Printable View
Apologies in advance if this has been asked before, but given MTW2 has this feature, all be it somewhat flawed, will EBII utalise it.
I ask in that last night when my Romans stormed Phraaspa the only survivor was the Pontic faction leader, one can easily imagine the ransom Rome would have demanded.
It has been asked before and the answer is that they have to use it, it is a hardcoded part of MTW2.
They can change the effects of the buttons, but that system has to be there.
Will that means more ransom value? or those "bad but good" traits of killing hostages (means adding dread) aren't here again?
Generally only generals and high-ranking officials would be spared, usually for a high ransom. They could probably use that.
Although, it wasn't too unusual to summarily conscript captured rank-and-file grunts into your own army, was it ?
I think the rank and file was disbanded or executed, rather than conscripted...
Hannibal begs to disagree.
I would be so impressed if the EB team can adapt this to allow an option to conscript compatible captured enemies. Ex-Carthaginian Roman Elephants! One owner, excellent condition, just like Scipio had!Quote:
Originally Posted by runner3434
However it'd have tio be carefully balanced or the Hellenistic factions might do an awful lot of army swapping. "They're my akontistai, Ptolmaeus, and I'm taking them back!"
No... half of them is mine, they are retrained in Alexandreia...Quote:
"They're my akontistai, Ptolmaeus, and I'm taking them back!"
Don't forget a year in history where in the 1st Punic Rome and Carthage exchanged prisoners!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris1959
What! Exchange prisoners...
For a ransom?
Watchman is right about the conscript instead of slaughter issue, although this practice was probably limited to soldiers of the same culture like between Hellenistic armies or Roman ones in the civil wars (and even then it was seldom enough to be noted as a sign of valour and mercy... or dire need of soldiers); Caesar comes to mind who spared and conscripted any captured Pompeiian while Pompeii had captured soldiers executed as traitors. That may be propaganda, though.
The execute-ransom-thing may be renamed to "hunt down and slaughter remaining enemy troops" (=execute) or "sack enemy camp" (thus allowing remaining enemy forces to flee and regroup =ransom). I think that may be the most fitting solution.
The "sack enemy camp" thing won't work, as the ransom mechanic requires assent from the losing faction to pay it.
"Excuse me, now that we've beaten you, would you like me to steal the stuff in your camp, or would you prefer that I kill you?"
"Um, we'd really like to live you know, but sorry, our leaders say we are not to let you take our stuff. You should go ahead and kill us instead."
"That's too bad. If only we could have killed you first and then taken the stuff lying around... But that's crazy talk. Taste pain."
"Urk."
"Alright, let's go people! Nothing to loot here!"
I think you're right, but to torture the point it could be:Quote:
Originally Posted by bovi
Winner's options-loot baggage OR pursue survivors
IF sack camp, losers options: sacrifice rearguard OR abandon baggage.
But I agree its clunky, especially if the whole army is captured (maybe the rearguard was quaker ballistae?).
Conscription, so long as it is limited to certain units (esp. mercenaries) is historically attested and would be a desirable element IMHO.
Oh i just thought of something: can the ransom option be extended to cover naval battles? Now that would be cool. I believe there are attested cases in the second Punic (should that be Puno-Romani?) war of captured vessels and sailors being comandeered. Anyone know this one?
You can't even take prisoners in naval battles, so definitely not.
I like these ideas, but I think the slavery option is more historically accurate. Victorious armies often sold surviving enemies into slavery, and of course, nearly always looted the baggage trains and bodies of the dead. This has always been one of my gripes about the TW series (not that any other game series comes anywhere close to TW's realism)....but historically speaking, victorious armies were most often funded more via plunder and spoils of victory in the fireld than by continuous resupply and payment from the homeland. I'm constantly fighting campaigns in foreign lands, with not enough money to recruit reinforcements. I win battle after battle, only to end up with no troops to garrisson the ground I take.
What I'd LOVE to see in EBII is an influx of cash with each victory, with the more enemies killed/captured, the more money raised. Weapons and armor were worth an incredible amount of money in the classical period, not to mention the personal effects, baggage etc. captured by the victors. The option to sell the captives as slaves could replace the ransom option. So many realistic possibilities would be opened up with this. Armies could be self-sustaining in the field via the spoils of victory, with the continual cash to hire mercs, etc. And what would be REALLY awesome is the ability to up-armor units using captured armor/weapons from the battlefield...although I don't see the ability to do this without being in a settlement. As far as I understand, the buildings in a settlement are the ONLY way to upgrade weapons/armor/retrain.
But the SLAVERY instead of RANSOM as well as money from looting the battlefield seem almost necessary improvements if they can be accomplished.
What you're describing is essentially the "Spoils of Victory" mod.
Never heard of it, but if they included the above suggestions, bravo to them....but...it's not EB. I want all the bells n' whistles EB puts in PLUS the ability to claim the spoils of the field. What good is cake if you can't eat it too, right?
But seriously....someone from the EB team should look into the idea, and not just 'cause it's my pet concept, but because it truly would add an excellent level of realism to the game. I'm no modder by any means, but it seems to me that changing the ransom option to selling slaves would be relatively easy. The influx of cash from stripping the dead/looting baggage train might be another story...but then again, events like grants of cash from councils in M2TW must be triggered by something, right? Why not have those events triggered by victories and simply rewrite the text to state "spoils of victory, 2000 mnai, [etc etc]" or some such thing?
It's an add-on mod to EB (Maybe Vanilla, I'm not sure)
I get your point, but you can play EB and have what you're describing with it. It's in the EB mod modding forum.
Sometimes even the losers get to sack the camp. Guy named cyclops is pretty famous for it actually. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
True...also, the baggage trains were fair game at any point DURING a given engagement, which is why most decent generals posted a force to guard the baggage train/camp during battle. Supply was (IS) vitally important to field armies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Constantius III
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclops
I don't think one should have to choose between sacking the camp/baggage train and pursuing the enemy. Both were done simultaneously by historical armies...ESPECIALLY victorious armies, since the baggage train can't move very fast, and the smaller force left to guard it would likely abandon it once word of defeat reached them. The goods will be there waiting for the victor when he's through chasing the enemy, and of course, he could just as well send a force to capture the loot while the rest of his troops give chase to the main enemy force.
Along those same lines, I think the baggage train should be somewhere on the battle map. Of course, generals would have ranged from the baggage train at various distances depending upon terrain and circumstances (such as the need to cover ground very quickly to exploit a positional advantage). But, things would get too complicated if you could choose how far on the campaign map you wanted to range from your supply train. Having the baggage on the battle map would solve the problem by forcing the decision in real-time to attack/defend the baggage.
Thanks...I'll look it up as a possible sub-mod for my gameplay until EBII debuts. I was mainly focusing on suggestions for EBII.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Very Super Market
I have an idea on how some of this may be implemented.
1, Make the options texts read (Release prisoners-no change necessary, Ransom-sell prisoners to the slave trader, Execute-take prisoners as state slaves or send them to the mines)
2, Have the "refused ransom" text read "the slave trader did not accept this lot of prisoners, so they have been sent to the mines".
I know this is not perfect, but it would provide a more realistic (according to the time period) way of presenting the hardcoded options that we are dealing with.
So in effect, the owner of the defeated units is the slave trader?????
It is just something i thought of to get rid of the silly medieval ransoming thing. In effect, you are selling captives to the slavers that followed ancient armies around. When it is your troops being "ransomed", you are basically buying them back from the slavers that bought them from the victor, or consigning them to slavery. In fact, maybe the text on the loser's screen could be "buy your men back from the slave trader" or "allow them to be enslaved for their failure".
Yeah. Slave traders did follow armies around for the easy pickings and insane profits, though I think that this was much more common during the Imperial Roman period than the EB time frame. I'm just presenting this as an option, that's all. I'm sure that if there is a better work-around the dev team will find it.Quote:
So in effect, the owner of the defeated units is the slave trader????? -Alsatia
Quote:
Originally Posted by machinor
According to EB, Hamalcar...Hamilcar?...Himilcar?...the Barca guy, whatever, treated captured enemies like POWs during the Mercenary War until the Mercenaries killed Carthaginian prisoners, at which point Barca repayed them in kind. Just throwing it out there.
POWs are the same thing as captured enemies, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say... :P
I needed more synonyms.