Will prisoners make a comeback?

[Watercress]

A much missed aspect of these games, for me, was the prisoner system in Medieval 2 Total War. The one where you capture guys after the battle, and could ransom, free, or execute them. I think it's got quite a bit of potential for Rome 2, and thus I was wondering whether something along this lines will be included in the game? It would certainly make my day.

[c.ryo]

+1

[Ichon]

It would be awesome if you could capture Roman eagles or other armies banners and give a temporary penalty to that factions diplomacy/prestige or even morale loss for 2-4 turns of its troops. There could be the option to sell back the eagle/banner for a longer term loss of relations or keep it for a boost in relations with anyone not on friendly relations with the faction whose banner/eagles you captured.

[Rasic]

It would be awesome if you could capture Roman eagles or other armies banners and give a temporary penalty to that factions diplomacy/prestige or even morale loss for 2-4 turns of its troops. There could be the option to sell back the eagle/banner for a longer term loss of relations or keep it for a boost in relations with anyone not on friendly relations with the faction whose banner/eagles you captured.

That would work well with the romans, but I'm not sure every faction had that kind of connection with a symbol. Let alone actually holding loyalty to a small unit like that. That unity and esprit de corps they found through symbolized unit structure was way ahead of its time.

I think they should do the prisoners thing like MTW2, but just add the option to enslave them to the already present kill/release/ransom options.

[Greve Af Göteborg]

And you should be able to use the captured family members in diplomacy.

[BJas]

And you should be able to use the captured family members in diplomacy.

Ok so we have many options with the prisoners: Execute them all, Ransom, Use the family members for diplomacy (like in 'A Song of Ice and Fire' books) or send to your cities so they can cooperate in the economics working as slaves or entertaining people as gladiators.

I would like this feature to return...

[Death_Sheep]

I would like this if only I could use them as arrow fodder in sieges.

[Chris Death]

Are sure that the romans would have paid a ransom everytime they lost a battle, just to get back those who
fought like women? **

I mean a Caesar cought by some pirates to get a ransom just to get killed by him afterwards would make
historical sense but i don't believe there was too much about ransom for lower ranks.

It would be more like "keep them - maybe you gonna learn how to propperly loose a battle from them"

**@Women - this is meant to be historically and has nothing to do with discrimination

~S~ CD

[Rasic]

That's a good point, I can't think off the top of my head anytime they really ransomed captured soldiers back. Maybe just change out ransom with enslavement.

[Chris Death]

That's a good point, I can't think off the top of my head anytime they really ransomed captured soldiers back. Maybe just change out ransom with enslavement.

The enslavement sounds way better to me - they could even make a factor in trade - some faction's
slaves were prefered amongst others.

They could even get use for diplomacy; let's make a peace treaty and to see our goodwill we gonna
send you those 100 thracians or so.

~S~ CD

[Colonel Dax]

As much as I'd love to see this feature return, I doubt that it'd fit the period particularly well.

It seems to me that Rome was more apt to publicly execute its enemies than attempt to ransom them back.

[Asgaroth]

It seems to me that Rome was more apt to publicly execute its enemies then attempt to ransom them back.

You could at least be given an option to enslave the soldiers like you could enslave a population after you conquered a city in Rome I.

So you would get a higher rate of mining for example as you would have more slaves to work in the mines or some other sort of work.

[Petroniu]

I wouldn't want the prisoners to make a comeback and kill my entire army. Hell no! Better chop their heads off now and be done with it!
Seriously now, only enslavement is a proper option to this timeframe, but usually they would kill captured enemies since it was the easiest way to deal with. Imagine Caesar campaigning through Gaul having to keep in line prisoners that were 5 times more than the number of men in his army. Nah, that system worked for Med2 since in that era they would search to capture knights and such for ransom, but in the ancient era the best you could get is to be a slave. Only pirates would make abductions and ask for ransom, in war factions would kill as much as they could. If you got caught, you died.

[Grimbold]

I have a "no prisoners" policy when squashing romans.

[aggie_john]

I like it. I am surprised they got away from it in ETW and NTW.

[gamir97]

I think that those who paid ramson were the relatives of very important and rich men, no the lower class soldier. Also the enemies were not pron to give back prisioners but enslave them and kill them. So, only important family members of important families should have the chance to be ramson if the enemy does not want to kill them.

[Kinjo]

Of course I want prisoners, I want to be able to sale them into slavery like that wind bag Caesar did.

[Wowwars]

A much missed aspect of these games, for me, was the prisoner system in Medieval 2 Total War. The one where you capture guys after the battle, and could ransom, free, or execute them. I think it's got quite a bit of potential for Rome 2, and thus I was wondering whether something along this lines will be included in the game? It would certainly make my day.

Also being able to keep them prisoner instead of just executing/releasing/ransoming add a Imprison Option?

[HappyGoodVibes]

Captured family members or generals in diplomacy would be epic. Slavery is also important in this time period. I remember reading that Caesar used the captured slaves he had to fight two full battles in the Colosseum and one naval battle where they filled the Colosseum with water.

If there is a war or rebellion that is set up behind one guy, if you defeat him in battle, the cities that were part of the rebellion should offer to surrender to you. It's a big problem in Total War that factions fight to the death, when in reality they would have recognized that they lost and attempted to cut their losses while they could.

[zg0301zg]

Captured family members or generals in diplomacy would be epic. Slavery is also important in this time period. I remember reading that Caesar used the captured slaves he had to fight two full battles in the Colosseum and one naval battle where they filled the Colosseum with water.

If there is a war or rebellion that is set up behind one guy, if you defeat him in battle, the cities that were part of the rebellion should offer to surrender to you. It's a big problem in Total War that factions fight to the death, when in reality they would have recognized that they lost and attempted to cut their losses while they could.

if you look it from other aspect by executing prisoners it should have some dread affect, Romans would crucifix along the road all those that rebeled and such as a warining and as a preventions, so something like in M2TW, dread level and something similar to chivalry...?