Matrix Games Forums

Certainly, you must probe and let me known you impressions

ORIGINAL: ericbabe
I'll remove the ability to disband POW's.

Aw, man...

okay, you're removing the ability to disband pow's. So, other than the obvious they are no longer fighting against you, is there any other incentive for keeping them? Do they count toward your victory points? How about forcing the other country to pay for their return? Any other ideas about benefiting from captured units?

ORIGINAL: carnifex

As an aside to this discussion, about the 300,000 pow's: I am now disbanding pows as soon as I get them to prevent them from being recaptured and to prevent them from being returned and used against me later.

You don't need to disband them. They can't be freed if they're in your territory. Just plop them down in any of your provinces or protectorates.

My understanding carnifex is that you have to keep a unit with the pow's to prevent their premature liberation. Otherwise a division of the same or allied country can move through the province and liberate them.

Logically having lots of enemy prisoners should make that enemy much more likely to send and be receptive to cease fire proposals...and to send (limited) surrenders. I'm not sure if the AI is coded to think that way but as a player I know I am.

For me, having prisoners is the reward itself - ie, they are not fighting against me until the enemy (or heaven forbid, my Nation) surrenders. Not sure how others play detailed battles but I certainly try to force as many surrenders as possible, when the enemy breaks and retreats.

If _I_ surrender, it's nice to know that I get some divisions back, and don't have to re-build all of those.

I'm not sure why prisoners have to have any "benefit" beyond those obvious ones, IMO.

I guess it would make sense to have a National NML hit for having lots of troops held prisoner by your enemy, but maybe that's already modelled into the NML loss a Nation takes for losing battles.

One of the things on the great to-do list is to make returned POW's count toward victory points when the war is over.

ORIGINAL: Russian Guard
For me, having prisoners is the reward itself - ie, they are not fighting against me until the enemy (or heaven forbid, my Nation) surrenders.

Same as if their were KIA, why then model them differently after the battle is resolved? Since they are handled in a different manner, through POW units, then a logical series of positives and negatives results should follow from their very existence.

Not sure how others play detailed battles but I certainly try to force as many surrenders as possible, when the enemy breaks and retreats.

As do I,

If _I_ surrender, it's nice to know that I get some divisions back, and don't have to re-build all of those

Do you feel legitimately intitled two receiving the units back at the same strength they were when you initially lost them? Or, would you rather expect some kind of attritional losses to occur over the course of captivity. The longer you allow them to remain in prison, due to your stubborn warmongering decision to continue a war you are obviously not winning should they not suffer accordingly?

I'm not sure why prisoners have to have any "benefit" beyond those obvious ones, IMO.

Since you obviously benefit from getting your troops back without having to maintain or supply them, shouldn't there be a downside,beyond not having them (since you're not paying for them in any way this could almost, but not quite, be a wash)?

After conducting a long, disasterous war, and losing the bulk of your army as POWs, but before you are in NML trouble, you could easily cut your losses, declare a limited surrender, get your troops back immediately and then recover your lost province or two by immediately attacking a weaker nation or country...using the very same troops you just got back at strength?

I guess it would make sense to have a National NML hit for having lots of troops held prisoner by your enemy, but maybe that's already modelled into the NML loss a Nation takes for losing battles.

I'm not certain POWs are considered in the NML loss at all. I could be wrong, but looking at battle results, after capturing thousands of troops, I don't see that number recorded in the casualty report at battle's end. Figuring that the NML loss associated with a losing battle and its casualties is based upon the casualty report (one would have to assume) then _are_ POWs really and truly considered for the hit against NML?

In summation, I am merely asking for realistic positives and negatives regarding the existence of POWs.










[/quote]

ORIGINAL: ericbabe

One of the things on the great to-do list is to make returned POW's count toward victory points when the war is over.

Eric, thank you for replying in this thread. However, I really would like for you to reconsider padding the VP for a surrender.

Already, it's too easy for a player to beat on the AI in a war and gain a tasty province or two. Adding any additional VP would just make it even easier for the player to continue to do so.

This fact hit me glaringly in my game with Garoco.

One thing I believe would be a worthy balancing medium would be to weight the provinces being ceded pertaining to its value to the ceding nation. I've been unable to detect any weight in my previous games with regards to this, so if it does exist, my apologies.

For example, France wants Silesia and wants it bad. So, it ends up first on the platter of surrender by Prussia. Is the VP cost for ceding Silesia in the surrender agreement the same VP cost if France desired Prussia give up the Papacy (let's assume Prussia currently owns the Papacy) instead of Silesia?

If it is the same, then adding more VP to the total through POWs isn't going to help maintain a challenging game for a player vs the AI. In fact, in multiplayer games of 2 or 3 people, it's downright unbalancing as certain nations have a great military advantage at the very start of the game.

At any rate, please consider my thread on POWs and my arguments presented there.

ORIGINAL: Khornish

One thing I believe would be a worthy balancing medium would be to weight the provinces being ceded pertaining to its value to the ceding nation. I've been unable to detect any weight in my previous games with regards to this, so if it does exist, my apologies.

FWIW, strong agreement here, although defining "importance" to the Ceding nation would have to be non-arbitrary IMO and based on economic/manpower potentail, with a few special exceptions (Gibraltar, Malta, etc).

ORIGINAL: Russian Guard

FWIW, strong agreement here, although defining "importance" to the Ceding nation would have to be non-arbitrary IMO and based on economic/manpower potentail, with a few special exceptions (Gibraltar, Malta, etc).

The method of weighing is already in the game. We have glory objectives for each major power, including penalties for losing certain provinces to enemy control, just go with that; adding more weight according to their glory value.






[/quote]

ORIGINAL: Khornish

The method of weighing is already in the game. We have glory objectives for each major power, including penalties for losing certain provinces to enemy control, just go with that; adding more weight according to their glory value.

Yep that would probably work...