Playing on After Soverign death

That would make a lot of sense. If the Sovereign dies then his powers can flow into his eldest Child or "Chosen Heir" if you can switch or chose which heir gets the power. They can become immortal in the process. I like that idea too.

Hmm, well, personally I'd prefer the power just to be gone, just get to play as the child you pick to be heir with their abilities.  (So if it happens early game ur screwed), but that's just me. 

We already know your children can become "Heroes" so I'm assuming you get to control them as units on the map like you do with the Sovereign and your armies. I could be jumping the gun there and be way off base. Maybe you can't directly control your offspring. I'm pretty sure we'll be able to though.

How come you wouldn't want the heir to inherit any magical powers too? The heir would have to become the empires new Channeler for you to keep playing. That should mean he/she would have to be at least a little magically adept.

It makes the game way too easy/long (in multi) for that to work gamebalance wise imo.

I like the idea of killing the one unit to end the game. It gives you a chance to pull victory out of a certain lose. So my vote is leave it as it is. Also chances are if your soveriegn dies then you are going to lose anyway and it would just be a slow painful death at times.

I completely agree...this "system" works like a charm in the various KOEI games.

I must say I agree with you, if an enemy was able to kill your Sovereign, it means either you were very uncarefull with that unit, or the enemey was a lot stronger than you. Either way, I think it should be game over. A lot off people are complaining that the end game in a TBS can be soooo boring because most of the time you are pretty sure you're gonna win halfway in the game. And now some of you are trying to make the game even longer? Feels like a bad idea to me, but maybe it could be tried out during beta, or imple;ented as an option.

Beer for all, can have different game types! I doubt playing after Sov death will be in vanilla so hopefully someone with skillz will fix it so I can play my cool way too.  Yea!

The ultimate solution to this is adding an option to disallow assassination victories so you don't lose when the sovereign dies. I'm pro assassination victory though. Takes way too long to end some games without it and without it the underdogs have no hope and should just quit after a certrain point.

I'm still in the 'give sovereign death = game-over a try' camp, but I remember a couple-few MoM games where the Spell of Return saved my ass. If you can continue the game as an heir but none of your heirs can ever present a threat to you, that would be too 'gamy' for me. If sovereign death means game-over or succession, I want the creation of heirs to have some sort of ongoing cost/risk-benefit factors.

I loved how a nation in MoM could still go on without their "sovereign". I would like to see a fall more rather than a screen that says "oh you lose". With the implementation of a sovereign's family, I could see certain members with traits like "jealousy" or "power-hungry" (step-children, bastard children, crazy queens, etc.) taking the oppurtunity to try and take control. Maybe some of your cities revolt and become controlled by those family members, but you would take control of your immediate heir, aka. your son and try to maintain the "old kingdom" (though you probably wouldn't die that early, it might be your great great grandson). Maybe the lands, without your essence to maintain them, start to die again. There is this state of upheaval and a moment of "oh crap!" where you are seriously hurting but there is still a chance to revive your channeler by a way similar to that of a Spell of Return.

However I would rather that be done by way of a new quest that would start as soon as your sovereign dies and would depend on how well you prepared for death. One scenario might be where you have to transport the sovereign's body to a shrine in some far off moutain range in order to bring them back to life. Another could be to destroy a powerful artifact (thus losing its power forever) that had been forged with part of their soul to bring them back.

Any comments? Or more ideas for possible quests to return your soveriegn to the game?

I hope they make options on this topic in game... ie,

#1 You lose your soverign game over(you could level up your soverign to unlock a mid to high level spell to resurrect him/her but you need a certain amount of essence... and if ya dont have enough, game over.

#2 Your soverign is respawned a few turns later.

#3 If you die and then one of your childern is chosen and starts off at level 1 soverign...  

#4 Is another take on #3 is you soverign grows older and will die of old age but he does live alot longer than your average units and passes down his power to the next in line child...(kinda like in the total war games.)

Options are always great when setting up your game! The more gametypes the better if ya ask me!

Yes some other people had these ideas and stated them in the forums but im just restating them here.

I'd like to see sovereign death mean an instant loss at the beginning of the game, but make it something you can prevent. 

If you're playing as men, you should be able to research a technology or spell for succession once you have children that allows you to designate one of your children as an heir (once you have children).  Then, you can devote resources to training that child; if you die, the power of your heir (level, how many of your spells they know) depends on how much you invested in their training.

If you're playing as the Fallen, you should be able to research necromancy that will allow you to store some of your power in something like a soul shard.  Your resource investment will determine how quickly you return upon your death and how much of your power and spell knowledge you've lost.

In both cases, the loss of a sovereign should be a significant loss, but preparation should allow you to partially mitigate it.

I don't understand why. We gonna have a dynasty system afterall. It's pretty logical if the sovereign dies, his eldest child/some other child chosen by the player itself will be the next sovereign/ruler. I will be very pissed if it won't work like this.

And the game will last forever. How can you "win" ? Instead you ennemies are too dumb to marry themselves or so weak that you still have won.

Building on the idea of my post above about researching a technology (succession for men, necromancy for Fallen) to allow you to survive the Sovereign's death, if Sovereign death were to always result in the loss of some researched knowledge or power, then make the spell to survive death something that you have to relearn after a sovereign's death.  That way, you a single assassination won't end the game for a properly prepared player, although it will hurt.  However, if you're overwhelming a player (or AI), kill their sovereign, then kill the heir or resurrected sovereign before they have time to train a new heir or make a new soul vault, then they're out.

Why would it last forever? This proposed system worked very well in many games. It makes no sense, if the game will end when the Sovereign dies, mainly because of the dynasty system. If the sovereign has a child, it's pretty logical that he/she will be appointed as the next ruler/sovereign. Correct?

Yep, that's logic. But how can you crush a kingdom whose head can't be cut ? You'll always have some kid for replacement. So I guess you'll only play with diplomatic/magic/quest victories.

I think that this is a very important gameplay element. Stardock must be careful with it, so, I think that there should be 2 options.

1. Game ends when the Sovereign dies

2. Game won't end when the Sovereign dies, and the player will be able to choose from the childs of the Sovereign, as the successor who will control the kingdom. [..or the eldest child will be the successor automatically maybe.]

= All players will be happy.

I pretty much agree. Only I think "If" they go with one of the Sovereign's heirs taking over then we should be able to pick our heirs. Perhaps you have a son (eldest) and a daughter (youngest). You want to daughter to take the throne after your death because she has much more magical power then her brother. You die and the son gets the crown because he's the oldest...Now you're stuck with a Sovereign you didn't want to play.

Such is life, work around it. Your son deserves that throne. Frogboy already stated that family members will be playable so you still get to play the youngest daughter, she just isn't the leader of the empire, but you can use here as a teacher perhaps to train other magic users. It provides more of a strategy that way, to work around difficulty and not just keep it the same throughout the game. Im just saying, many these ideas im seeing are only going to lead to a boring game where the same thing happen over and over and over again game to game.. I don't know how anyone could want that!

Well, if I can't choose my heir, I might as well kill of all other heirs until the one I want is the oldest one around.

Souvereign: 'Hey son, I made this deal with the old, dangerous dragon living in that swamp over there. Could you go and have a talk with him?'

Unfit heir: 'Sure dad, no problem...'

Souvereign to dragon: 'As agreed, I'm sending my heir over to you as a sign of goodwill, do with him as you please.'

Unfit heir: 'Hello dragaaarghhhhhh....'

Personally, I like the 'Sovereign dies = game over' option. Knowing you have won the game and having to search for every last heir around could get very tedious very fast.

It might be logical for an heir to become the next ruler, but why would they be able to channel? As the story is planned for now (I think) the ability to channel is very rare, so the children of the channeler might / will not be able to channel at all. The sovereign is able to imbue someone else with his essence, but that doesn't make that person a real channeler. So, if the heir is a lot weaker compared to the original sovereign, and another player was able to kill that sovereign, why would you like to play on with a new ruler that's so much weaker? You might a well stop playing.

In the end, I wouldn't mind if this would be an option and maybe we'll be able to beta test some if this and see / feel how it plays.

Was it just me, or didnt the Dev team say that Sovereign Death = you die, non-negotiable.

Anywho, reminds me of a Machiavellian Quote: goes something like ...

"If all of your resources are in danger, then only a fool would not protect them with all of his power and might"

meaning if you had to you would sacrifice 99% of your kingdom to keep the Soveriegn alive. (prolly only in SP)

Makes me think that there should be a hostage situation possible, if they capture your Sovereign you can negotiate. Might be a bit unbalanced, although its trying to milk the Sovereign for all its worth, while at the same time attempting to not force the player to give to much away that would force him to quit.

After all, your entire force is not always going to be ready to defend the Channeler at all times. Perhaps if they aren't sure what to ask in for the king's ransom, you could be meanwhile gathering your entire army to storm their castle walls and take back the king yourself.

I would like to see a mod where you could make a soul-pact with someone, or a highly intellegent creature (like a dragon :D)

I could then see such mod to include after your king dies, the dragon you have the soul-pact with takes over, and can only use spells of his element type (primarily). Would be very interesting to have a draconic soul-heir.

instead of fantasy option A- a wizard did it, I usually go for fantasy option B- a dragon SHOULD do it :3