Surrender Option In Game?

[Alexander Greene]

Honestly, I think fights to the death are going to be more common than surrendering. If the devs added in a mechanic that would benefit your company by surrendering, then I can see a point but as WoR is now, surrender is useless. Probably better to shoot enemies on sight.

Edits: Corrected my bad spelling xD

[michaelsmithern]

the way i see surrendering working is if you are "captured" by the enemy you basically "die" or whatever you wanna call it, and you then respawn again, however if you surrender you give the enemy a ticket(so they have more respawns) so it will actually be beneficial to capture enemy soldiers.

[William F. Randolph]

I forsee mount and blade like ridiculousness having to do with animation dances, I vote no. I'd rather shoot my enemy regardless and taking prisoners would be useless as we're not honorable soldiers, we're armchair soldiers.

[[WoR] Kiff]

the way i see surrendering working is if you are "captured" by the enemy you basically "die" or whatever you wanna call it, and you then respawn again, however if you surrender you give the enemy a ticket(so they have more respawns) so it will actually be beneficial to capture enemy soldiers.

Agreed.

[Rithal]

the way i see surrendering working is if you are "captured" by the enemy you basically "die" or whatever you wanna call it, and you then respawn again, however if you surrender you give the enemy a ticket(so they have more respawns) so it will actually be beneficial to capture enemy soldiers.

With a system like that however, no one will ever surrender because they know it will benefit the other team.

[[WoR] Kiff]

With a system like that however, no one will ever surrender because they know it will benefit the other team.

I mean even though it does benefit the team it is still neat to have and as I've mentioned before there have been some battles in which one side surrenders so shouldn't it be added in game?

[michaelsmithern]

With a system like that, however, no one will ever surrender because they know it will benefit the other team.

True, But as we have seen in Mount and blade give the option to surrender and there are individuals out there who'd do it for shits and giggles. But not to compare the games as one, you could see the morale of the enemy team drop, I'm not talking some Bar that represents their morale but the real thing where people are disheartened about fighting because their team is losing.

But your point still stands that why would people surrender then? hmmm, I suppose that you'd just hope they surrendered, I can't think of a good enough reason to see people surrendering for this system.

[dmurray6]

I demand that they create a whole other part of the game where when you surrender you get taken to Andersonville and go through the horrors of 19th century imprisonment.

+5

True, But as we have seen in Mount and blade give the option to surrender and there are individuals out there who'd do it for shits and giggles. But not to compare the games as one, you could see the morale of the enemy team drop, I'm not talking some Bar that represents their morale but the real thing where people are disheartened about fighting because their team is losing.

But your point still stands that why would people surrender then? hmmm, I suppose that you'd just hope they surrendered, I can't think of a good enough reason to see people surrendering for this system.

It is an interesting topic, not so much for the basis of WoR as a game, but understanding how being captured and either exchanged or paroled actually worked during the war. I've seen the actual parole form of an ancestor, and at the moment, I do not have access to that form in order to provide a copy here for everyone to see, but I did look up similar documents via google images and found what I wanted to include here, which is a quote from the parole/exchange oath form. I find this silly, but not having a complete knowledge of what went into the system of prisoner exchange negates my "silly" opinion. I just wanted to put this out there for others to read.

This is the basic contents of the generic exchange/parole oath that soldiers were given as prisoners (this particular one happens to be for Vicksburg):

To All Whom It May Concern, Know Ye That:

I _________________a__________________________of Reg't _______________ Vols. C.S.A., being a Prisoner of War, in the hands of the United States Forces, in virtue of the capitulation of the City of Vicksburg and it's garrison, by Lieut. Gen John C. Pemberton, C.S.A., Commanding, on the 4th day of July, 1863, do in pursuance of the terms of said capitulation, give this my solemn parole under oath------------
That I will not take up arms again against the United States, nor serve in any military, police, or constabulary force in any Fort, Garrison, or field work, held by the Confederate States of America, against the United States of America, nor as a guard of prisons, depots, or stores, nor discharge any duties usually performed by Officers or soldiers against the United States of America, until duly exchanged by the proper authorities.

"UNTIL DULY EXCHANGED BY THE PROPER AUTHORITIES"?????? WHHAAAAT?

I was amazed when I read this. That the North and South exchanged PoW's with the expectation that they will face them again on the field of battle. That seems counter productive to me, but then again there is plenty of information out there to support why this was their feelings and why it was done.

Here is a quote from the NPS Andersonville website:
The prison exchange system, codified on July 22, 1862 by the Dix Hill Cartel, called for equal exchanges of all soldiers captured, and these soldiers could return to their units. The balance remaining after equal exchanges were to be paroled, and not to take up arms again until they were formally exchanged.

That wording also supports that last statement of the oath...."until duly exchanged by the proper authorities".

Hope everyone enjoyed this little insight into prisoner exchanges, it barely scrapes the surface.

[LoneMerc]

This would be interesting to implement but I would agree that most people will just kill each other. But it would be nice to have a system in place where if you drop your firearm and agree to be escorted to a holding area of the map it would put you out of the game and marked as captured for end of match battle stats it would be pretty neat and the possibility of someone trying to escape on the way or being ambushed and freed adds a lot more to game play. There would have to be benefits for both sides to take a prisoner over just killing them. Re-spawning time?, Battle Stats?, Bragging rights?. Have not given it much thought but perhaps a captured is allowed to respawn after a certain amount of time, but if killed your dead for the match. Again alot more thought and balance will need to be worked out but whatever the devs do I guess is what we get, but it would add a nice other gameplay element.

[TacticalGaming]

It really depends. If your in a role play server you could add in surrender. In a regular game, there is no point in surrender unless once you surrender you can't be killed so the game would end faster if the enemy at any point has you outnumbered 5-1.