Suggestion: Gold for slavery and killing

[goldenboy2]

I'd suggest you add a direct income bonus to selling captured enemies into slavery or killing them. Slavery should obviously get you more gold than killing. Both should have a high diplomatic impact with your enemies since they'll use it to denounce your country. On the other hand letting your enemies go should really show the enemy that you're not interested in destroying them, because you just fought a battle without financial gain and its not really etiquette at that time to just say: "Good fight, cya later guys".

Is this possible and what are you opinions on this matter DEI team? I think it would add immersion and diversify gameplay options.

<<Update>> Without any regards to balance and workload: Would you want such a mechanic and if you want it maybe under a certain condition? That's all I'd like people to post about.

[kanzy]

I thought they already did that, when you enslave captives from a city or a defeated army they are added to you general slave population and so depending on your govners ability/province buildings you get an increase in income accordingly and you also get (-) public order.
You can check how much income you gain from slaves from your financial panel breakdown.

[goldenboy2]

That's called a passive income boost, I know the basics of this game.

[BassiveMollocks]

You suggest adding an income boost for killing captured enimies, sorry if I read wrong. If not, I can't see the logic behind that, could you explain?

[goldenboy2]

After slaying 10k enemies I get 10k free sets of armor. If I sell them into slavery I get the payment, their equipment and later on the economic bonuses from their work.

[BassiveMollocks]

After slaying 10k enemies I get 10k free sets of armor. If I sell them into slavery I get the payment, their equipment and later on the economic bonuses from their work.

I believe for many cultures, most certainly Roman, the spoils that were trinkets like jewelry were claimed by the soldiers. After killing 10k troops you do not get 10k set of armour and weapons. Many are broken quite literally beyond repair, if you're fighting barbarians most will be crudely fashioned spears, plain tunics and the like. Ofc you could loot the heavier equipment that's still in good nick, but then who buys it off you? Who's going to buy several hundred hoplite shields from you? It makes no sense. There would be almost no unscathed equipment left amongst the dead, at the very least all of the armour would have holes in. But you could salvage the metals and melt them down and sell them, but now it jut becomes a ballache. How much gold gain is too much for winning a battle? What code are you going to do, value of units present or quantity? If it's value, elephants and horsemen would have to be taken into consideration as they are more expensive just due to mounts.

[goldenboy2]

I believe for many cultures, most certainly Roman, the spoils that were trinkets like jewelry were claimed by the soldiers.

This sure is an idealistic world where the simple men gets to keep the most valuable treasures. The leaders would always get the biggest chunk of everything that's plundered.

After killing 10k troops you do not get 10k set of armour and weapons. Many are broken quite literally beyond repair, if you're fighting barbarians most will be crudely fashioned spears, plain tunics and the like. Ofc you could loot the heavier equipment that's still in good nick, but then who buys it off you? Who's going to buy several hundred hoplite shields from you?

Smithworks.

It makes no sense.

It does.

There would be almost no unscathed equipment left amongst the dead, at the very least all of the armour would have holes in. But you could salvage the metals and melt them down and sell them, but now it jut becomes a ballache.

See you know where the money comes from.

How much gold gain is too much for winning a battle? What code are you going to do, value of units present or quantity? If it's value, elephants and horsemen would have to be taken into consideration as they are more expensive just due to mounts.

That's up for the DEI team to balance. There are always people who complain about balance it all sorts of aspects. Difficulty, single units, mechanics, abilities, formations, and much more. Such thoughts must not distract us from the vision of a believable, historical and authentic ancient world. Roman legions were literally plundering for the sake of earning cash at some points throughout history and, yes, of course soldiers did earn spoils of war, but the leader would always get the most.

[BassiveMollocks]

Exactly, we have to differentiate between faction coffers and personal coffers. When Julius Caesar marched into Gaul and screwed them over, he raised the wealth of himself and those within his legions from plunder, the only reason Rome benefited was because of the tithe he sent back, along with the slaves and materials to boost economy (not a single time cash injection). So if you truly want to follow a "vision of a believable, historical and authentic ancient world", which is commendable, we will have to take into account legionary coffers, personal coffers and senate coffers (or general government coffers).

Basically, a general defeating an enemy on the field did not grant the victors nation wealth, rather it granted the victors nation and economic advantage in the forms of extra-manpower and melted down metals. The selling of slaves, trinkets, armour, metals, weapons and mounts captured during battle returned to the legion, to private wealth.

[Butan]

Looting of the army coffer, looting of "valuable" weapons-armours-trinkets, all those thing a slave or a dead man doesnt need anymore

I would be totally for a slight cash revenue from winning battles, it would indirectly boost the income from battles that we can have from slavery, which is to me still a bit too small.

[Le_Swede]

Another Idea, although I don't know if it is implementable, would be to make the upkeep of units cheaper for a certain amount of turns whenever you kill all your captives to simulate the aquiring of war material (grain, gold and new equipment such as boots, cloaks, weapons and armour etc) which one would have plundered and taken from the enemies camp and slain soldiers. This could then make for a nice simulation of instances such as with Hannibal during the second punic war when a army is cut off from supplies from their own territory and thus most make a living from what they manage to take from their enemy.

[BassiveMollocks]

Another Idea, although I don't know if it is implementable, would be to make the upkeep of units cheaper for a certain amount of turns whenever you kill all your captives to simulate the aquiring of war material (grain, gold and new equipment such as boots, cloaks, weapons and armour etc) which one would have plundered and taken from the enemies camp and slain soldiers. This could then make for a nice simulation of instances such as with Hannibal during the second punic war when a army is cut off from supplies from their own territory and thus most make a living from what they manage to take from their enemy.

This wouldn't work for atleast Rome, as soldiers were paid and then had cost of equipment and food etc etc deducted from the pay.

[goldenboy2]

Then make it depend upon whether the general who fought was part of your faction and in case he wasn't give more political power to the other general.

[BassiveMollocks]

Then make it depend upon whether the general who fought was part of your faction and in case he wasn't give more political power to the other general.

And if he was part of your faction?

[goldenboy2]

And if he was part of your faction?

You get the gold, but generally these ideas are nit picking in my opinion and its up to the DEI team to decide what to do.

[BassiveMollocks]

You get the gold, but generally these ideas are nit picking in my opinion and its up to the DEI team to decide what to do.

You're not differentiating from personal and government coffers again. The whole "faction" (politics) system in Rome 2 is so poorly done I feel it's a bad idea to add features based off it unless it is improved. Again, just because he's your general, he'd keep the wealth, to be PERSONAL wealth.

[Leiska]

I feel like killing captives is already too lucrative as it is. You want to piss off your enemies as much as possible because it solidifies your alliances against them.

[goldenboy2]

HE WOULD KEEP THE TAXES OF HIS OWN PROVINCE FOR HIMSELF TOO. YOU'RE NOT A PERSON IN THE GAME. YOU'RE PLAYER 1. YOU'D NEVER ACTUALLY GET MONEY.

The way you argue the game should play itself.

[Ardri]

HE WOULD KEEP THE TAXES OF HIS OWN PROVINCE FOR HIMSELF TOO. YOU'RE NOT A PERSON IN THE GAME. YOU'RE PLAYER 1. YOU'D NEVER ACTUALLY GET MONEY.

The way you argue the game should play itself.

I'm with goldenboy on this one. If you want, call the money gained by the faction for enslaving enemy soldiers the general's tithe to the faction. Simply saying the political system is so bad that it shouldn't be modified seems to be contradictary to the spirit of modding which is to make in game mechanics better.

[BassiveMollocks]

I'm with goldenboy on this one. If you want, call the money gained by the faction for enslaving enemy soldiers the general's tithe to the faction. Simply saying the political system is so bad that it shouldn't be modified seems to be contradictary to the spirit of modding which is to make in game mechanics better.

I DID say that it would have more merit if the politics system was improved and see the post just after yours too. To paraphrase what I said further down, I like the idea but only as part of a larger implementation of a seperation of personal wealth and government wealth

[BassiveMollocks]

HE WOULD KEEP THE TAXES OF HIS OWN PROVINCE FOR HIMSELF TOO. YOU'RE NOT A PERSON IN THE GAME. YOU'RE PLAYER 1. YOU'D NEVER ACTUALLY GET MONEY.

The way you argue the game should play itself.

Well he'd keep a percentage yes, but pay a large tithe to the senate actually. But besides, I'm just pointing this out, you can't cherry pick what you want to be accurate historically and not. I'm just posting my view point, if you didn't want that you shouldn't have opened a thread on it. Considering how easy economy already is, do we need another income source that can be easily exploited because of how quickly the AI can fill up stacks on harder campaign settings? For the time and effort it would take to implement and balance with all the modifiers (ie is rorarii with max weapons and armour and shields worth more or less than a legionary with no upgrades? and that sort of thing), I really don't think it would be worth it. Nor is it historically accurate. A good mod for Med 2 that had personal and government wealth really well implemented was Stainless Steel. Maybe if a system similar to that was implemented this could work.

Now I don't want to be caps locked at any more so I'm going to eat pizza.