Prisoners of war?

Bush · January 25, 2001, 04:41

This morning I thought about how CIV3´s diplomacy options would be like. I think that it could be a good idea to buy prisoners of back. A result of this action would give an increase in happiness among your people and increase the other nations regard towards you in a positive way.

Please comment....

Lord_Davinator · January 25, 2001, 08:35

nah! I think thats going a bit too far... how about setting it up as repartations of war in which the LOSING nation has to pay up as it usually happens.

Lord_Davinator · January 25, 2001, 08:36

nah! I think thats going a bit too far... how about setting it up as repartations of war in which the LOSING nation has to pay up as it usually happens.

Lord_Davinator · January 25, 2001, 08:37

how'd I get two messages of the same kind when I only posted one??????????

January 25, 2001, 10:47

Some times the system hic-ups (multiple entries)

Prisoner exchanges? No, I don't think it would be as feasible, since as it stands now, combat is either you survived or you died. If prisoners were brought into the equation, you would need a third element (POW). But how about this: If you kill a foriegn unit, you receive 1/10th of the original PW used in its production. This production bonus could then be placed into your national coffers at the beginning of your next turn. Of course if a foriegn unit kills your unit, then they would receive the 1/10th production bonus. This production bonus could relate to "information" or "intelligence" gleaned from your "prisoner" prior to its "execution."
How does that sound?

Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto · January 25, 2001, 14:09

Actually, if you'll notice that 80% of people on this thread want that damn live-or-die concept gone. And I really think Firaxis will change that, so it is safe to talk about stuff, like flanking attacks, prisoners of war, etc.

January 25, 2001, 21:11

Hummm, I guess we'll see then

Sabre2th · January 25, 2001, 21:41

personally, i like the idea of POWs, as long as it doesn't get too complicated.

Sabre

DarkCloud · January 25, 2001, 23:43

An option while attacking (should) be take prisoners and then it would be worked like the barbarian leader capture for teh exchange... you could determine if you wished to pay for a now "warrior" brand unit, then reequip them for less cost at your bases.

Transcend · January 26, 2001, 11:51

POW is a modern concept. In Ancient times or throughout most of the human history, most men were put to sword and women and children were sold into slavery.

Adm.Naismith · February 1, 2001, 09:47

POW is simply a modern TLA for old "slave" (men where enslaved as many as women where: who do you think that built all that Pyramids?

Of course the CIV/SMAC battle "till the last men" must be changed into a model that manage "surrenders",
e.g. when attacker vs. defender has a force ratio 5/1 outside of a fort, or defending unit is completely surrounded and 3/1 low on force rating, etc.

BTW, we discussed about slavery and POW recently here , more in details here and also here .

I posted on these threads, too, but the relevancy (of course

) is because plenty of good idea come from other posters there.

Just summarizing a lot, I suggested to introduce:

quote:

- Slave/PoW settler, when captured at the end of combat (immigrate/refugee settler into migration model) under control of warder Civ player
- Special Worker Slave/Immigrate (when "assimilated" to a city) into common city screen
- Ability to build Prison camp / Refugee camp by above special settler, instead of City (less management trouble)
- A "runaway unit", very low level infantry or special settler that you can try to recover back to original Civ (PoW) or found a new, separate Civ (Slave)

Thiod doesn't mean all they must be implemented, but a few should without too much micromanagement.

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant
[This message has been edited by Adm.Naismith (edited February 01, 2001).]

BRENNANonTHEmoor · February 2, 2001, 02:09

Just from reading about your comments i thought more about the ending of the war.
Unconditional treaties : which allow you to setup any government you choose in a unconditionally surrendered country. Example they could not construct a military for 200 year and had to pay a annuall fee. I think there should be different treaties to choose from. like Stalemate, Disarmerment, mutual assistance, pact, neutral zone, unconditional, or a specified amount of consecession, cities, money, technology, sphere of influence, or trade embargoes

Krippled · February 4, 2001, 22:11

I reckon there should be POW's once you have built a structure like jails or got a tech.

You can set an option that either allows your men to be captured or to suicide - that way you have the best of both worlds. Or make the attack algorithm not quite so powerful if the attacker is attempting a "capture".

POW's are weaker than normal settler units but give them the ability to perform simple tasks (ie. build road...).

In this way once you have them you have a mass workforce.

Through the Council (as in SMAC) POW's could be bought, or traded - just in case you have some high-level units you want back.