I think the best possibility that has been discussed is the need to actually defend all of your territory (to avoid trade routes being disrupted, etc etc.) Certainly there are going to be some unavoidable benefits to a larger kingdom. And I don't think those benefits should be arbitrarily coded away. But the need to maintain long supply lines and resource caravans, and basically protect ALL of your territory (not just garrison your cities) is a natural way to deal with urban sprawl. (Nothing wrong with being big, but it might not be the best idea to go out and just grab up territory at the beginning that you don't have the capability to protect.

I really do not like when a developer says "We don't want 'large' kingdons" and then code to make them overly punitive and they come up with really questionable methods to force a certain play style. The concept that you have to imbue land with some of your VERY valuable essence is also going to make you very careful about doing so if you can't keep it (a reason that I am against the idea of channelers getting their essence back when they lose land, btw)

The essence/city founding concept should balance the problem of 'the most cities wins'.

We have a new term: "Going Gandalf".  Let's just consider this one officially entered into the game's lexicon everyone.

"Where the heck is the Kingdom of such-and-such?"

"He must have gone Gandalf."

......Errrr, have you actually met many humans?

"Quantity has a quality all its own." -Whoever said that, some general.

Why WOULDN'T you be the most powerful as the biggest?  If you do it right anyway, you certanily could still be beaten, but population/commerce = power, usually.

A big, well run empire will pretty well always be preferable to a small, well run empire, unless the game has some really bizzare penalties in place to deliberately cripple a large empire. So I don't really understand what you're asking. If we go to war and I take half your land, shouldn't that give me an advantage over you?

Now if you're just talking about curtailing initial city spam deciding the eventual game winner, then that's pretty reasonable. But if we're playing equally well, it'd seem odd to have an empire twice your size not have an edge over you.

That is also one of my pet peves.

I like this idea for tech but not spells.  Why?  The cost to roll out new techs will increase with the size of your kingdom.  The cost of YOUR personal spells will not.  You could take this one step further by placing a limit on how much the player can do in one turn. Create an 'Attention Pool', no matter how big your empire gets there is only so much you can pay attention to.

Sammual

Well said. Realistically, in many cases, the more a territory grows the harder it becomes to maintain it. Not only for defence, but administration as well. And maybe you want a small kingdom because it fits the story you have made for it. Besides, I think that if you want a small kingdom you should be able to make it and keep it small. 

Him and what army? Literally.

I don't know about how in depth, but it has been brought up before.  I think the basic idea is that a channeler who has many cities will be chosing to invest his power in the industrial might of his empire.  I.e. he will be the one who has large armies/trade routes/better weapons etc.  On the other hand the channeler who has very few cities will have far more power invested in himself and would likely have access to spells that could handle the legions sent against him.

The other question this brings up however is the strategic value associated with multiple cities vs very few.  I.e. the person with a large amount has strategic depth and could afford to lose a few cities, whereas the player gandolfing it couldn't afford to lose too many cities or resources.  Also with the idea of shards (a la nodes from MoM) these are other resources that will need to be defended (heavily) as well.  A channeler with more territory will be more likely to be able to hold more resources, especially if they are inside his territory.  The gandolf channeler would have to be able to transport around somehow to defend not only his cities but shards as well...

Type "going Gandalf" in Google and this thread is the 2nd returned item!

maybe one other thing to note: big does not necessarily mean territorially big, it could for example also refer to a large amount of (possibly fairly undeveloped) territory or to just one or two massive cities. that might mean less territory, small in a sense, but you might still have a high industrial and military capacity. and of course it'd be much easier to defend. on the other hand ofc you might not have access to all the resources you want.

My Channeler will need an army?

From what I have read so far a Channeler has to expend Essence 'cleaning' land to build cities on or empowering heroes, casting powerful spells, creating magic items, etc.

For Example.

You spend some of your essence on land to build a second city.

I spend the same amount on a Hero (Bob).

You spend some of the gold, mana, and resources you have on building up your new city.

I spend the same amount of the above on equipment and followers for Bob.

How is your new city going to defend itself from my Channeler and his band of adventurers?

In the long run the production of your cities will be a telling factor but the first person to attempt a second city is placing themselves in a weak position, they have to weaken themselves and invest a lot of time and resources before they get a payout.  This happens in most games but everything I have been reading leads me to believe it will be more extreme in Elemental (I have to spend Essence as well).

Sammual