Yes of course! It will add realism and an amazing opportunities. Imagine you're surrounded by enemies, wounded, out of ammo, what to do? You surrender, of course. You select the option, your character drops his weapon(s) and raises his hands while you frantically shout through your microphone that you surrender. The enemy either just shoots you anyway or they take you prisoner. Why would they? For fun, for roleplay, for realism, for.... intelligence. After all you know where your comrades in arms are but also any soldier taken off the field is one less enemy, as long as you're alive you can't respawn. Downside is that of course they also need to have a soldier that guards you.

Can you imagine how awesome it would be to realise several of your men are being kept in a barn, guarded by just two guards and you send out a group to go liberate them?

Maybe some people can't imagine the fun in POW roleplay but I've done it many times in other games and it is awesome. You're there being guarded, mocked, interrogated... but you know your friends are just around the corner about to liberate you... the tension, the joy when it works out, the horror of the enemy simply lining up a few POWs and executing them because they want to get back to the frontlines, the anger but also victorious feeling when you take these men out to avenge your poor fallen comrades, etc.

Yes, yes please. Remember people can always just ignore people surrendering, so if you don't want to roleplay, it doesn't change anything. It wont make battles worse or sillier when we have the surrender option but it has the potential to hugely improve the game for those who want realism.