spoils to the victor

I dont know if you guys have already thought of that but how about every time you win a battle to take an amount of cash as spoils of war.

We know that spoils were a very good income and many generals riched because of them.

It will add to the realism and will help in cases when economics turn bad, you cannot afford retrain units but you keep winning the enemy comming.

About the amount its debatable but i suggest half the worth of the enemy army. You know as if their equipment was sold or something. So greater and well equiped enemy = more cin ringing ~:)

I think half is a bit much, but I like the idea. A much smaller amount would be more suitable, because it would be too easy to get into a lot of battles and exploit it for a lot of money.

On a seperate but related note, there have been some discussions about being able to take slaves or prisoners after a victory in battle. I really like this idea, and if possible would love to see it expanded upon.

has anyone heard any news on this issue? personally I'd love if you could enslave those fleeing gaulish hordes and add thousands to my city populations.
A nice little addition, although I doubt its possible, would be the ability to direct to which city you'd like for those slaves to go. I dont know if that is historically accurate but it's a nice way to replenish those cities where their main focus is troop production.

spoils of war?

Quote:

---

Spoils of War

Pretty basic. When you conquer a region you have the ability to plunder it all, or not. Hoever, the Spoils would have a number of titles and the ability to do a number of things with:

i - Treasure. Gold, luxury, PROFIT!? OMGZx!1 - essentially the raw loot which Pirates consider their mistress. Can be given wholly to the armies, which is dispersed into the lands they occupy if it is your land. You have an option to give it to your troops, increasing Troop Loyalty, or transport it back to their families and the Homeland which increases everyone's loyalty, though less so for the Troops specifically. Basic loot is only money, not food. Can be Traded.

ii - Food/Cattle/Spices - etc. This can be given to your Troops and deposited into the Baggage Trains or likewise sold to the inhabitants of a surrounding area to gain their Loyalty to your cause, though if their Loyalty is above a certain amount then this is not possible as they understand your subversion and will not be receptive to your clever tricks. It can only be transported a certain distance to your Homelands, as it will eventually spoil or die. There is a limit of a certain amount of time to determine how far it can be transported. This depends on where it is captured and hwo far it has to travel to be delivered.

ii - Slaves and Tradespeople - Reduces the Development in a region if they are transported back to your own domain. It takes a certain amount of time to have these slaves and tradespeople be rooted into a society to start contributing. This timeframe is lengthened if these people come from a populace which is highly Loyal. This option to capture Tradespeople isn't even available when the Loyalty reaches a certain level, though Slaves are always available; though it will decrease Loyalty in the Province they're transported to by a varying degree (depending on the loyalty of the populace of both regions and the amount of slaves/tradespeople who are disposessed). Slaves are also a valuable Trade resource and are only available when a conquered people are dispossessed and sold into slavery. Slaves do not affect Loyalty when a Garrison is neaby and will climatize to their surroundings within a generation (20 years). If they are Soldiers then this is extended to 40 years.

iii - Prestige - Increases the Loyalty to your cause in the region which the Victory was won. It reduces the Loyalty if you plunder the Province and increases the Loyalty of your Citizens in your Homelands if you do (and send the plunder back). If you release all prisoners it will increase the Loyalty to your cause only if the Loyalty to the initial ruler is low enough to do so - otherwise it will just leave a load of hostile soldiers around your invasion force, increasing Attrition.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wonderland

I think half is a bit much, but I like the idea. A much smaller amount would be more suitable, because it would be too easy to get into a lot of battles and exploit it for a lot of money.

On a seperate but related note, there have been some discussions about being able to take slaves or prisoners after a victory in battle. I really like this idea, and if possible would love to see it expanded upon.

---

Half maybe sound much but there are reports of generals for example Pausanias who won tremendous amounts of money fighting Persians.

An army back then didnt consisted only of soldiers and military material but also from valuable stuff to the general and his staff, money for the expendition.
Add to this the gear of the soldiers that basically this was determing their place in the army perhaps more than training and you have a very nice amount of money for the taking. ~;)

The prisoners idea i find very good. Propably the CA didnt incorporated the prisoners thing cause in ancient times ransoms were not in fashion as in medieval times, but they missed that they can turn to slaves. Plus the generals will get rid of that ''blood thirsty'' atribute. What we are supposed to to fleeing enemy? Let them come back tommorow?

You forget that most of the money gained where split beatwean soldiers and commanders (mostly). I would guess that treasury didnt get much.
As it is for now I dont know a way to tie Army size with booty size.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LorDBulA

You forget that most of the money gained where split beatwean soldiers and commanders (mostly). I would guess that treasury didnt get much.
As it is for now I dont know a way to tie Army size with booty size.

---

I understand that maybe there are some code difficulties. But even in the worst case i think you should win at least a standard amount of money. I understand that booty was mostly split among soldiers, with that money they were buying better equipment or even change social class-military class. In real life they do it themselves but since the gamming ai hasnt reach that far and you as player take all the decisions money should end up to you-treasury.

There are times that economics were bad i couldnt retrain-recruit soldiers and i was loosing battles just cause i was left with few troops against thousands in MY soil ~:eek:. Even if i was selling the armours for scrap i would get something back.

One might say that the soldiers are taking the loot for themselves as part of the pay. If the general got anything, he'd probably use it on basically cosmetic things, rather than having them return to the home nation as bonus funds.

If the home nation does get any money, it should be proportional to the cost of the enemy army and the casualties taken by the army, not its size.

If the enemy army loses generally the losers will run away, leaving their baggage train behind them for the victors to loot.

Variables would include, but are not limited to:

-wealth of the nation fielding the army
-amount composing the army
-any traits relating to luxury (Spartan would yield less loot)
-amount of army loot (described below)
-amount of time in the field

army loot - would depict the army looting the enemy. The longer the army is in the field, the more loot would be diminished from the army's loot. It would be available to be sent back to the Homelands. The easiest way to do this would be to Load the Unit with the amount of loot you want to send back - and then hope that they don't get attacked along the way. The army that holds more loot would also be, inherently, more loyal. Sending loot back to their families/Homelands would give 2/3 the amout of loyalty that simply holding it for themselves would give 100%.

How about if a barbarian faction beats (significantly, i.e kills a number close to its own size) a civilised faction all its troops get a +1 or +2 armour bonus permanently to represent that it looted the armour of its more advanced opponent?

You don't put on the armour of fallen opponent just like that. A few warriors could do it, but not entire unit... the armor has to fit, you need to be trained to use it, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colovion

If the enemy army loses generally the losers will run away, leaving their baggage train behind them for the victors to loot.

Variables would include, but are not limited to:

-wealth of the nation fielding the army
-amount composing the army
-any traits relating to luxury (Spartan would yield less loot)
-amount of army loot (described below)
-amount of time in the field

army loot - would depict the army looting the enemy. The longer the army is in the field, the more loot would be diminished from the army's loot. It would be available to be sent back to the Homelands. The easiest way to do this would be to Load the Unit with the amount of loot you want to send back - and then hope that they don't get attacked along the way. The army that holds more loot would also be, inherently, more loyal. Sending loot back to their families/Homelands would give 2/3 the amout of loyalty that simply holding it for themselves would give 100%.

---

Not armour, and that would be the most expensive part of equipping an army.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by eadingas

You don't put on the armour of fallen opponent just like that. A few warriors could do it, but not entire unit... the armor has to fit, you need to be trained to use it, etc.

---

Hence a mere +1. Armour still works if it just gets between you and something trying to hit you.