Prisoners

[Wellside]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[PBI]

Welcome aboard Wellside

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.

[Martok]

Welcome to the Org, Wellside!

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. I find putting up troops for ransom is generally the best policy.

[Galain_Ironhide]

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 .

[Eikon the Magistrate]

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)

and...Welcome to the ORG Wellside

[ByzanKing]

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.

[Enron]

No question with me I execute/sacrifice all prisoners.

Kill em all let god sort em out.

[Old Geezer]

Catch and release. So you can have more fun later on!

[Enron]

LOL like fishing, mebbe you'll hang into a bigun that is worth hanging on the wall.