Prisoners of War

Pounder

Phaethon was here
Joined
Jun 14, 2003
Messages
5,698
Location
Your territory
Maybe an extension of the enslavement features.

Prisoners may be captured after a decisive battle or maybe when a transport is sunk. When a transport is sunk, maybe lifeboats/liferafts with units on them could be generated. These units could be picked up by friendly or enemy transports.

Prisoners could be traded after war is over.

Maybe units like great leaders maybe should not be destroyed, but captured as a prisoners or with a scientific leader the capturing Civ should be able to make use of his talents.
 
One easy modification should be that other civ's workers shouldn't have to be in your capitol to be traded back. After the war ends, your former rival should offer you something in exchange for returned POWs, and if you accept, then those workers would immediately change color back to your rival's color, no matter where they were. The other civ would be responsible for moving them back to their home territory.
 
Originally posted by Pounder
Maybe units like great leaders maybe should not be destroyed, but captured as a prisoners or with a scientific leader the capturing Civ should be able to make use of his talents.

great idea.. great.. :goodjob:
 
The prisoners of war should be slave workers, until they are traded, being not necesary to be on the capitol city, as someone said. I agree. So you can make them work, exchange them, becoming normal workers, ask for ransom, etc.
It makes sense since if you capture a tank division, you can return some prisoners, but obviously as civilians, without the destroyed tanks :)
 
I like the POW idea.
Nevertheless, they shouldn't be used as "slave workers", since this would interfere with the concept of slavery. (And I don't like the current worker concept at all, btw).
I would like to have them to be accompanied by military units of your nation, as long as they aren't "imprisoned" in certain "POW camps", which would require some garrison as well.
Those camps would require some upkeep, but not just plainly killing those units would improve your reputation with other nations. Killing of course would significantly lower your reputation.
During peace negotiations with your former enemy the offer to submit those POW's would significantly raise the chances to get favourable peace conditions (this would be based on the ratio in which POW's are submitted from the one side to the other).
Then, it could even lead to your enemy be willing to submit a distant outpost to you while you submit his 10 (or whatever figure would be appropriate) POW's back to him.
 
I think that if you decide that you want to kill them, you have a chance to be discoverd, but it is not sure.
 
THroughout history most battles have ended with large numbers of POW's and including this feature should be a part of Civ. I think that captured units should become slave workers (perhaps even a POW unit?) but have a high upkeep cost (guards camps) and in such a way tey are encouraged to be traded back to their homeland. And that they could such trades could occur after the war from anywhere.
 
Perhaps a techhnolgy that alows you to take prisners before that they would just be killed by your general perhaps chivilry could be the tech.
 
Oh, and POWs could be related to war weariness too. The more of your boys are taken as POW, for instance, the more war weariness affects your population. Thus, there's a motivation to try and negotiate to get them back (and on the other side of the table, a motivation to take them in the first place. Take a lot of POWs and you can really mess with the other country's research and economic production, perhaps even slowing them down for enough turns that you can catch up to them in the tech race).
 
So, what would generate more WW? Having your men captured or killed? Either way is catastrophic in my book. Perhaps WW could last a bit after peace if many are killed, but instantly reduces if you get the prisoners back?
 
Maybe an interesting twist with the building of the UN, and for Regicide games (why not let the king go for a ransom?).
 
I'm picturing a middle ages mod based around ransomed knights either between France, England or Spain or maybe with the Algerians/Ottomans. Not workers, but galley slaves in the second case.
 
Don't want to sound belittling your suggestion but it sounds like micromanagment (OK, not really, but kind of) to me. In a game where you are the whole-sole of your empire and you play for thousands of year, it's really needless to try to imitate every little detail from real life.

Instead, I would suggest that the team should focus more on strategies as a whole:
1. Improved economics
2. Improved trading system and better diplomacy
3. and so on...

In good faith,
The_Architect
 
POW sound like a great idea adds even more trading options to the game and just abit more for negociating peace.
 
yeah it is too much of a detail of real life for it to be modelled in civ, imo. The only way to make the concept fun would be to elevate it to a level that it does not have in real life.
 
Great Idea!

In pretty much all of my scenarios I made all have this in it, as all units can enslave, except for naval units. If only MGLs can do the same, like ransom, and SGLs can be ransomed/stolen, but only does 1/2 of the effects to the captor's civ, to represent being somewhat uncooperative.
 
Shouldnt be to difficult to implement gameplay balance at the end of the day its just another tradeable commodity.
 
Back
Top Bottom