|
Author
|
|
Topic: Surender! |  |
|
Talon438
Settler
Aug 2000
|
 |
posted August 14, 2000 23:17
  | 
 |
 |  |
Why Not?
Noncombat units should surender when attacked by enemys. You should then get a bonus of gold, like from the barberian leaders in Civ2. It is dumb that a setler wound just die. I mean really if you were some guy with a shovel and you were approached by nine tanks what would you do? this would make setlers a bigger target. |
DarthVeda
Emperor
Flatulence 2001: Join the movement!
b.02-15-99
|
 |
posted August 15, 2000 01:42
   |
|
| |
Well a unit that surrenders doesn't always make for an instant conversion... Iraqi soldiers in Desert storm didn't turn around and fight for the U.S. did they?If they introduce surrender, they would have to introduce Morale, etc.--which seems impossible since the game is 2-3 months from going gold. |
Grumbold
Warlord
London, UK
Mar 2000
|
|
posted August 15, 2000 06:19
|
|
| |
While I can understand a bunch of settlers or diplomats surrendering to a military unit the capturing nation doesn't really gain much by it. In ancient times they would be a few more slaves or sacraficial victims, in more enlightened days just P.O.W's to feed. |
Big Dave
Prince
Texas, USA
Apr 99
|
 |
posted August 15, 2000 15:10
|
|
| |
Actually, even as late as the Napoleonic Wars prisonors were ransomed. So a captured settler might be worth 25 or 50 gold and so forth for different units. The captured unit's player would get a dialog asking if he wanted to pay the ransom. The unit would be returned to the player's capitol or destroyed depending on the answer the player gave. Of course capturing a unit would be an act of war.------------------
Big Dave Failure is not an option
It's bundled with the software |
Lord Silvi
Warlord
Düsseldorf, Germany
Nov 1999
|
 |
posted August 16, 2000 16:50
|
|
| |
What if I am playing Pol Pot, Stalin or Saddam? And I do not want to take any prisoner and no ransom is needed? |
Talon438
Settler
Aug 2000
|
|
posted August 16, 2000 19:04
|
|
| |
People still surrender even if they where executed after. In ww2 the rusians lost millions to surender, Blitzkrieg! Even though they were sent to death camps anyway. Mabye overwhelmed military force woud surender and stalin did not surender his troops did. There would only be a chance of surender like reg troops 66% chance vet troops 33% chance. |
DarthVeda
Emperor
Flatulence 2001: Join the movement!
b.02-15-99
|
 |
posted August 16, 2000 21:58
|
|
| |
As I said, a good surrender model would require units to have morale... something that's not going to be added three months before the game goes gold.Don't ask for it because by this point it is going to suck @$$ if it's added in. |
Big Dave
Prince
Texas, USA
Apr 99
|
|
posted August 16, 2000 22:45
|
|
| |
Darth, Mr Ogre said to ask for anything because we don't know how much code would need to be changed to make it happen. If they can't do it, they won't. And if it turns out to be easy, like adding MAD, then they will.------------------
Big Dave Failure is not an option
It's bundled with the software |
Grumbold
Warlord
London, UK
Mar 2000
|
|
posted August 17, 2000 07:10
|
|
| |
Overwhelming technological advantage would certainly be one reason and they appear to have a model for that already. Combine that with overwhelming force and a basic surrender model is emerging. Multiply by a government rating (0.5 for anarchy,1.5 theocracy etc) to give a crude morale weighting. If CtP2 attacks units along the line rather than by assigning all the damage to the first in the queue like CtP then damage taken could also be factored in.The immediate danger I can see if ransoming a unit back is allowed is the potential to bankrupt NPC civ's if the AI does not improve. Each turn it moves a unit into a vulnerable position, you capture it at little risk, get a nice payout and await its return in a turn or two.
[This message has been edited by Grumbold (edited August 17, 2000).] |
Shavlor
Prince
Kempton, PA, USA
Oct 1999
|
|
posted August 17, 2000 11:55
|
|
| |
DarthVeda: you can add moral now: via SLICTrue this might be a lot of work to make it work correctly but it is easily possible in CTP 1. I am sure this is going to be possible in CTP2. I do think that units should be able to surrender. And you should be able to via SLIC
that is if Activision is going to inpliment combat control via SLIC: I heard they were. |
Dida
Warlord
Jan 2000
|
|
posted August 22, 2000 13:40
|
|
| |
I think military units shall be allowed to
surrender only in extrem condition, such as they are badly damaged and surrounded all around by enemy units and no nowhere to retreat.
Most people would give up under this type of situation, wouldn't they? |
leonli316
Settler
Vancouver,BC,Canada
Feb 2001
|
|
posted March 05, 2001 00:50
|
|
| |
Yes Talon438, you are right. Units should have the ability to surender. This way, u can avoid less war discontent from your civ. In addition, I can think of a Surender Agreement in Diplomacy between nations. If a civ suffer heavy lostes of combat units they can offer to surrender or maybe from your civ too. In return, u can confiscate up to 8 of their combat units depending on how many units that the surrendered civ have. Also the surrendered civ must remain cease-fire with your civ for at lease 10 turns.
During that time that nation cannot build combat unit(including Defence once). Perhaps, this feature can make the game more realistic.  |
Apolyton Civilization Site Forums
