After some time playing other strategy games and discussing this idea among friends, I present to you a new system aimed at changing things up a bit.

I reread Sun Tzu's Art of War recently, mostly because it offers sage advice that can be applied almost everywhere.. not just to war. One of the key points in Art of War is that capturing an army, or a country whole is the best thing you can do in war. It's quite obvious why. You don't lose anything. Now, capturing an army or a country whole can be simulated in BD typically by convincing a member to defect, or for an alliance to become your sub. However, another point Sun Tzu is trying to make deals in prisoners of war. Confrontations might be inevitable, but this does not necessarily mean that every foe must be vanquished. Some will surrender during the fighting, or after the majority of fighting is over.

I'll try to make this system as simple as possible.. but I know it will get complicated at points. I encourage people not to flat out agree with the system, or disagree with the system, I encourage people to tweak and speak their opinions and allowing me to revise the system before casting judgment.

The first problem when creating a system like this is coming up with some sort of rate at which prisoners will be captured from a battle. There are a few questions that one must ask:

1. Will the capturing happen during, or after the battle?
2. At what rate will soldiers be captured?
3. Is there a limit to how much an army can capture at once?
4. How do the captures split amongst several armies?

Please feel free to answer these questions below. I will provide an explanation of what I'm thinking should be done.. I admit this will be a little complicated.

I think units should get some sort of 'Morale' system. The Morale system would replace the need for my support system or food. Morale would be dependent on a couple of things:

1. Movement would decrease morale as the units are constantly moving.
2. Waiting on an outpost would increase morale, as the units are resting.
3. If a battle is won with <50% rating, it would increase morale. (I would suggest like.. if the rating was 65%, they would gain 15 morale, the difference between the normal state)
4. If a battle is won with >50% rating, it would decrease morale.
5. If a battle is won with a 50% rating... nothing happens.

As morale increases, the less percentage of the army becomes available to be captured, because the soldiers are more likely to fight to the end.

As morale decreases, the more percentage of the army becomes available to be captured, because the soldiers are more likely to give up.

I'm kind of at odds at when the captures take place. It makes logical sense for the captures to take place during the battle, subverting the losses of the opponent with higher morale. However, this may be too cruel for the lower-moraled army.. I'm going to leave this up to you guys in the poll.

Do you think the full force of the army should be faced.. THEN captures happen?

Or

Do you think that captures should happen DURING the battle as to subvert the losses of the opponent with superior morale?

Then, I believe only a certain percentage of the army should be able to be captured by the winner with the higher morale. Say you have 100 soldiers in your army and you fight someone with 50, well it would never happen, but I believe you should be able to capture around 50 soldiers at a time.

I think, like losses, captures should be split proportionally between the armies who win, making sure no one is able to get above 50% of their army.


Now if you've ever played the Mount&Blade series you're about to gush with me. I want the rest of the process to be exactly like that series... if you're unfamiliar with it, I will try to explain.



In Mount&Blade, you capture soldiers dependent on those you didn't kill during the battle and choose whether you want to hold them prisoner. Instead of killing them, they were usually knocked unconscious for some reason, perhaps just not hit with a killing blow, or hit with a blunt object that didn't kill them. For whatever reason, you capture them and make them your prisoner. Now they follow your army wherever you go, unless you deposit them into a Castle or a Town and leave them there to rot.

The point of this system is that when you defeated an enemy, you could recruit his prisoners into your army. When you gained a castle, same thing.. you could recruit the prisoners into your army. When you gained a town... same thing. You recruited the prisoners into your army. It's a really nice bonus to finally landing a killing blow on your opponent, and makes up for the losses that you just took during the battle.

Now we don't have to take that system word for word.. but the key idea is being able to take in your opponent's prisoners into your army.

Of course this would be a little bit overpowered, but we could obviously tweak it a bit. We could make a certain percentage of the prisoners available to be defected to you, and then of course in the big battles, spread that proportionally as options to the winners.

However, I think that being the only option you can do with your prisoners is kind of lame. Throwing them into your Training Base or Colony for holding.. or just running around with your army. I mean.. what would be the point of the prisoners...

Unless you could sell them back to your opponents, you know.. for cheaper than their overhead will allow them to produce. There's a very logical thinking pattern to this.. let me explain the 3-way scenario.

Alliance A B and C are all in contention for a round.

A attacks B and nearly kills them, but C intervenes before B is completely killed.

A could sell the prisoners of war back to B to fund their war with C, and try to bind B into some sort of pact to keep them out of helping C. Perhaps A believes that even in selling the soldiers back to B... they still won't be able to pose a serious threat. It's a gamble, but one that logically could be made and be a game changer.

New players could be sold back their units, the new players hopefully having more sense with how to use their units to fund certain players. There would be a forced minimum amount you could see the units back for though, to prevent abuse of the system. Perhaps something like 75% of their original value without overhead.

The confusing part is tethering specific soldiers to specific players.

So recap.. I am suggesting we create a system that involves:

1. Capturing soldiers as prisoners after a battle.
2. A morale system.
3. Defecting prisoners upon defeat.
4. Selling prisoners back to the original owner.

There are a few holes I notice that need to be filled in, but go ahead tweak and criticize.

ahmm I like it... well this should be added.

1. I only would like it, when there will be a proportion like this... If you attacked
some one with x4 Army, than you can make his 1/4 army as prison. this should be like, if you attacked an army, having 120 soldiers and 12 Heavies, You can take 30 soldiers and 3 Heavies as prison right away (no need to take prisoners as workers). It will be like "you killed his 3/4 Army and took remaining)

2. Morale system isn't needed, cz it can be taken = XP of units so that we should not create a burdone on Developers of creating so much situations.

3. I need explaination of it. If u dont mind

4. this too

Voted yes for 1 for Now. No for 2. 3,4 Tweak

No real 'yes' vote.

1. Read the part concerning Morale and the Capturing of Soldiers.. I explain my viewpoint in full.

2. I would say a morale system is completely different from the EXP system.. it's much closer to the food system of OC.

3. Again, is fleshed out in the post.. ctrl+f Mount&Blade.

4. ctrl+f sell

ok, so

what I was trying to say, Developers have much burdon on them already, you can see that many posts are being considered and not implemented yet. I think we are expecting more much development, and asking them to change things that, they can't reach at them. so, I was saying that if we do not add MORALE system ( I know its different from XP But) add XP system implemented for that? also we can just left it on, if attacker or defender have x4 Army than other,,, then he can take other's 1/4 army as prison...

I think Selling back Army isn't a good Idea, should keep it as your own army.

Yes, they have a big burden, but in order to keep a playerbase entertained they must update the game. The reason why producers will make a series of games is to make more money off of just updating an old idea, or continuing an old idea.

BD is no different. It has to make major updates in order to keep people interested, so no matter how long development MAY take, it does not mean it SHOULDN'T be done.


They're prisoners, not part of your army, completely separate idea. I believe capturing an army and absorbing them into your own right off the bat doesn't make much sense. Capturing an enemy's prisoners is the way I suggested to get army immediately.

what about 3/4 ratio and x4 ratio?

I like the army capturing one.

this must have taken a lot of time. I like morale thing.

I just like no. 1 cz its simple and amazing