Capturing Units

[UltraSonix]

Here's another blatant rip, mentioned in passing by Alexander's Horse, but I thought it was a good idea:

quote: ...the loser's retreat is blocked by zones of control, therefore the stack is encircled and must surrender.

Basically, I envisage the capturing/surrendering works like this:

*A unit (or maybe it has to be a STACK of units) is attacked.

*The unit must have no where to move to due to zone of control of the attacker - ie if 2 different civs were surrounding the defender, then it'll never surrender

*And if the unit then loses the battle with the attacking unit, then there is a chance that the unit will join the attacker's side with 1 hit point, otherwise the unit simply dies. The chance of the unit joining depends on how many units it's surrounded by, the power of the other civ, the relative strength of the attacking unit, the veteran-ness of the unit, etc

All this can be done in the background, so it won't be any micromanagement - if you're lucky, then the game'll simply announce that you've captured a unit.


------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

[Deathwalker]

I think this is a good idea, especially as I support the stacking of units in an army, I also think that when defeated, depending on size some units could defect. Also maybe the idea to surrender could be included.

------------------
I have walked since the dawn of time and were ever I walk, death is sure to follow

I agree with you, admiral. Surrendering units don't join the enemy's army.
If an encircled unit (or army) is down at half strength I'd suggest it surrenders and they become POW.
If Civ3 has a concept of Slavery, the attacker gets a "slave settler" or something like this (as you mentioned), in modern eras making POWs means a one-time production-boost for any city of the attacker (Russian Industry after WWII profited from German POWs some years then they had to send them back, they didn't become part of the russian population)

[UltraSonix]

quote: Surrendering units don't join the enemy's army.

A very good point, and maybe to solve this problem, the attacker has the option of disbanding any of the attacker's units so that he can gain control of the defender's unit (with the final unit having 50% hit points). What this represents is that the defender's troops has been removed (I think it's too much micromanagement to have POWs), and that YOUR troops have taken over the EQUIPMENT that you've had surrendered to you.

Notes:
*a unit rarely surrenders, see my orig post.
*maybe if a unit surrenders, you can have a chance of gaining the ability to build the unit (if it isn't too far beyond you). Remember, everytime a tank was downed in WW2, their own crews made sure it was destroyed so the enemy couldn't study it.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

I've been thinking about this sort of thing as well... and I think that having units surrender and become part of the enemy is a little silly. It would never happen because they would never do it, and no general would run that kind of a risk.

I do, however, think that the ability to capture units such as landed aircraft, tanks, siege weapons, and artillery should be possible. The success rate should be extremely small because as UltraSonix said they often destroyed their weapons before capture. The only time when they really got a whole bunch of toys en mass was when the conquered another country.

Now, when Infantry and Cavalry are captured, they should become POWs. POWs would be just a figure, it would have no real existance on the board. Its purpose would just be for diplomatic leverage.

If a player has Democracy, the Senate will definitely sign a treaty gaining back the POWs. Also, it prevents a player from making extravagant demands to an AI because they AI will just refuse to sign a cease fire or treaty. If the player has POWs of their own, the AI will be much more willing to make peace. They will be increasingly insistant on treaties depending on how many POWs the player has. When a treaty is signed, the POW figure returns to 0.

[Adm.Naismith]

Hmm, surrending units usually (in history) become Prisoner of War (POW for short), they don't join the attacker at all. Of course, surrending army was common and should be implemented in CIV 3 instead of "massacre like" battle.

I remember an old thread related to slavery, when was suggested to:
1) change a surrended unit into a new special POW/slave citizen on nearest (winner) city
On the line of entertainer, scientist and taxmen, it will add production at the expense of... , e.g. more unhappiness.
You can then release the POWs via diplomatic agreement (like free the slaves via political/social advances).

2) change the surrended unit into an unarmed unit (settler like) you can control (if stacked with a military unit of yours). Now you can use them to enhance terrain, build road etc., join your city (adding a POWs "specialist") or found a new city (unhappy, of course) as a kind of forced migration.

If you miss to control the prisoner (stacking with military unit) they'll flee back on original civ. If you leave your "prisoner town" without a militar control, they'll revolt to join original civ.

Of course you can chose to take no prisoner, but that will be an atrocity (massacre).

I think that this concept, enhanced with any smart suggestion players usually do here on Apolyton, can be implemented with minor tweak to CIV 2 game model.

[Adm.Naismith]

Bump - just helping finding reference for slavery thread

[Taurus]

Well, I think that surrendering in a great idea, only that an army the surrendered really does not become your army to control.

The best option, I think, is to make them into your settlers (think of scenario when a countrie captures some enemy troops. They can send them to some uninhabittad (sp?) region, and settle them there and after a few years, this settlement will become a city).

Comments?

------------------
Proud member of the state of Israel.

[Mo]

quote: Originally posted by UltraSonix on 09-19-2000 09:51 PM *The unit must have no where to move to due to zone of control of the attacker - ie if 2 different civs were surrounding the defender, then it'll never surrender

I think this should depend on the relations of the attacked civ to the civ which cuts off the escape route of the attacked. If the civ which is cutting off the escape route is allied with the attacking civ against the attacked the unit should obviously surrender. It should probably surrender in all cases except for if the unit cutting off the escape route is neutral or friendly.

Concerning POWs I think it might be too much micromanagment to have them represented as units how about just having them as a number of how many you have and you can use them in diplomatic negotiations or just set them free. They should then require either a bit of food or some gold each turn to provide for them. Unhappiness should grow over the whole country if you don't try to get your prisoners of war released.

[Nikolai]

quote: Originally posted by Mo on 12-26-2000 08:12 PM Unhappiness should grow over the whole country if you don't try to get your prisoners of war released.

I don't think it should be like that every time, because if the kosovo-albanians took some serbians as POWs, I hardly think they would like to free them!
I think they rather would torture them....!

------------------
Who am I? What am I? Do we need Civ? Yes!!
birteaw@online.no

[Mo]

Sorry if you misunderstood it, but I meant that your happiness decreases if you don't try to get POWs which where formerly your units released from the enemy civ once the conflict/war is over.

[hHydro]

Hmm.. I don't know if I can think of a practical use for POWs in a Civ2/SMAC-like game.

If Civ3 used 'feats of wonder' like in CTP2, or similar 'limited-time bonuses' then capturing a POW unit could provide the nearest base with x amount of production for a few turns, and rescuing your pow's, or negotiating for their return could award your civ with extra happiness for x amount of turns... etc.

Other than that, managing POWs as units would just be more micromanagement. Neat idea, but maybe not practical to implement?

Final idea; If retreat option is available for all units, as in CTP2, then isn't it enough just to be able to restrict the retreat function if you have the enemy surrounded with your Z.O.C?

Wow. that's a lot of ctp2 comparisons considering that I didn't like the game..
[This message has been edited by hHydro (edited December 27, 2000).]

[Vrank Prins]

I've mentioned this before in another thread, in COLONIZATION you can capture units, whether they're civilian or military units. So it's not that much of a CTP-thing after-all. Brian Reynolds of Microprose has worked on this before and Sid just must have looked over Brians shoulder when he was working on it. I would like it if Firaxis should introduce this feature into the game.

quote: Originally posted by wernazuma on 09-20-2000 01:36 PM If an encircled unit (or army) is down at half strength I'd suggest it surrenders and they become POW.

Okay !

quote: If Civ3 has a concept of Slavery, the attacker gets a "slave settler" or something like this (as you mentioned).

That's what happened up to the early middle-ages in Europe and in battles between christian and islamic nations up to the 18th century.

quote: in modern eras making POWs means a one-time production-boost for any city of the attacker (Russian Industry after WWII profited from German POWs some years then they had to send them back, they didn't become part of the russian population)

And so did english and french agriculture and industry, though conditions in these countries were far better for POW's because both Germany, France and G.Britain had signed the Genevan (& the Hague-(!))treaty* on POW's.
If units are captured very far from "home", on another continent there might be the need for concentrationcamps** before they can be shipped to the homeland.

* All this is also a demand for a Law of War-extension of the diplomacymodel.
** a phenomenon being introduced by the British during the Boerwar early 20th century. (boer (=dutch) means farmer)
[This message has been edited by Vrank Prins (edited January 04, 2001).]