A bit worried about PoW. [Archive]

Dragon20

01-24-2006, 18:32

After reading some previews I noticed they don't say anything about prisoners of war. In medieval time making prisoners and ransoming was very important. Now I hope I missed something because I start to get a bit worried.:help:

Making enemy generals and kings prisoner and then ransom them was one of my favorite things to do in MTW1, what do you people think about it?

King Noob the Stupid

01-24-2006, 18:33

I also hope they'll put it in again, if not the game will really miss something...

Templar Knight

01-24-2006, 18:35

I hope they add dungeons so you can hold prisoners for longer and torture them :2thumbsup:

King Noob the Stupid

01-24-2006, 18:38

Hambut_bulge

01-24-2006, 18:44

I hope they add dungeons so you can hold prisoners for longer and torture them :2thumbsup:

That's a good idea. Not the torture bit, but the idea that you could hold an important prisoner indefinitely. Should work wonders for causing instability in the 'guests' home country if they happen to be the King!

Leet Eriksson

01-24-2006, 18:56

Indeed, i hope you have the ability to end the captured prisoners life too, especially if he was an heirless king.

Scoundrel

01-24-2006, 19:04

It would not be worthy sequel without taking prisoners.

...Well, at least it would be better with them.

Rodion Romanovich

01-24-2006, 19:40

I agree. Prisoners for ransom or killing is a necessary element of MTW2. I'd like to choose between "ransom all", "ransom nobles" or "kill all" after fighting a battle...

Dooz

01-25-2006, 00:07

Perplexed

01-25-2006, 00:57

I hope they add dungeons so you can hold prisoners for longer and torture them :2thumbsup:

How nice. :inquisitive:

Kraxis

01-25-2006, 04:12

I'm almost positive I read somewhere about the game, either a game site or official site, that mentioned prisoners and ransoms. Can't remember where exactly to post link, but I'm sure it will come up.
Yup! Read that too...

When somebody was excited about this 'new' feature in another thread he was told rather fast that in fact it was on old feature of MTW.

Dragon20

01-25-2006, 11:55

Ah thanks, that is good news. ~:)

And lol about torture. But it would be nice if you could torture that stupid king you finally crushed. Who refused to become your vassal for 20 years, and even made the pope excommunicate you. :furious3:

But I don't think that would be in the game, I won't miss it either.

A.Saturnus

01-25-2006, 20:09

Let's not forget enslavement as an option for the Muslim general.

Templar Knight

01-25-2006, 21:26

Whats wrong with a bit of torture? It could be used to get info about your rivals

Doug-Thompson

01-25-2006, 21:42

I play Muslims. Forget the dungeon. Let's have a harem.

:2thumbsup:

King Henry V

01-25-2006, 22:03

You must have had many "Perveted" kings, Doug...:inquisitive:
Maybe after a paticularly long spell in prison the enemy king could come round to your way of thinking, à la King David II of Scots?

The_Doctor

01-25-2006, 22:26

I hope they add dungeons so you can hold prisoners for longer and torture them

I wonder if you can build one in Cuba.:sombrero:

King Henry V

01-25-2006, 22:29

Treat your enemy King to a lovely holiday in the sun, by the sea...behind 20 foot walls and packs of hungry dogs...ah, luxury.

boastj

01-25-2006, 22:52

What’s a harem is it more evil than a dungeon torture chamber

Doug-Thompson

01-25-2006, 23:57

What’s a harem is it more evil than a dungeon torture chamber

A harem is a women's "dormatory" where the Sultan can go and make love with any, or as many, of the women he has kept there. It's a very practical way of improving the odds that the Sultan can produce a male heir.

No other men are allowed — not even enemy kings — unless they're eunuchs. This is to ensure that any children produced are the Sultan's.

And no, I did not intend to take prisoner kings there, but that should be allowed as a game option for players who are so inclined.

I suppose a torture chamber could render the enemy kings into eunuchs. They you could see them in the harem.

Anyway, if the harem option is provided, MTW 2 will become the first in the series with an AO rating.

Zain

01-26-2006, 00:10

Yeah, the should put in animations of Kings whose heirs don't want to pay being tortured to death, in some of my MTW campaigns 5 kings died in my dungeon during the rule of a single king of mine :skull:

There are no Dungeon's in MTW, are there? If so, let me know how, cuz I haven't...

-ZainDustin

King Noob the Stupid

01-26-2006, 00:15

Well there's a picture of something like a dungeon on top of the message that tells you that your enemy didn't pay for the soldiers you caught, and AFAIR in the text it reads that "you don't need to worry abpout the prisoners any more" and after this if you had caught a king another message popped up telling you that the poor guy had been caught and killed and that is hear would now lead $enemy_faction.

Zain

01-26-2006, 00:16

sapi

01-26-2006, 01:58

Great! They're back! It is so much better to capture troops than to just kill them while they were running....

Maybe a breakout could be avaliable - because in mtw the troops just disappeared; maybe in #2 each unit can only take a certain number and have to escort them back to the general, and if the unit is killed the enemies are free!

^^might be a bit complex...

Trajanus

01-26-2006, 08:15

I think that will be a little too complex.

I'm just glad they put the feature back in because I really missed it in RTW.

Hopefully they can update and improve it slightly aswell to make things a little more exciting with slavery etc.

Also for the ransoming of troops/ nobles/ royals back to factions I would like to make it more diplomatic than an event and actually set a price not just find out that your general has ransomed the enemy King back for x amaount of florins.

Zatoichi

01-26-2006, 08:59

I suppose a torture chamber could render the enemy kings into eunuchs. They you could see them in the harem.

Now that's what I call torture!

Ahem.

Anyway, I think that an added layer of complexity to the MTW model wouldn't be such a bad thing. Slavery and prisoner exchanges spring to mind.

Also, I'd like to see a return to the way that routing troops behave in MTW - they could still fight back, and you could lose troops to them unlike in RTW where their self-preservation instincts were reduced somewhat. This makes taking prisoners a slightly more expensive affair if you factor in troop retraining.

Trajanus

01-26-2006, 09:02

Definately. Running away is one thing and if you are set on running away you got for it. But this doesn't mean that if some guy is chasing you you don't fight him if he catches up an attacks you.

Routing units that cross paths with attacking units should still put up some resistance not just get caught or killed.

Martok

01-26-2006, 09:55

Routing units that cross paths with attacking units should still put up some resistance not just get caught or killed.

I disagree. If I'm fleeing a battle and are being run down by a bunch of mounted soldiers, I just don't see myself suddenly deciding to turn and fight them. I think during that time period, you realize that speed is probably your best (and often only) real option for survival.

The only exception I could understand would be royals. If a king and/or prince were fleeing the field, I admit I could see their surviving royal knights possibly trying to put up a desperate rearguard action so that their prince/king could get away safely and thus avoid capture. Aside from this, however, I don't think routing units should be able to do any damage to "chasers", as they would be too busy concentrating on simply fleeing for their lives (and rightly so!).

Trajanus

01-26-2006, 10:11

By crossing paths I don't mean chasing.

If routing units are running forwards and run into the flank of enemy units I think they should at least as a "pasing act of anger" take a swing at them as they run past.

However I do agree that when being chased down from behind that they should offer no resistance.

Kraxis

01-26-2006, 14:26

A little resistance would be nice, if only to make certain that routers aren't butchered as easily as they are in RTW.
But I would prefer for them to have a defensive capability. Meaning they might not kill much/anything but they aren't targetpractice either. In MTW the routers were pretty much screwed, but they at least had a chance, while in RTW any router is basically dead.

Realistic or not, that is something we can discuss until the world freezes over once more, but in terms of gameplay I think it would increase quite a lot. You would be forced to chase the enemy off the map or risk him rallying. Now you chase for a few seconds then the enemy is depleted enough to never rally.

caio giulio

01-26-2006, 14:50

I agree. Prisoners for ransom or killing is a necessary element of MTW2. I'd like to choose between "ransom all", "ransom nobles" or "kill all" after fighting a battle...

I want also "free soldiers" so I can free the poor paesant and non noble soldiers and kill/ransom all the nobles!!!

Doug-Thompson

01-26-2006, 14:50

Re: Routers and resistance.

People who have decided to flee for their lives drop heavy, clumbersome things like shields, sword and spears. This is especially true if they are already exhausted.

Beyond that, a formation that lost it's cohesion is, literally, in an "every man for himself" situation and unable to fight effectively.

Units are fast in R:TW. Personally, I had an easier time catching all the routers in M:TW, mainly because I spent a time and attention working out methods. I'd have a unit or two of Saharan cavalry or such just for that purpose.

Rodion Romanovich

01-26-2006, 15:01

I want also "free soldiers" so I can free the poor paesant and non noble soldiers and kill/ransom all the nobles!!!

yeah, I meant that too ~:) of course it should be possible to let them go. Killing nobles and releasing peasants however sounds like an interesting idea I hadn't thought of...

Kraxis

01-26-2006, 17:08

Units are fast in R:TW. Personally, I had an easier time catching all the routers in M:TW, mainly because I spent a time and attention working out methods. I'd have a unit or two of Saharan cavalry or such just for that purpose.
Agreed, but only in smaller battles.

When it was bigger battles where the enemy would have reinforcements the routers generally got well enough away (not that they all survived, not even close). But I must say that I have never in MTW managed to crush 2000 enemies down to 30. That is not even hard in RTW if you get the chance.

Ludens

01-27-2006, 21:08

A little resistance would be nice, if only to make certain that routers aren't butchered as easily as they are in RTW.
But I would prefer for them to have a defensive capability. Meaning they might not kill much/anything but they aren't targetpractice either. In MTW the routers were pretty much screwed, but they at least had a chance, while in RTW any router is basically dead.
Agreed. The "fighting to the death" stance in R:TW was a step in the right direction, but what I would like to see is individual soldiers that keep on fighting for the simple reason running would mean a sword in their back.

Orda Khan

01-28-2006, 03:16

A 'press them into service' option would be nice

.......Orda

x-dANGEr

01-29-2006, 12:16

Agreed. The "fighting to the death" stance in R:TW was a step in the right direction, but what I would like to see is individual soldiers that keep on fighting for the simple reason running would mean a sword in their back.
If such thing would be implented, they all will just fight. As said eariler, every router is dead..

Ludens

01-29-2006, 21:41

If such thing would be implented, they all will just fight. As said eariler, every router is dead..
Perhaps I should clarify further: a soldiers should not run away if there no space to do so, or if his opponent is ready to strike. In R:TW all soldierw turn their back en masse on the opponent, exposing themselves to the blades while their exit path blocked by the back ranks of their units. I have seen units lose dozens of men in the first second following a rout, albeit this was in patch 1.2. I'd like to see this gone.

So I propose that individual soldiers would not run immediatly when in close combat.