Why wouldn't gold be looted after a victory?

[CrazyCracka420]

I don't really understand the logic behind why no gold is looted after a battle from the loser?  If it's for the sake of balance, then just make the money disappear (so nobody gets it).  Or make it so only some of it's looted.  I don't think it makes any sense for someone to be able to be attacked, lose, and teleported to keep all their gold.  They could potentially lose 100 battles in a row, but if they never hire troops and never buy equipment, they literally lose nothing. 

What's to stop someone who loses a battle with a lot of gold from marching across the map to re-inforce their faction?  They literally have nothing to lose by trying.  Seems kind of ridiculous.


*Edited for carebears*  seriously, if you think something is so ridiculous, usually some amount of ridiculing would seem appropriate, no?

[Jarlek]

I don't like the tone in your post but I do agree with what you say. Gold should be looted. At the very least it should be lost.

[Governor]

Rage much?  You make a reasonable point, but you sound like a bratty eight year old doing it.

[Turboflex]

Probably for balance reasons. If you could loot gold then it would be another advantage for large aggressor clans over smaller or less organized clans. They could keep hitting people, so they would never get armies, while the big clan would get their own built up even faster (50,000 gold equips 250 troops decently). It would get even worse once all cities, castles and fiefs eventually get claimed, they'd have no neutral places to bank their gold and craft in, and they could get booted out and jumped by their landlords even if they reached an agreement. I know strat is supposed to be about large clan politics, but it doesn't have to be brutal for smaller clans...

[dodnet]

Rage much?  You make a reasonable point, but you sound like a bratty eight year old doing it.

Like in most of his posts 

[CrazyCracka420]

I'm an asshole...does that make my points any less valid?  It's the internets, everything should be taken with a grain of salt.  If you really think it hurts the message I'm trying to convey I can edit my original post so it's not so dickish, but I think my tone is perfectly reasonable considering the subject matter.

Probably for balance reasons. If you could loot gold then it would be another advantage for large aggressor clans over smaller or less organized clans. They could keep hitting people, so they would never get armies, while the big clan would get their own built up even faster (50,000 gold equips 250 troops decently). It would get even worse once all cities, castles and fiefs eventually get claimed, they'd have no neutral places to bank their gold and craft in, and they could get booted out and jumped by their landlords even if they reached an agreement. I know strat is supposed to be about large clan politics, but it doesn't have to be brutal for smaller clans...

They should try to balance it out with other areas then. I believe they have tried with the whole "troop upkeep" costs.  I'm not saying larger factions and coalitions should get any inherit advantages, but I don't think trying to make a level playing field for a clan of 10 versus a clan of 100 makes sense.  The clan of 100 should obviously be dominating if they are organized.

[Jarlek]

I'm an asshole...does that make my points any less valid?  It's the internets, everything should be taken with a grain of salt.

Nope. People who believe that they don't have to be polite on the internet are those who are ignored the most. Totally ok for retarded suggestions (that most of their suggestions are), but for the few sensible ones it's just sad. Try to be more polite in the future.

[CrazyCracka420]

Nope. People who believe that they don't have to be polite on the internet are those who are ignored the most. Totally ok for retarded suggestions (that most of their suggestions are), but for the few sensible ones it's just sad. Try to be more polite in the future.

I guess I'm just so cynical towards C-RPG and strategus in specific.  I assumed that nobody with any power would even read the post, and if they did they wouldn't reply (if I was just straight to the point even).  When I see something that I view as ridiculous as the original point I'm bringing up in this thread, I felt it was appropriate to treat it with ridicule and scorn.  I've been posting on the internet for close to 10 years, I realize that people who come across as dicks don't get their message heard...I just felt the ridicule was appropriate in this instance.  I've edited my original post to be straight to the point.