Prisoners retained when a battle is lost?

[NodachiSam]

Does anyone know whether you keep any prisoners you've taken when you loose a battle? To futher clarify, I mean when you were winning a battle and taking prisoners and the tide of the battle turned and you lost it, do the prisoners you've taken remain in your custody?

The reason I ask is I once recently invaded and was defending northern irelandwith the picts with about 1200 soldiers against maybe 2000-3000 or so. I lost about 900 and killed about 900 but I also took 1000 prisoners before the fight ended. Finally the re-enforcements beat me because I guess, I left my half of the map and spread myself really thin, plus my troops were exhausted. I can't remember whether I could ransome the prisoners or not.

[IrishMike]

While I don't directly know the answer, mostly due to executing the prisoners immediately, the manual says something about them being released and goinging on to fight against you. Don't know if thats trustworthy or not.

[Del Arroyo]

If you lose the battle, and you don't kill your prisoners, they will automatically rejoin their former units after the battle.

You may notice this yourself, when after a battle where you had some units rout, those units are magically at a higher strength on the stratmap than they were at the conclusion of the fight.

But if they AI kills its prisoners upon losing (as it often does) then no such mercy.

DA

[Shambles]

If you lose the battle, and you don't kill your prisoners, they will automatically rejoin their former units after the battle.

You may notice this yourself, when after a battle where you had some units rout, those units are magically at a higher strength on the stratmap than they were at the conclusion of the fight.

But if they AI kills its prisoners upon losing (as it often does) then no such mercy.

DA


I always Murder My prizoners in droves, Untill the Enemy begins to rout,
Seems to reduce there morrale,
And makes others frightend of my generals,

But then Again i always Execute ALL rebels as well.

[Ludens]

I always Murder My prizoners in droves, Untill the Enemy begins to rout,
Seems to reduce there morrale,
And makes others frightend of my generals,
Killing prisoners has no battlefield effect as far as I know, but it does give your general a "bloodthirsty" vice that increases dread but lowers the morale of your own troops (because they won't get a ransom). Dread has no effect whatsoever on the battlefield.

I tend not to kill prisoners because I like to role-play. Also, I often need the cash. Enemies of my faith or Mongols are excepted from this rule, however.

[Budwise]

Yeah, if I start to flee, the first button I click is the kill prisoners one.

I rarely kill my Prisoners unless I am super rich and they have more numbers in their armies than I. They fought with honor and honestly, I agree with the treaty in todays society on how to treat prisoners. I however, will not risk my kingdom on an idea. As far as Rebellions; Rebel against them, all goes home - Rebel against me, all must die.

[Del Arroyo]

I tend to kill prisoners if there are either a very large number of them, or if some high-quality, scary troops (or generals or heirs) were among the taken. There are some strategic situations in which I will kill any and all prisoners taken during battles, such as fighting a larger opponent with higher quality troops and the cash to buy them back.

DA

[NodachiSam]

Darn, live and learn I guess. Thanks for the responses.

Budwise: I have the same philosophy, when I invade them its not their fault, but if they try to deny my authority, no mercy! :charge:

[Procrustes]

I try not to let a general kill prisoners more than once because the moral penalties his troops get can be enough to make him worthless. (First time only gives him a dread star.) Besides, I like the money.

I'll often kill prisoners if my general starts to flee as chances are he is going to get some bad vice and won't be worth much anyways.

[Shambles]

I try not to let a general kill prisoners more than once because the moral penalties his troops get can be enough to make him worthless. (First time only gives him a dread star.) Besides, I like the money.

I'll often kill prisoners if my general starts to flee as chances are he is going to get some bad vice and won't be worth much anyways.


my men dont seem to mind,
as i said I usualy kill Untill the enemy begins to rout,
And then i stop killing prizoners,
Sending some horses after the ones who are running away usualy gets even more prizoners,

And those get ransomed back,.
Dosent seem to affect the morrale of my men,
And im prety shure that Killing prizoners does make the enemy loose morrale as they tend to flee much faster when i do.

where as if i dont kill the prizsoners They dont want to flee untill i actualy kill a few.

But thats just my observation, Was in VI on expert as welsh,
(bout the only campaign ive played in a while)

ShambleS

[EatYerGreens]

It would make life interesting if there was an element of post-battle "prisoner exchange" whereby, if you'd captured 1000 men but lost and they'd only captured 300 of yours, then you get all your men back, for free, by means of exchange but they get all theirs back free too, because they won and this is 'victor's rights'.

However, I believe the principle of it is that your men can't rout off the field and guard captives (ie make them flee as well) simultaneously, so they are deemed to have escaped your clutches as soon as your own men run. Therefore, prisoner exchange is not an option. They get all their men back and you must pay for yours.

Basically, if you've lost, you may as well hit the button, so you don't have to face them again. They will be able to attack again the following turn, whilst your returned captives can't be commanded until the year after next and frequently get returned to a province other than the one from which they headed into battle, forcing you to make some hasty troop moves to set up a defence.

[English assassin]

I sometimes kill them, especially if its the second or third year of fighting against that faction and I'm getting sick of capturing loads of rubbish troops only to have to do it all again against the same little men next year. I take the view, paraphrasing Oscar Wilde, that to be captured in one routing army is a misfortune, to be captured twice begins to look like carelessness, (and therefore deserves death, not that Oscar said that bit).

Also if I get more than 1000 I kill them for the Butcher vice. Just cos I like it.

[DensterNY]

I'm sorry that I've never run this experiment to determine the answer for myself but if you're taking prisoners during your battles then its fair to assume that so is your opponent. Therefore when you rout your enemy and win the battle do you also get a bunch of troops that were taken out of combat but not killed back?

I'm not talking about when you lose and you have the option of getting guys ransomed back but when you win since they've likely captured guys along the way.

[Vladimir]

Playing "balance of power" style I enjoy declaring war on rubbish hordes just to hopefully get butcher and scant mercy :devil: . The more "virtues" your generals have the fewer the vices. This is especially important with heirs. Another good use for the pope is heir grooming ~D , although all that dread can have an effect on the little children :dizzy2: .

[Weebeast]

I don't know the right answer about the captured soldiers but they don't get their troops back if you execute them on the field. You know what? I'm gonna find out.

I kill royal POW's obviously. I'm just fascinated with seeing a huge faction falls apart when I cut the head off. I release enemy peasants but I kill their good soldiers otherwise I'll be fighting them again. Sometimes I release them just to make their ruler become broke. I can't really tell when they're broke but they will be if you consistently do that.

I release provincial rebels because they're my people who just happen to be misinformed about the good intention of their mighty ruler, which is me. I build a province just for them. I protect them from those false teachings of Mohammed or Jesus (depending on what faction I play).

[Knight Templar]

Also if I get more than 1000 I kill them for the Butcher vice. Just cos I like it.

Me to, cos I think it's dangerous to leave an opponent his army of 1000 men if AI chooses to ransom. Also, I always execute prisoners if they belong to faction which used to be my ally and then betrayed me.

[Procrustes]

my men dont seem to mind,
as i said I usualy kill Untill the enemy begins to rout,
And then i stop killing prizoners,
Sending some horses after the ones who are running away usualy gets even more prizoners,

And those get ransomed back,.
Dosent seem to affect the morrale of my men,
And im prety shure that Killing prizoners does make the enemy loose morrale as they tend to flee much faster when i do.

where as if i dont kill the prizsoners They dont want to flee untill i actualy kill a few.

But thats just my observation, Was in VI on expert as welsh,
(bout the only campaign ive played in a while)

ShambleS

Hi,

Watch the vices that your general earns after the battle. The first time he kills his prisoners gets the "scant mercy" vice, then "no mercy", "merciless", and eventually "blood lover". The dread can be handy if he's a gov, but I find the moral penalties can hurt - especially early in the game when you have a lot of low-quality troops. AFAIK, it makes no difference whether you kill the prisoners throughout the battle or wait until the end - still counts as one.

BTW, in order to get the "butcher" vice I believe you have to kill 1000 prisoners all at once - if you kill 1000 in dribs and drabs then it don't count.

* 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.

Best,

[Ludens]

I'm sorry that I've never run this experiment to determine the answer for myself but if you're taking prisoners during your battles then its fair to assume that so is your opponent. Therefore when you rout your enemy and win the battle do you also get a bunch of troops that were taken out of combat but not killed back?
Prisoners are only taken from routing units: if a routing soldier is taken down by a melee-attack, he will be captured. So the scenario you describe only applies when you win the battle but some of your units routed during melee and/or where pursued. Routing soldiers taken down by missile weapons will simply die (for obvious reasons).

[English assassin]

BTW, in order to get the "butcher" vice I believe you have to kill 1000 prisoners all at once - if you kill 1000 in dribs and drabs then it don't count

This is right.

[Ciaran]

Has it ever happened to you that a faction didn´t ransom back its king? I never thought that could happen, but just today it did, the English didn´t want their King John IV back. Too bad, kings make for huge ransoms.

[NodachiSam]

Has it ever happened to you that a faction didn´t ransom back its king? I never thought that could happen, but just today it did, the English didn´t want their King John IV back. Too bad, kings make for huge ransoms.
I wonder what determines it, perhaps if they have a negative cashflow are in in debt. Its possible the king's influence also comes into play.

[metatron]

The cash is usually too little to be of any real importance, and I'd rather not let a whole army just rejoin the enemy who I'm at war with.

If you're on campaign against the enemy, execute all their men on the field. You'll notice their offensives have halted, their defenses lacking, and you general suddenly alot better at lording over your newly conquered subjects.

[Ludens]

Has it ever happened to you that a faction didn´t ransom back its king? I never thought that could happen, but just today it did, the English didn´t want their King John IV back. Too bad, kings make for huge ransoms.
They don't when they cannot afford it and there is a mature heir. However, if there is no heir, they will ransom their king no matter how much they will go in debt.

[Ciaran]

The cash is usually too little to be of any real importance ...
I wouldn´t say that, they yield around some 5,000 and if you´re indebted with about 2000 with no obvius way out of that, then it´s really helpful. And sadly, this situation is usually one I find myself in.

[antisocialmunky]

I usually never get below 600. But then again, I'm pretty conservative after the intial blitz.