Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
Normally, captured weapons, personal items, and the prisoners themselves would be either retained by the men who personally acquired such, or the spoils would be apportioned out amongst all the men who took part in the fighting.
Chiefs and warleaders were expected to reward the warband, and retained little if any battle loot for themselves. Even if all of the loot was collected and given to the leader, he was expected to then redistribute it out proportionately, first to his personal retainers and guardsmen, then men from the band who had distinguished themselves, then the remainder who had taken part in the fighting. He himself would directly get little if anything after all of the gift giving and feasting; his main benefit would be indirect, by retaining loyalty of his men, garnering reputation and respect, and of course by seizing land and dominion over the fruits of the lands captured after the battles, like in the game when you capture enemy provinces.
So when you choose the "ransom" option in game, the payments go straight to your faction treasury, meaning the faction leader retains all of the booty, or slaves, ransom money, money from selling booty and slaves, etc.
The money shows up in the Faction Leader's coffers as a discretionary amount, not with the fighting men, so they would bound to be grumbling and disheartened, or even resentful, which is going to affect further operations under that leader, so the lowered Integrity reflects that.
It was a common practice in medieval times to ransom captured knights for gold back to their kingdoms, nothing was wrong about it, furthermore it was even etiquette.The soldiers that wasent bought back from their rulers was murdered, an no one had a problem with that either.And finally, the money that goes into your treasury from the ransomed prisoners is to a part used to pay your soldiers, isnt it? So, smart fart, well... but nothing of substance...
The integrity malus for ransom prisoners is simply stupid and a game breaker.It makes zero sense and is in every aspethic unlogical and laughable, hense historically simply not correct
You could have said, "wet fart," that would have been more convincing.
You're not following my argument. The guys doing the ransoming would be the guy who actually captured the captives. If I captured a high profile enemy, I ransomed him, and if my comrade captured two lower rank enemies, he would ransom those two, etc. The spoils of each particular ransom goes to the particular captor, same with keeping wealth in kind, like booty, equipment, or slaves.
What the Ransom option does in game, however, is give all the monies to the faction, ie. the leader, not to the particular captors.
You can execute in game and that works fine, as far as integrity goes. It has a diplomatic malus for factions who care about who is being executed.
Yes, the Treasury can be used to pay for soldiers, but *it must not necessarily be for such.* In other words, because you get the ransom money as a lump, immediate payment, it is effectively part of a discretionary fund. Of course, if you are bankrupt or in the red, then yes, it will go towards the debt, which makes sense too. But otherwise, the payment is added on top of whatever outstanding amount you already have in the Treasury. The Treasury is not solely earmarked for troop payments, but can be used for diplomatic payments, agent actions, etc.
Well like I said i\n the original post, yes, of course it is oriented towards game balance. This is a game, afterall, and all the mechanics are abstractions, and they have to mesh somewhat.
But looking at it in that light alone, how is it a "game breaker"? It would be much more unbalanced, or game breaking, to do it in the reverse way, ie. you get the money, and integrity goes up.
Looking at in the historical, or abstraction, light, you haven't followed my argument. You lay out the whole idea that captors regularly ransomed who they captured...yes, that is what my argument is actually resting on, that when the king/leader appropriates that ransom all to himself, he is disrupting that regularity, hence a cause for grumbling in the ranks, or lowered Integrity.