Absolutely!

If killing the enemy sovreign is the goal of the game, fine. The game will become a massive sovreign hunt like Age of Wonders I and eventually they will either have to add a no sovreign option or make something up like in the AOW sequel, where a dead sovreign can respawn if he spent enough money in building an extra wizard tower.  Killing a king is just not enough to destroy an enemy empire and that is just a fact, by denying that, the game will be unrealistic and eventually quite annoying (because the stress of the game will be on the man hunt and not on a military campaign)

The successor idea is also fine: if the king dies let his son take his place (which is basically a no sovreign version of the game where you get an handicap by having a less experience king and maybe a loss of gold, since the enemy who kills a king should probably take his treasure).

Having a random escape like in MOM is a bad idea, especially in multiplayer games (but also in single player when human players will certainly reload the game, while teh AI won't be able to do that).

But all these things have been considered and explained in depth on several TBS forums (the AOW forum for example).

I like how people are still talking about sovereign death = not final.    Or having his power transfered somehow.    I mean, I guess I don't know all thats entitled to "non-negotiable" in relation to the sovereign dying, but I'm under the impression that the death is supposed to be a major and irreversable occurance.  If his channeler powers, or even his kingdom's command and sovereign status, could be transfered in any way, Frogboy wouldn't have said so clearly that his/her death is "non-negotiable".      I mean, in theory you could transfer his power somehow, but it really would soften the blow.   Especially if the sovereign already used up all his essense, then he'd basically be a throw away unit at that point.  

If its such a core-mechanic, and death is non-negotiable... then the death should be a BIG DEAL.   In the interest of making a good end goal: Instead of talking about how a player could keep playing without a channeler or sovereign, we should discussing how we can make sovereign death a BIGGER deal, if anything.  Ideally it should be a memorable experiance everytime a channeler dies, which it won't be if it can happen half way through the game and the player only takes so-so sacrifices.   if you make the player keep playing with major sacrifices (rather than so-so or minor ones), then it won't be any fun to play after death anyway, you might as well rage quit the moment your leader dies.   Then it just becomes a gambling game, play till your "Ged" or "Gandalf" or whatever dies, then quit prematurely.

Fine. So killing an enemy sovereign is also a core concept and a viable strategy. It is also a means to destroy an ennemy faction without resorting to destroying all its cities.

I think the problem is here: are players wanting to gamble when they are knowing that a failure means an instant game over? And how the AI will handle it? And how do you plan to level your sovereign knowing that death means end game? This is just calling for reloading a save game in single player game.

If you are giving help to the player for protecting their sovereign, then the same rules must apply to the AI and the sovereign hunting strategy will not be a viable one and all corresponding concepts will not be really used in the game.

And somehow, I don't think it is a nice concept to kill a sovereign with a powerful end game spell: want to kill a sovereign? You just need to raise a volcano under its feet...

Having an immortal unit that can die reminds me Highlander: immortal beings that are fighting themselves and can only die if their head is cut from their body. Maybe we need something like that for sovereigns: they can only be killed in specific conditions. If conditions are not met and the sovereign hit points drop to 0 in a combat, after the combat has ended, the sovereign keeps 1 hit points and gain no XP from the combat.

Since the sovereign starts the game without any city, it doesn't really make any sense to kill the sovereign if it last city is taken. But since sovereign power is about essence, it could make sense that sovereign can only be killed when battling another channeler (another sovereign or a hero with casting capability), with the channeler getting all the essence of the defeated sovereign.

I was really expecting more suggestions along these lines.   While I like my idea better, I feel that having sovereigns be indestructable to all but "elite" level troops or "tier 4 spells" or higher is an acceptable solution.  (the quotes are just examples, obviously.   I'm not aware of any tier system in the magic or anything like that.  Just hypothesis.  I also don't think a volcano should be auto-kill the way it was at PAX, but thats likely in part because I had a hard-on for volcanologist documenteries as a kid and so I've seen people do stuff like run across liquid magma in plain steal-toed boots.  Part of it is my opinion on the subject relates to balance and scope of magic spells, but we'll cross that river when it comes.)

A grey area to me was Highlander death by beheading.   When I was a kid I thought it was any beheading, but later I was told it had to be a Highlander that did it (special effects and lightning show, I guess, is a requirement), and not just anybody who happens to bring a sharp heavy blade to their neck.  So I would say it is also reasonable if another channeler, powerful hero, or immortal monster has to be present to channel the immortality out of the sovereign.   But likely this would mean those writing those books they've planned might have to change a few things if it isn't already how it worked.

Lol... I'm pretty sure thats a bug resulting from combat not really being in yet.

(on volcanoes:  earthquakes, mudslides, and falling airborn ash are what ACTUALLY kill people.   Sometimes Pyroclastic flows, but you have to be rather unlucky to actually be hit by one of those since they don't blanket the entire surrounding country side or anything like that.  so the actual death rate to them is fairly low.  I feel volcanoes should be more about destroying economies and wrecking havok than actually killing people.  There are much flashier, and more reasonable, ways that FIRE magic could wipe out entire armies or cities.   That being said, USUALLY, people know ahead of time they should move before a volcano erupts, since non-magical ones smoke a bit 1st... so I'm going to stop typing.   Another word from what Wintersong has dubbed "Landisaurus Geographic")

Honestly...and I didn't think I'd say this, but now that I think about it more, I like it. It brings a lot of strategy into the game. I'd like to be able to make my Sovereign into a Super Powerful, Unstoppable, Magical, Killing machine. If Sovereign Death = Game Over then it would be best to get your Sovereign up to the highest level you can. The tougher he is the less likely chance he'll have to die.

Unless you got unlucky and your sovereign got killed at level 2 few turns after the start of the game ...

I see your points, but I am pretty sure that even the most defensive player will put points into economy, defense and other skills before the Evade skill. I cannot see the Evade skill being balanced. In order to make such a skill useful it has to be extremely buffed (like giving a 100% evade). If its lower than 100% then why bother. Other things that the points could be used for will always be more useful. I would much rather have a litte extra power in my economy, get some extra agility, better attack or something similar. Even at a 100% I would avoid the skill.

Quoting Wintersong,

reply 27

Quoting auboy105,
reply 21
If the sovereign dies an heir successor takes over. This heir is like the sovereign at the beginning of the game. Weak. Brand new. You have to start all over building this character up all over again while your opponents still have very powerful and very experienced older sovereigns running around. Here would be the risk and challenge in losing your sovereign. This would be such a cool balancing feature! But please NO GAME OVER



No. The Sovereign is a "unique" character (not counting the other Sovereigns) and all his descendants are normal people (maybe better than normal but still not a channeler) that could get some Essence invested on them by the Sovereign (and gain some Essence each level as Frogboy suggested once but never at the same rate as the Sovereign). So the death of the Sovereign shouldn't change that.

This makes no sense at all. What is so special about the Sovereign? How come that none of his own childs will have the power to become the next Sovereign...somehow I fail to understand this.

"luck" shouldn't have anything to do with it at the start of the game.   Just because Sovereign Death = Game Over doesn't mean it can or will ever happen early game.   A player should not have a bad experiance because they are "unlucky"   Thats the point I've been pushing.

I vaguely recall something like that, but I walked away from it as "We need a way for sovereigns sitting at home building an economy to grow more powerful too, but we haven't implemented anything to allow for that, so this is our fill-in until we've got a better solution ready"

that may be true...    doesn't prohibit everything else I suggested in my 1st post like "assassin skill" or "trap" spell which would deny the sovereign their free escape.   I think an evade skill for heroes shouldn't be too bad.  They are going to grow old and die anyway, so having only a chance to recover them from combat death shouldn't be a balancing problem since you basically should be playing them until they die anyway.  If it happens sooner or later based on your points... eh, player choice.  Not game breaking by any means, but early game (where its tough to hire heroes because of limited income) it might be very important.

Well said....very true. Not to mention the MP games, like I've said. Players won't even use their Sovereigns in battles, because it would be a big mistake...as it is now.

I agree. I think the sovereign should be an important unit, but not gamebreakingly so. If he dies he should be replaced with a successor with level 1 or something similar. Then you would want to level and protect, but not at all cost. A gamble or two early game (battles with not 100% certain outcome) could be useful. Still if he dies the games moves on and you have lost a piece in a lagre puzzle, but not the game itself.

Happy sleeping landisaurus. You need it, cause I see no heat in here. This is one of the most civil forums I know of.

If Frogboy confirms it then you have the "Mod it!" option. Just saying. In fact, I'm sure it would be one of the first mods to be done.