View Full Version : Do non-king and non-heir generals choose the ramson/kill of prisioners by themselves?
danielrech
08-09-2005, 04:29
I've noticed lately that after battles the CPU automatically decides what to do with the prisioners, but I would like to choose that. I remember having that option in my older campaings.
Am I able to choose it only when the general is the king or a heir?
NodachiSam
08-09-2005, 05:16
I think you only decide what to do with captured rebels. For captured faction armies your men ransom them off automatically. The rebels have no-one to pay for them I guess. You can always decide to kill your prisoners before a battle ends though.
danielrech
08-09-2005, 05:34
I think you only decide what to do with captured rebels. For captured faction armies your men ransom them off automatically. The rebels have no-one to pay for them I guess. You can always decide to kill your prisoners before a battle ends though.
Ah yeah, that makes sense :grin:
NodachiSam
08-09-2005, 05:42
You're welcome ~:cheers:
Either kill the prisoners on the battle screen or the computer tries to ransom them, if the faction declines to pay then they die. Unless they're rebels, then I think you get to try to ransom them.
ichi :bow:
bretwalda
08-09-2005, 12:27
Either kill the prisoners on the battle screen or the computer tries to ransom them, if the faction declines to pay then they die. Unless they're rebels, then I think you get to try to ransom them.
ichi :bow:
Actually the captured rebels get their landholdings confiscated which you cash in - thus the money earned.
EatYerGreens
08-09-2005, 20:28
There are times when you DON'T want to hit the 'kill prisoners' button in mid battle, for instance when it is reported that the enemy general, or king, has been killed or captured, since you can expect huge ransom money, as long as the enemy faction can actually afford it.
Beware that the 'enemy king killed' in-battle message can be misleading at times. I've had it appear, gone on to win the battle, only to see the general/king's name on the list of nobles in the ransom page, so it transpires he was only captured.
Excessive killing of prisoners during battles can give your general vices which reduce the morale of the army under his command because he is denying his men their share of the ransom money. You will just have to take this on the chin if the motivation for killing them off is that you don't want to have to fight them a second, or third time.
One way to avoid this is to arrange attacks on the strategic map in such a sequence that multi-stack armies are trapped in a pocket, with no path of retreat back to the main landholdings of their faction. A successful battle against this force will likely yield so many prisoners that the faction won't pay for them, so they are eliminated in bulk and in a way which doesn't give your general the vice.
Killing prisoners also gives you general virtues that contribute to dread.
Procrustes
08-09-2005, 21:35
Killing prisoners gives your general dread the first time, but after that the dread starts to come with moral penalties. I generally try not to do it - I prefer the ransom money when I can get it. (Dread is no good on the battlefield; it's only useful to a gov.)
Prisoner Killer Group: Appears after killing prisoners during a battle.
* Scant Mercy - He has killed prisoners without hesitation when it looked like the battle might go against him. +1 Dread.
* No Mercy - He shows no mercy and has killed many prisoners, but is possibly too eager to do so, which deprives his men of their share of the ransom. +2 Dread, -1 Morale.
* Merciless - He has a reputation for killing prisoners even when there is no danger of losing the battle. His men hate this as a great deal of ransom money has been lost. +2 Dread, -2 Morale.
* Secret Blood Lover - He kills prisoners even when it is not necessary, which causes discontent amongst his men. He indulges his secret passion for blood, personally executing many captives. +3 Dread.
* Blood Lover - It has become known that he kills prisoners for his own pleasure, denying his men their share of any ransom money. +3 Dread, -3 Morale, -2 Piety.
m52nickerson
08-09-2005, 22:01
I've had prisioners killed when the other faction refused to pay the ransome.
One way to avoid this is to arrange attacks on the strategic map in such a sequence that multi-stack armies are trapped in a pocket, with no path of retreat back to the main landholdings of their faction. A successful battle against this force will likely yield so many prisoners that the faction won't pay for them, so they are eliminated in bulk and in a way which doesn't give your general the vice.
If you capture the enemy king and he has no mature heir, they will always pay the ransom, no matter how much in debt they will go. You can bankrupt factions these way.
NodachiSam
08-10-2005, 18:41
If you capture the enemy king and he has no mature heir, they will always pay the ransom, no matter how much in debt they will go. You can bankrupt factions these way.
Interesting... makes sense.
Dutch_guy
08-10-2005, 20:30
If you capture the enemy king and he has no mature heir, they will always pay the ransom, no matter how much in debt they will go. You can bankrupt factions these way.
but then again , do you really want them to have their King back ?
you can also just execute him and then just wipe out the faction when they turn rebel the following turn .
I find that better, especially if it's the king of a large empire.
:balloon2:
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.