Field/castle battles and espionage.

[Camikaze]

Surrendering in terms of individual units. If you surrender with no hope of a prisoner exchange, you have lost the unit anyway. You may as well suicide it with a slim chance of victory.

 

[Argetnyx]

So what would be the benefit of surrendering if you yourself did not have any PoWs to exchange with?

Mmaybe you don't have any at the time, but you will later.

 

[Camikaze]

But how are you going to get POWs if you surrender your units? You will have nothing to capture enemy soldiers with? There either needs to be some sort of immediate benefit for the civ that surrenders, or it should be implemented as the winner of a battle has x% chance of taking prisoners, which can later be exchanged.

 

[Argetnyx]

But how are you going to get POWs if you surrender your units? You will have nothing to capture enemy soldiers with? There either needs to be some sort of immediate benefit for the civ that surrenders, or it should be implemented as the winner of a battle has x% chance of taking prisoners, which can later be exchanged.

I see where you're going off at now.. What I origionally meant was one unit surrendering, not an entire civ.

 

[Camikaze]

Well, even so, the problems would still exist. The decision to surrender would have to be independent of the player to be viable.

 

[Argetnyx]

No, individual units don't have an order to surrender, not unless the whole civ is surrendering.

 

[Flying Pig]

Your units could surrender against orders instead of fighting and wounding or killing the enemy if the odds were bad, they were inexperienced or they were having a bad time

 

[Argetnyx]

Exactly what I meant.

 

[Camikaze]

And exactly what I meant. If it was any other way, there would be no incentive for the player to surrender individual units. Perhaps surrender could be calculated similar to withdrawal chance (but to a higher degree), and would still involve some health loss for the unit.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Sorry but i don't see the link between field battles and surrendering?

 

[Flying Pig]

And exactly what I meant. If it was any other way, there would be no incentive for the player to surrender individual units. Perhaps surrender could be calculated similar to withdrawal chance (but to a higher degree), and would still involve some health loss for the unit.

And then they get 'stored' or killed by barbarians/certain civics, and at the end of the war you can get them back, or negotiate to end the war by giving back enemy prisoners

 

[Camikaze]

Sorry but i don't see the link between field battles and surrendering?

Field battles ---> Drawing a whole force out of city ---> Important and vast battle ---> Surrender of one side, or of portions of one side.

So, basically, if you were to have field battles, surrendering would be a good aspect of those battles to include.

And then they get 'stored' or killed by barbarians/certain civics, and at the end of the war you can get them back, or negotiate to end the war by giving back enemy prisoners

I prefer the idea that was in a WW2 mod I played (I can't remember which one), whereby they became POW units, which could either be settled in a city for a small production bonus (requiring a POW camp, although a Jail would suffice), or used to rush production. Diplomatic penalties would result from the latter, and that would be the killing of POWs option. At the end of a war, the units would be converted back to their original form, although probably at 75% strength, or something.

 

[Flying Pig]

That's basically it. Also, I'd like to see an integration of the beloved British principle of Waterloo, which is that the enemy have some incentive to attack an invading force, then the loser is beaten.

 

[Camikaze]

Although having one absolute and decisive field battle may not be the best thing, particularly when everything is reliant on a random number generator. To a degree the importance of these things and incentives for them should be increased, but not to an unbalanced extent.

 

[Flying Pig]

True. However, the AI's strategy is pretty much to sit where you need to come to kill him while you can have your way with his countryside, which isn't very realistic

 

[Camikaze]

Yeah, so a compromise between the two is needed. But not either-or.

 

[Flying Pig]

I can't think of a situation where to sit in the cities hoping that he'll attack you is a good strategy - better to fight a battle then surrender.

 

[Argetnyx]

I can't think of a situation where to sit in the cities hoping that he'll attack you is a good strategy - better to fight a battle then surrender.

There is a possibility that the AIs will be improved, but its not likely, seeing that it hasnt been done yet.

 

[Flying Pig]

If nothing else, they could ask a military officer to playtest it and then code in strategies for particular situations when he says that the AI is behaving strangely. For example, they could say that if the enemy pillage an improvement, attack them

 

[Argetnyx]

If nothing else, they could ask a military officer to playtest it and then code in strategies for particular situations when he says that the AI is behaving strangely. For example, they could say that if the enemy pillage an improvement, attack them

That's exactly what the game needs!