Will there be a ransom option?

[machinor]

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.

[bovi]

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!"

[Cyclops]

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:

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.

[Cyclops]

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?

[A Very Super Market]

You can't even take prisoners in naval battles, so definitely not.

[LAST.MAN.STANDING]

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.

[A Very Super Market]

What you're describing is essentially the "Spoils of Victory" mod.

[Constantius III]

I think you're right, but to torture the point it could be:

Winner's options-loot baggage OR pursue survivors
IF sack camp, losers options: sacrifice rearguard OR abandon baggage.

Sometimes even the losers get to sack the camp. Guy named cyclops is pretty famous for it actually.

[LAST.MAN.STANDING]

Sometimes even the losers get to sack the camp. Guy named cyclops is pretty famous for it actually.

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.

I think you're right, but to torture the point it could be:

Winner's options-loot baggage OR pursue survivors
IF sack camp, losers options: sacrifice rearguard OR abandon baggage.

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.

[Azathoth]

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.

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.

[A Very Super Market]

POWs are the same thing as captured enemies, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say... :P

[Azathoth]

I needed more synonyms.