Capturing.....?

[Sheogorath]

Capturing artillery was (in terms of morale and honor) only a little less important than taking a standard or eagle. And it had the practical bonus that you got cannons out of it.
The French and Russians in particular were somewhat fanatical about their artillery. The Russians actually took it to the point of folly sometimes, with gun crews either retreating to the rear as soon as their guns came under any sort of threat, or staying in one spot and defending their pieces to the death.
Either way, the Ruskies rarely lost a cannon. Not so sure about the French, but considering Napoleon was an artillery officer before his 'promotion' its understandable that he put emphasis on the artillery branch.

In terms of rewards, I believe that it was the usual practice for the monarch/state leader/whatever to gift the regiment with some sort of standard, flag, regimental title, or distinction on their uniform, as well as a small promotion for the officer responsible. Making a captain a general would be unlikely, I think, unless it was a rather great achievement. I imagine what soldiers valued most would be a pay increase

[Elmar Bijlsma]

While capturing a cannon was pretty prestigious, the captured gun itself wasn't all that important to have. Their chief purpose seems to typically have been to be parked outside the regimental barracks and officers club. Or in case of Russians guns captured at Sevastapol by the British, used as a source of bronze for the Victoria Cross.

The uses of a captured cannon were rather limited. First, gun crews don't grow on trees. Infantry and cavalry were pretty easy to recruit and train, but skilled artillery crews required extensive training.
Secondly, obtaining sufficient ammunition was a problem. The bulk of ammo was kept some distance to the rear of the cannon and was in a horse drawn caisson that could be hauled off at the first sign of trouble. And there was virtually no ammunition commonality. A six pounder gun from one country would be unlikely to fire the six pounder shot from another country, because weights weren't the same. Even if one managed to obtain sufficient ammunition for captured gun, the different shot weights would be a strain on logistics.

So, aside from guns being turned upon their previous owners during the battle the use of captured guns was relatively rare. Pretty much reserved for those armies that were desperate for extra ranged firepower.

[Ibn-Khaldun]

Still I like the idea that the unit capturing artillery or enemy standard would receive some kind of bonuses. Perhaps some morale bonus? Or promotion if it would be Captain led Army.

[PBI]

I always thought it would be nice if units could have individual names and earn honours and attributes in the same way as generals. So, units could earn specific honours for being first into the breach in a siege, for capturing enemy cannons or standards, or being present at a famous victory. This would do things like increase their morale and experience, and maybe even give them abilities such as "frightens enemies" or "reassures nearby troops". They could also get less honourable traits that would lower morale and prestige for say, routing during a battle, cruel treatment of prisoners, or excessive looting and pillaging.

Units who have served under a successful general for a long time might also gain a particular affiliation for the general, gaining a hefty morale bonus when he is in charge but a morale penalty or possibly even a risk of outright desertion or mutiny if the general is replaced. Napoleon's Old Guard is an example I can think of of a unit which might acquire this trait.

Of course, it would pretty much be eye candy and might not add much to the game, but I think it would be nice.

[batemonkey]

That PBI is wehat i like to call - a bloody good idea

[Matt_Lane]

Great idea PBI. As Generals currently have traits units could have battle honors that could effect their experience and professionalism under fire. Victory, capturing an enemy's colours or even failing to rout during a massacre would inspire them whilst lack of action, fleeing the battlefield or loosing your colours would be a black mark.

To this end Artillary's standards would be there pieces, the loss of which would have similar moral penalties. I also think it should be possible to absorb a percentage of captureed guns into your own artillary park. It was the norm during this period for any captured guns of the correct caliber to be employed by the victor whilst the rest would be spiked. This was particularly true of the British army that seems to have waged many campaigns wanting for artillery so the opportunity to add to their numbers would not have been missed.

For me the limiting factor here is not so much the problem of variable calibers or even training troops, rather more it is the lack of trained officers needed to lead such units. British Infantry and Cavalry commissions could be bought by anyone but Artillary (and Engineers) Officers had to pass out of Woolich this meant that they were always in short supply. It might be more realistic therefore that captured artillery might be used to replace your own loss's but it could not be used to create new units. This would however limit the introduction of captured technology into your own ranks.

[Sir Beane]

Fantastic ideas PBI! It's a damn shame the game is so far along in development. If CA haven't implemented your idea by now then I doubt we will see it. If it had been earlier then maybe they might have included it.

The idea of traits for units is something that would add tremendously to the rople playing value of the game. Building up a super-elite unit from humble beginnings across an entire campaign wold be fantastic. Having the name of your unit known and feared across the entire world, having enemies rout just because they came up against them in battle, inspiring your own side to great acts of bravery, all of these are awesome.