Did you just set yourself on fire?
2 Likes
Iâd like to thank everyone who attended for some brilliant role-play and Iâd like to thank members of the Horde and the Hand of Agony for not murdering me.
7 Likes
Well⊠Sena doesnât have a heart of gold, but knows when just killing can be down right murder. She knows she did right letting Luceil go.
6 Likes
You did good, yeah. Great! Yeah! Hurray!
Just remember to sometimes look into the skies and listen for wingbeats.
âŠYou light-forsaken, rotting creature without heart. ![:skull_and_crossbones:](https://d1bg94bbsh66ji.cloudfront.net/en/wow/images/emoji/twitter/skull_and_crossbones.png?v=6" ":skull_and_crossbones:")
3 Likes
Goes the same for you. You are the one to keep your eyes in the skies and make sure large crimson wings of a Bloodwing bat do not block out the sun and swoop down to maul you.
1 Like
Get away from Thyron.
Iâm the only Crimson Wings things that are allowed to hurt him.
Iâm not sharing.
1 Like
Whoever gets there first.
Scowls in RP Back in my dayâŠ
Youâre welcome!
3 Likes
I guess I should have struck you down back in August Silverpain in those fields near the Sepulcher.
One of the incentives you get for switching to horde for campaigns despite the lower numbers is that the rp isnât trash
Used to happen -all- the time. In fact Heralds and âPersons of Noteâ were perfectly able to approach enemy lines to discuss terms, without fear of molestation, in fact it was against the rules of War to strike a Herald, and a Noble or Officer you would take as prisoner under âparoleâ and later ransom them back.
Iâm not saying Azeroth follows the same rules, but such a thing happened in our real world, so it is not âunrealisticâ that it happens in Azeroth.
The reasons are both pragmatic, practical, and conducive to victory.
If you accept a surrender, your enemy is likely to also, so any battlefield commander or leader of a unit is best placed to be merciful on the field of battle, at least to prisoners of note, which could well be -you- next time you clash. It is enlightened Self Interest.
Practical? It preserves morale. You have enemy Prisoners, your Soldiers can see that you are -winning- it improves morale, especially as they are not being asked to carry out the grisly business of slaughtering unarmed prisoners, which historically has led to increased rates of desertion and disaffection with the War. If your troops can -see- that they are winning, then they will -feel- like they are winning, and as a result, likely will -Win-.
Conducive to Victory?
Killing Prisoners strengthens one side and weakens another, and it is not the way you would think. Killing Prisoners weakens your side, and strengthenâs your enemies. Again, this is historical fact. An Enemy who -knows- that you will not accept Surrender, and will exterminate them, will fight harder, and longer than an enemy who believes they would be taken prisoner and spared. It is simple human nature. They have -nothing- to lose, so will fight all the harder. By Killing Prisoners, you are essentially causing harm to your war effort, and killing your own soldiers as well. If they know there is a chance they may live, they are far more likely to put their hands up. At which point youâve won, and once one enemy puts their hands up, another will, then a few more, and a few more, until you have defeated the enemy through lack of morale and them feeling like âThings could be worseâ. Morale failure is like a Mexican Wave, it travels through crowds. You donât fight a War to kill every enemy soldier. You fight a War to -Win- a War. You donât do that by making your enemy bolder and more resilient by the threat of extermination. That is how you -lose- a War. Operation Barbarossa was a perfect example, The Battle of Agincourt another, Xeneophonâs Ten Thousand, Thermopylae, History is full of examples, where an aggressive power has not taken prisoners, and as such has taken hideously higher losses than were needed, and in most cases, have lost.
Taking prisoners is actually -Smarter- than not taking them, and also is, kinda how War WorksâŠ
This said, if you are taken prisoner, its not up to your captors to have to sit there and look at you for hours every day as they log in. Unless there has been some douchery at play (Which sometimes there is) you kind of have to assume you are under guard. If there -has- been some douchery, then yeah, nix it offâŠ
But the whole concept of taking prisoners is as ancient as the concept of War. There is no reason to think Azeroth is any differentâŠ
5 Likes
Think about Russia: Itâs a continent, even if you kick in the door, the entire â POSSIBLY (!) no offense meant here â rotten edifice still doesnât come down crashing onto your relatively sparsely supplied head although you could have taken four million (4 and six times 0) prisoners winning in turn quite easily and also crazily now keep your nogging jogging, think about Vasily âthe meat cleaverâ Blokhin and simply let his very own meat cleaver decide the outcome instead: tens of thousand meat cleaved into the aether and For What ? I Think For - Winning - The Battle
âŠno? I would like to go on about The Battle of Agincourt another, Xeneophonâs Ten Thousand, Thermopylae and History but I donât
In the end taking prisoners binds manpower to watch over aforementioned prisoners, taking your combat aces out of the war and into the dungeons, now gravely wounding and in turn crippling your enemies so that they have to be watched over by their men: Truly the tactical move of a genius only
In the end Iâd go with yes and no .
12 Likes
Urgh, c-canât⊠resistâŠ
TheydidactuallytakeandkeepprisonersatThermopylae, the Thebans surrendered en masse and were semi-famously branded by Xerxesâ royal mark. ![:nerd_face:](https://d1bg94bbsh66ji.cloudfront.net/en/wow/images/emoji/twitter/nerd_face.png?v=6" ":nerd_face:")
Forgive me, canât help it.
Does kinda speak to your point, though. The surrender came before the rest died in battle. It must have been very damaging witnessing other Greeks get out alive and know youâd been denied that.
7 Likes
The trouble with prisoner taking is you would basically never keep prisoners on the front line - especially not in your primary war camp, where sensitive military information is often discussed.
You would take prisoners back through your supply lines to a dedicated PoW camp, which means the character in question is functionally dead (ie canât really be played for the campaign) unless they escape later on.
Hence, either a character is taken out of the campaign anyway when theyâre captured (the same as though theyâd actually died IC) or they escape (which is usually anticlimactic). âTake no prisonersâ is just the IC excuse for the actual reason, which is that prisoner RP is usually incredibly boring and pointless.
14 Likes
alliance should use their second raid group to provide prisoner of war camp rp instead of making campaigns finish 3 times as early
3 Likes
Simple concept. If you canât afford to spend the resources, or the time, with Prisoners of War, it is necessary to deal with them otherwise they end up being loose ends that end up uncovering positions,etc.
Example, D-Day. The Order was for no Forces to take prisoners on landfall. As they had no resources on hand to tent to wounded or the treatment of PoWs. And that they didnât have the time to tend to them without them running off.
hides Morstethâs medicine
ErrâŠNo, no it ainât, its part -of- a Continent, but it ainât a continent on its ownâŠ
Blokhin is an interesting example however, Eventually disavowed by the Politburo, especially Krushchev as a part of his âDeStalinisationâ program (Ironic given Krushchevâs own part in Stalinâs rule) , the Soviets eventually wanted to distance themselves as far as possible, from Blokhinâs actions. It is also notable that he was not a front line commander. He was not the one taking the prisoners. He didnât have the stones to fight himself, but remained safe in the Lyubyanka and executed handcuffed prisoners.
-Big- Difference.
I mean sure, he is the most prolific mass murderer in current history, with around 7,000 deaths by his hand directly, but he was never described as a brave person who would put themselves to the hazard. He was no more brave than the guys who turned the showers on at Auschwitz.
Also, they were kind of supposed to be on the same side as the Polish troops in that War, soâŠwasnât really a battle if one side didnât know it was a battle, more just mass murder by your allies, them turning on you. Which, hey, by the way is not cool.
The French butchered the baggage train, which would have mostly been made up of women and children. It Inspired a vastly outnumbered and outclassed English Army, most of whom had Dysentery, and werenât wearing undercrackers for reasons that hopefully are apparent to resist with all their might, and ultimately to win, against what looked like a vastly outnumbering and outclassing foe. That one act of brutality by the French, ironically cost the French the battle, and by extension, their Kingdom.
They knew they could not halt, they knew they could not pause, nor set up field hospitals, every soldier knew the score. âFight or Dieâ So they fought, and they died. But they reputedly fought all the fiercer for knowing there was no alternative (Not that there really was a recognised system of taking prisoners back then)
Despite various media, as Teocalli points out, a) there were more than 300 soldiers there, and b) prisoners were taken. Point remains that No Spartan was taken prisoner, and the âŠOne? (might be mistaken there) who was sent home, known as âThe Tremblerâ a bit unfair given he actually had eye damage) was regarded especially disfavourably even at the resulting battle of Platea. If I remember right there were Spartans, Thebans and Lesbans there? But yeah, it wasnât quite how the movie based on Frank Millerâs graphic novel depicted itâŠ
To be honest, that is why any Prisoners the Sun Hawks take are removed, generally to âThe Bloodied Spearâ, our Carrier ship, It isnât in the field of operations, they have a skilled interrogation (Not torture, as torture is for incompetents) team on board, and it is how we usually get to places. If they are compliant, they will be ransomed back to the Alliance, if not, well, bad things happen at Sea, and what Brigante doesnât see, doesnât need to worry his pretty little head, even if he set it in place.
Essentially, yeah, if we take an Alliance character Prisoner, they ainât getting released until the end of the campaignâŠ
Occasionally Brigante does give that order. We accept Surrenders, however the dodge is that sometimes Brigante will order âAn attack of such sudden ferocity and carnage that the enemy cannot comprehend it, let alone forsake their cause in itâ Basically âNo Prisoners, donât give them time to surrenderâ
Nah, Morsteth makes a good point, but Blokhin was essentially a REMF, so heâs not exactly an exemplar of warfareâŠ
2 Likes
[laughs in âno prisonersâ] good luck getting anyone else to see it the correct way
9 Likes
I think a campaign would go much better if people started it without already being mad before it began.
Positivity, folks! These things are a group effort, and we all need to help each other out, instead of waiting to see who we can blame for things going wrong.
9 Likes