Capturing Great People

Perfect_Blue

Yume Senshi
Joined
Jan 10, 2006
Messages
260
When I capture a city that has a great person in it, or catch one of those merchants trekking across my lands, it would be nice to capture them instead of murdering them. It would seem to make sense that one would keep captured great people alive and use them, plenty of historical examples and all that to boot.
 
A captured Great Person needs to be less effective, though. resisitence, eh?
 
lost_civantares said:
Why would they want to cooperate, and what person would give that up anyway?
Some times, you might give them "incentive".

Or, if your civ is that great, maybe they'll just join you.
 
That could cause problems with taking away some of the drama, think of a civ that is about to bite the dust gets a Arcamedies, the One who can save the game, only to have him convert! :eek: (look to Sirian's binding of the three report for evidence of that). Needless to say it would be a tad frustrating to lose a game like that. ;)
 
lost_civantares said:
That could cause problems with taking away some of the drama, think of a civ that is about to bite the dust gets a Arcamedies, the One who can save the game, only to have him convert! :eek: (look to Sirian's binding of the three report for evidence of that). Needless to say it would be a tad frustrating to lose a game like that. ;)
Well, you have a point, but I'm sure with a little different way of looking at things, it could work.
 
I was just thinking along the lines of all those 'captured' german scientists after WWII. From that perspective 'great people' cooperating isn't so far fetched. But I'm not even going as far as having them desert their civ, but if I capture them, especially in a last city while I'm destroying a civ, then they should be mine... :satan:
 
Whether a captured leader joins the conquering Civ or not could be determined by a probability calculation. Just now I can think of two key parameters determining the probability of co-operation: (a) extent of difference in the civics of the conquering Civ vs original civ - eg different religion reduces probability; significant differences in political organization reduces probability; probability increases if conquering Civ is significantly wealthier; and (b) the type of leader that is captured - cultural, economic or artistic people may be assumed to be more co-operative; military or religious leaders less so. In reality cultural, economic, military and religious leaders are useful because of their capacity to mobilize the population. A muslim state conquering Rome has no need for a pope.
 
Realism issues aside, if a civ worked hard and honestly acquired a Great Leader, he should get to keep him without worrying about some other guy buying him away.
 
Well I think it should be a 50/50 chance, just like how workers are sometimes destroyed and sometimes captured (I think that's how it go now right?)
 
I agree. There should be a mechanism by which GPs might switch, but ONLY IF the city/square they happen to be in is occupied by enemy forces. How effective a captured GP is under its new management should depend on a number of factors. As you'll recall, Wernher von Braun, a captured German scientist, did his best work in the United States. I would imagine that different types of GP would prefer different situations. For example, a Great Scientist who goes from, say, a Police State to Representation or Universal Suffrage might stay just as effective; an Artist going from anything to a Free Speech; a Prophet from Free Religion to Theocracy; an Engineer from Caste System or Tribalism to anything else; or a General going from Free Speech, Barbarism or Bureaucracy to Vassalage or Nationhood would all be just as effective.
 
I say let them be captured as spoils of war. The US and Soviets had no problem using German scientists and engineers after WWII. A Great Merchant probably wouldn't care who he worked for if it paid well enough. A Great Prophet may welcome the chance to spread his faith to a new group of unbelievers. A Great Artist might be a little more reluctant to produce, but historically much of the world's great art has arisen during times of strife and war.

Capturing makes more sense than the current way where they just commit suicide.
 
Sahkuhnder said:
A Great Artist might be a little more reluctant to produce, but historically much of the world's great art has arisen during times of strife and war.

Let's say your America and you capture an artist from Germany. Wouldn't the Great Artist--born, raised, and trained in Germany, not to mention producing German styles of art and most definately being a foreign national--be spreading German culture into America?
 
Mewtarthio said:
Let's say your America and you capture an artist from Germany. Wouldn't the Great Artist--born, raised, and trained in Germany, not to mention producing German styles of art and most definately being a foreign national--be spreading German culture into America?

Good point, but wouldn't the new 'German' culture then become part of 'American' culture? Sort of the way American culture today is a melting pot/mixture of other cultures?

American government buildings use Greek and Roman architecture, our language is from England, our religion from the middle east, and many American cultural icons were from foreign sources but have since been 'Americanized' if you will and and now represent American culture.
 
I don't think you should be able to capture them for yourself, but you should be able to capture them and demand a ransom for their return. They could be exhangeable for anything except technology. Cash, diplomatic agreements.. etc.
 
Mewtarthio said:
Let's say your America and you capture an artist from Germany. Wouldn't the Great Artist--born, raised, and trained in Germany, not to mention producing German styles of art and most definately being a foreign national--be spreading German culture into America?

Edit : I should get my facts straight...

:hammer2:
 
Back
Top Bottom