be interpreted by local patriots as the conquering army being afraid of an uprising so is handling the population with kid gloves. I.e. this can be interpreted by local die-hard rebels as a sign of weakness. If interpreted that way, it could theoretically increase unrest rather than decrease it if the rebels persuade the populace that the occupier is weak and an uprising could succeed.

Which is why it's worth expelling or enslaving big populations sometimes. Stick first, then carrot - not the other way round!