Well, I voted (first, in fact) to release them, and it's clear to me that either I'm way off base or the majority is...so here's my line of thought on releasing prisoners.

First of all, the decision to ransom or not usually doesn't change the ultimate fate of the prisoners. More often than not, the ransom is refused, and they're dead anyway.

I see the advantage of executing prisoners so you are certain that you don't have to face them again. However... there are aspects to this that are not being considered, even beyond the potential negative V & V.

It isn't about raising money for ME. Prisoners cost more to ransom than they do to recruit. It's about keeping the enemy impoverished.

In addition to that, the troops ransomed seem to lose morale along the way. I have found that even good units that have been captured once will break much more easily next time. Of course, I lose track of them after a few years, so maybe the effects wear off.

If the ransomed troops are placed in a province you attack immediately, you can expect to face some partial and disorganized units. I don't know about you, but I like it when I see that my enemy's initial force has several units that are at half strength or less. That lone peasant just doesn't scare me much, and I'll leave him alone to block reinforcement by a full-strength unit.

What is also nice is when the ransomed units have no place to go but an isolated island. They can't get off because of lack of port or a blockade, and all they do is drain the enemy economy. He has less money, less net income, and no gain of any kind. Suits me just fine.

Bottom line is that I will NEVER execute prisoners unless I LOSE the battle. (Seems that if I lose, all the captives get liberated without ransom.) I also don't tend to PAY ransoms, for the reasons cited above.