View Full Version : Prisoners
Wellside
06-27-2008, 20:49
Hi
Long time lurker.......new poster...really want to know about this:
Sorry if this has been asked or discussed before.......
For some reason, when I play video games I feel obliged to take the path of good or moral high ground.
So for this reason I never execute prisoners after winning a battle. At worst I offer them for ransom, if I feel their army is in the wrong, eg it has attacked me or is invading my land.
A lot of the time though I just release prisoners, meaning I have to fight them again. Often, there is no real advantage in winning a battle if the other side has more surviving prisoners than I have survivors.
My question is this: is their any advantage to releasing prisoners other than good traits and it being "the right thing to do" ?
A way of rewarding a player for releasing prisoners would be to have some of the prisoners joining your side in gratitude. This currently doesn't happen (still playing Vanilla)
Thanks in advance for any replies.
FactionHeir
06-27-2008, 20:55
If you release prisoners, you can get CaptorChivalry line of traits and your global reputation improves a bit in the unmodded game.
Outside of that you don't really get much else. Usually, you just want to offer them up for ransom if you think they may be too big of a threat or you just don't want to spend more time fighting them.
Also note that this applies only if you have at least 80 prisoners. If you have less than 80, you can execute them without getting the CaptorDread line of traits or reducing your global reputation.
Quintus.JC
06-27-2008, 21:18
Mercy is for the weak... The released prisoners will only brew up trouble later on. There is no real advantage in releasing prisoners apart from gaining a few pity traits and a nice reputation which is good for nothing.
By the way welcome to the .org Wellside.
Proserpine
06-27-2008, 21:46
I sometimes release prisoners, especilly if they are poor quality (e.g. peasants and low grade militia) & I want the enemy to have to incur the maintenance cost.
Yaropolk
06-27-2008, 22:23
Another downside to releasing prisoners is that they run to the nearest town owned by their faction, no matter how far they have to walk. If that town was previous empty of a garrison, now it has one.
For example, sometimes you can attack an army standing outside a town, and the town's garrison will come to their aid. You can crush both in the field without a prolongued siege and stroll into the undefended town without a battle. If you were to release your prisoners from the field battle, they'd run into town, and you'd have to siege it.
Welcome aboard Wellside :beam:
Don't underestimate the benefit of high-chivalry generals. They are very valuable for two reasons:
* An army led by a high chivalry general will fight almost to the last man without routing. This is just about the only way to get your men to stand their ground against the dreaded Mongolian generals who will terrify your men into running after the briefest of skirmishes unless they have a chivalrous general to steady their nerves.
* A high chivalrous governor will give any settlement he governs a huge boost to population growth, which I often find is the main factor limiting the development of my settlements, not money. A good high-chiv general in one of your castles can grow it into a citadel in no time, which can give you a big technological advantage. Who cares if you have to fight your released enemies again, if they stand no chance against your high tech soldiers?
Not that releasing prisoners is always the quickest way to gain chivalry, you have to release quite a lot to get much of a chiv bonus. I find the surest way to get a huge amount of chivalry is through succesful crusading, low taxes and using your general a lot in battle (I think this is how you get the BattleChivalry trait, by leading from the front rather than skulking at the back, FactionHeir may well correct me on this). My default position is generally to ransom; executing results in nasty Dread traits which I find less useful, while ransoming I believe results in no Dread/Chiv change regardless of whether the enemy cough up or not.
I always thought it would be nice if releasing prisoners lowered the morale of the enemy in subsequent battles; surely the enemy troops would be more willing to surrender if they could expect good treatment? No idea how I would go about modding this in though.
Welcome to the Org, Wellside! ~:wave:
I sometimes release prisoners, especilly if they are poor quality (e.g. peasants and low grade militia) & I want the enemy to have to incur the maintenance cost.
What he said. :yes: I find putting up troops for ransom is generally the best policy.
Galain_Ironhide
06-28-2008, 07:43
I like to roleplay with my generals. If I have a chivalrous General (or for that matter if I want him to be chivalrous) I will release all prisoners. However if my victorious General is a badass, then its all over for the captured :skull::skull::skull::skull:.
Quintus.JC
06-28-2008, 11:49
All of my Faction leaders got at least +8 Dread in at the end of their reign. It's too easy to gain Dread, high tax rates, exterminating settlements, killing large amount of enemies on battlefield (an act of bravery actually) and of course executing prisoners ect.etc. all have an effect on Dread.
:skull::skull::skull::skull::skull::skull::skull:
I have a tendency to release now, simply because releasing makes for more interesting games. I found it too easy to make dread generals and simply route/executing everything. I found though really, the differences between chiv and dread lie with play style.
If you tend to utilize a ton of militia in your military, especially in the early game before you have access to anything other than peasants or the first level of castle troops, chivalry can be good for those of you who tend to fight sieges out. (The siege autobattle system is so broken casualty wise that I absolutely refuse to let the computer autobattle any sieges; I lose way, way to few men on the offense and you don't get the typical fight to death at the city square that you usually end up with at least a few units, even if attempting a rush or using heavy archery to decimate the center)
Wall-taking is particularly difficult without a chivalrous general as your units coming off of ladders or siege towers (more ladders though) have a tendency to lose men rapid, not to mention the boost that essentially makes troops on walls one level higher than they actually are (ie armored Sergeant are a match for DFKs during wall engagements).
Also very use to allow tired troops who have just run through the enemy city toward the city square to continue fighting, even under harsh conditions.
A dread general in a city battle fights very differently, a dread general's role is to attempt to route the enemy as fast as humanly possible, this usually involves flooding one to three choke points (usually breaches) with as many high-value shock troops as possible to break the enemy. The goal is to then to either 1) force all units to route for an instant victory or 2) capture as many units as possible while preparing for the inevitable battle at the city center.
A chivalrous general however tends to be better if you prefer to take the fight to the enemy walls using ladders and towers, can still mop up significant numbers of enemy troops after poping the gate, and units will still fight hard even when they are winded/tired and reach the city square. arguably chivalrous generals are not needed with higher-quality troops like DFKs, who will most of the time stand on their own without help, but it can really help give militia the little extra edge you need to storm heavily defended settlements with nothing but ladders, towers and rams in the early game.
When fighting against armies many times more mobile than yourself with first strike (ie archer heavy armies on a hill, or horse archer military forces) high chivalry can be invaluable if you don't have the appropriate counters readily available (ie not enough or good enough archers to counter large numbers of HAs), and allow your troops to endure and bring the fight back to them without breaking (heavy troop armies vs. light troop armies, ie HA's vs. regular cavalry, once you pin them, you win, it's simply a matter of moral surviving long enough to force the melee. Dread generals are fairly desperate to engage quickly, and may need to use interest edge-battlefield tactics in order to quickly counter and route their faster opponents, chivalry generals have the luxury of simply riding through the arrow hail and still killing the enemy, making the battle a bit easier and not necessarily so reliant on gimmicky terrain or specific AI exploits). Because moral plays such a large role in this game, very high chivalrous generals should not underestimated. Units will stand shock moves (Cavalry charges, etc.) much better, and high-moral units with high chiv generals will even fight to the last man without routing almost regardless of what they are hit by.
Ultimately it depends on player style, mobile, flanking armies designed to use hammer and anvil techniques by outmaneuvering the enemy with troops tend to lend more toward dread style generals. Chiv generals tend to be better for things like heavy infantry armies (a relic of RTW, I know), where the troops will be able to take charges from the front, sides and even back, and continue the fight.
If you are looking to fight a war of attrition (like heavy infantry armies), chivalrous generals will almost always be better, as if inferior troops loose their shock advantage, they tend to get cut to ribbons. The key to winning a fight as a chivalrous general is to lure your dread enemy into the position he thinks he can route you from, then pin his troops and grind them down with your forces. Once unable to use shock weapons like charges, Cavalry will get cut to pieces by either spears, two handers or even sword bearing heavy infantry. Stopping a dread general's shock weapons (like charges) with your own Cavalry [break a heavy charge by running your cavalry around, so a formed charge can't be made, then turn around and simply engage them in h2h sword combat] then simply grinding out it with him will provide chiv generals with a win, as his forces will invariably break first, assuming everything is equal.
However, generally speaking, chivalrous tactics will earn you higher casualties, which probably isn't very good for your elite troops, but it's perfect for clearing out the still-effective but somewhat outdated yesteryear troops.
Also, if you have a tendency to want to sacrifice valueless troops (like spear militia in a DFK stack) as your front-line pinning force while you attempt to do hammer and anvil tactics with flanking Cavalry, calling in the reserve heavy infantry only for either assault sieges (Where they really really shine) or against particularly tough infantry units chiv generals allow you to use fewer and weaker units to give you the same time elites would to set up for devastating multi-side attacks without fear that your front will break and open you up to disaster.
I find full elite armies more useful with dread generals, since well trained units tend to have higher kill rates, less deaths (and higher moral, which makes them significantly less prone to breaking), and more useful in shock + awe (aka mass route) styles. Elite armies can use frontal shock tactics (frontal charges), and usually don't require much set-up time. I'd go as far to say that Elite front line units are a must for dread generals, otherwise your center line can break and enemy forces may turn and form to meet your cavalry before you have a chance to run down the side.
Ultimately your play style will determine if you want to be chivalry or dread. I could only really ever thing of one thing to do as dread, inflict as much moral damage as possible and force a route asap, capture and kill as many as possible.
For chivalry you have two options: attrition and breaking. You can either lure the enemy into your forces, bog them down (especially important for cavalry), then simply eat them in a man-on-man war of attrition.
However, you still have the option of holding a center line and doing serious moral damage from standard flank, hammer + anvil tactics.
In fact, lone Cavalry units under a chivalrous general caught flat footed out in the open by faster Cavalry or hidden spear men are much less likely to break under a chiv general after taking a small but rapid amount of losses from the initial charge.
All that said, dread generals still tend to win fights with the least number of casualties on both sides (they tend to take tons of prisoners, resulting in very few actual battlefield casualties on both sides; what happens to the prisons after the battle is another story), limiting the time of engagement limits your own troop attrition, and tends to make for quicker play, which is valued by many who have limited time. Also, human intuition and rapid-response being what it is VS an AI, is often quite effective against an AI that cannot respond in time, and sometimes even effectively at all. Many people favor dread due to the expedience as well as significant 'human advantage factor'.
If quick and decisive is the motive you play by, and you like to run gambits against a computer who cannot either adopt nor resist, then dread is the way to go.
If your the type of person that likes to be prepared for anything, even a few surprises and carry on, chivalry is the way to go.
By the way, if you intend to use the M2TW diplomacy system at all for alliances, etc. You'll need to have a good reputation. If you enjoy unpredictable boarders with enemies at every corner, then play dread, and be ready for multiple war declarations. If you want a pretty secure back-land and fairly reliable allies, then play chivalry. You'll be able to project your might in a few select directions, allowing for rapid and utter annihilation, while knowing your back is secure.
Wellside
06-28-2008, 21:00
Many thanks for all the replies and welcomes to the org :2thumbsup:
Eikon the Magistrate
07-08-2008, 19:32
A pity indeed that you cannot choose to slay your captives before the battle is over...t'was oft a tactic used by me in MTW1 when it was clear a battle was lost... nice sound fx too (ahh!!! plz no!!...((squishing noise)) all that stuff) :laugh4:
and...Welcome to the ORG Wellside
ByzanKing
07-08-2008, 19:59
I am in the same boat as you Wellside, I always feel the moral need to release or ransom the prisoners my army has captured. Luckily I guess 3/4 of the time my enemy will not ransom so they are put to the sword anyway. Again, welcome to the Org. :medievalcheers:
No question with me I execute/sacrifice all prisoners.
Kill em all let god sort em out.
Old Geezer
07-10-2008, 17:41
Catch and release. So you can have more fun later on!
LOL like fishing, mebbe you'll hang into a bigun that is worth hanging on the wall.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.