a sort of Poll. stay at home sov, or crusading sov?

For me it's going to depend on how tactical combat works. If I can spellcast from afar in tactical combat (ala Age of Wonders 2), I'll be staying at home and letting my minions do the gruntwork.

If not... well its hard to pass up fireballs in combat. (At least until I can mod in casting from afar.)

It's a matter of playstyle. The question is that which method would be more effective. [Especially in MP since it enforces powergaming. :)]

Either way, I sympathize with both methods.

Adventuring ... and NPC interactions. War game be saved for end game

I know i will do a bit of both.  I'm curious to see how the magic/essence stuff is developing, as that will be a big factor. 

I'll do both in each game due to enjoying a peaceful and administrative beginning, followed by blazing crusades if the situation allows (wouldn't be the first time that circumstances force me to go the Sir Robin route though).

I personally hope for a more Age of Wonders 1 bent to things (i.e., wandering Sov) than AoW2 (stay at home). But I enjoyed both games, and admittedly I think AoW2 was more balanced than AoW1 was. (Not that it didn't have it's own balance issues, but eh).

Neither. I'll try to create some kind of fellowship of the sov, with lots of heroes with powerfull abilities. My sov will be with them when they need, and otherwise at home.

I will do both, depending on the type of game I want to play... but only if they are both viable.

Have to agree with most posters here-- would do both dependent upon the game design and the particular game circumstances.  If they need My Awesomonius out in the field to wage war, will do so.  Conversely, if the cowering peasants at home need My Gawdliness to allay their superstitious fears, I shall do that as well.

Probably exactly what Brad&Co. wants to hear:  the fact we'll all change play-styles dependent upon circumstances.  Keeps the game "fresh."

Well ... I will have games where I go out and explore/ adventure etc .... and other games where I make a massive army of domination.

I'll probably play 67% of games melee heavy and 33% of games magic heavy

Much rarer will be the game where I sit at home ... never leaving my walls

Prefer the frontline warlord sovereign myself, but here's hoping all the playstyles mentioned here (and more!) will be viable in the final balanced game. It'd be great for replay value if it wasn't a bad idea to leave your sovereign in your capital, and receive a worthwhile bonus for doing so (superior administration or whatever), while your champions and children do the adventuring for you.

Even better if you don't have to lock your sovereign into a specific playstyle by the choices you make at creation (as it is to some extent at the moment), but can instead evolve his role as the game progresses and your needs change - perhaps start out as an adventurer and melee'er, pick up some magic as you level, eventually resign him to governing your capital as your empire develops and you have sufficient children/champions to do the running around for you. Or even the reverse, hide in your capital until you have an army to lead into battle and some spells to support them with, who knows.

I want to do everything; multiple viable playstyles that can change as a game progresses = replay value!

adventuring exploring and magic are what i use him for.

more of a Sage path of play a wanderer whom also has great arcane power and eventually comes to his cities to build up great artifacts/cast great magic is more or less the sov for me i like to use children and npc's to be generals and govenor's while the Sov is the great magical authority.

I plan on building competent magic users in stead of risking my Sov. To that tune I'll also go heavy on quick and effective assassins.

I prefer a game where the sovereign is mostly based at home, but where he can be called out for crucial or desperate tasks, and where at the end he will have to be defeated himself in combat before it is over. I don't like it too much when the sovereign himself is used as a juggernaut, spearheading any military move. For me it feels more epic when the big guy is "above" the daily fighting business, much like Sauron. Only at the key moments should he intervene personally. SD said that their recurring question to find an answer for what the sovereigns can do is: What would Sauron do? Well, during the whole war of the Ring he was just eyeing his expanding empire from his tower. In Silmarillion, spanning most of the history of ME, he was a bit more active (as young), but no one can call him an adventurer or champion. 

That's also why I don't really understand the hype of the "you are the sovereign" concept. It's perfectly fine and fun to play your main heroes leading armies into evil lands as a major part of the game, while at the same time playing the sovereign more as a controlling eye. I don't want it to be turned into some kind of RPG where you walk around on the map killing monsters with one character only.

Whats the point in sitting at home like a pansy when you can be out crushing fools for looking at you wrong... Crusader here sir!

"At home" builder and adventurer. Will likely not risk him much, if I can help it.

A Sov losing a battle means he is transported home and has to heal ther anyways, so it seems we will all be at home for some time.

That is if he has a "Home" to go back to. Brad has mentioned that perhaps a little wandering early may be doable, but a bad random chance encounter, say an "Elite Troll Leader" could be disheartening.

Although, I assume the "Retreat/Run Away" button will be turned back on.

I have become somewhat accustomed to the, drop a Village, then go out "Adventuring" side of things so far. I will likely continue that trend as such.