This was a big gripe in AOW Shadow Magic! You could kill off the AI's really quickly!
I like the idea of a game ending if your Channeler dies. It places much more importance on your nation's leader, and makes the player really think hard before sending their Channeler out into the battlefield.
If someone gets the drop on your leader, you're dead. I'm not necessarily opposed to the game ending if your channeler dies, I just feel that it may be too easy to accomplish that.
Hence why we want to have such a long beta.
Okay.
Well here is my 2 cents again. I think there should be a huge risk and a huge loss to losing your wizard. I think your empire should suffer, become disorganized, and become weaker and easier to pick off. It would become much weaker because you have lost so much power from your great wizard and the empire goes into chaos. A weak successor wizard then takes over and you have to start back all over again building their power up. I just dont think the nation should poof disappear off the map and no longer be an empire to ever deal with again. Please give me an example in real life where this ever happened because a leader died? Let me save you some time. It has never happened. I think if would be fun to risk something great and then if it does not work out try and build your great empire back again from weakness and chaos. Sort of like in Lord of the Rings when Sauron was killed and then the empire went into hiding and rebuilding a weakened empire until he came back to strength in the far future...
Seems like this thread has found a really big basic question for the game. How does using a channeler's fundamental essence to expand usable map territory relate to siezing rival territory through force? Is the fundamental limit what your channeler can personallly sustain, or what your channeler's subservient units can defend?
In the beginning I was opposed to the idea of losing the game if your channeler dies, but now i think it might be an interesting mechanic if managed right.
Managed right means: come on and try to kill him. i.e. It should be really, really hard, and not only because he is so powerful - going for a walk alone and meeting one or two dragons would probably be enough to off even a mighty channeler, it should be hard because he could/should be prepared.
For example: everyone gets either death or life magic, so let there be a phylactery (for death) /resurrection ritual (for life) spells. They should be expensive to maintain but if you have them - you are revived, or a lich in death case. Let there be contingency spells (as already mentioned by someone) "oh, i am under 20% health - automatic heal. Now you can begin to whittle these hps away anew" Teleport (was also mentioned) for "crap, iam so out of here" situations... and so on.
You have casted them - you are safe(r). You did not - you have more power for other things, but if you die you do not have anybody to blame but yourself.
The way I see it, the player should definitely lose if his avatar dies (and in online games, human players will get a popup telling them they've lost). The problem is what to do with the AI to keep their cities from magically disappearing. I propose having their cities still function at normal capacity, but with no magical help that would have beem given by their rulers. So that way you still have to go back through and take over their cities and powerful units a la the last chapter of Lord of the Rings where they kick Sauruman out of the Shire, but your task will be a lot easier, and there will be no way that that faction can win after that. (But they might just put up enough resistance to allow another empire to surpass you.)
How about some sort of magical catastrophe as the channeler dies, and their remaining magic ripples wild through the lands? Some bad effects and some good, so you're not being punished by having your army nuked when you kill them. Or perhaps gradual, so you can get out of the way as the land is slowly rendered inhabitable.
I guess the idea is that a player should have some reward for killing another channeler, but not easy free access to doubling the size of their empire.
The enemy kingdom/empire that just lost his channeler should, depending of the conditions of the current game:
-Remain neutral. They don't expand but continue building their armies and cities. They have lost their leader but they won't bow down to anyone else and will defend what it's theirs.
-Surrender to the enemy that defeat their channeler. If the other channeler could kill theirs, maybe they will be safer with him, right?
-Join another kingdom/empire different from the one who actually did the killing. Having lost their powerful leader, they decide to join the cause of friendly/trustfull friends/allies to continue the fight (or don't have their cities so easily conquered by their now sworn enemy).
In any case, the channeler dies and there is no successor to him. He failed to fullfill his destiny and now his people pays the price of his failure.
As for the original question of this topic, I PERSONALLY like the idea of Sovereign death = lost game!
That said, I'll also be fine with a 'Spell of Return' type spell....as long as there is a big penalty (loss of time/mana/XP) for being killed. I do hope single player campaign has the option for instead death if you err, die.
As for multiplayer, there really shoud be an 'Assassin' victory condition where Sovereign's who die should remain defeated.
As for dealing with defeated enemies, their empire should simply turn neutral. Troops should become wandering troops..maybe have a % of offering to join, ignore or attack other players depending on faction and bribes.
Cities could work the same way = faction type and bribes might be enough to win them over, or you might have to fight them to take over.
I see necromancy.
but, while we're at it. I played a somewhat similar game called lords of magic. pretty unbalanced, but you do nice things. here is what happened.
normally, if your main character died, it meant game over. thus, you were careful where you sent him. for me, it also meant a fair bit of save/ load. but it made you care about that character.
there was also the possibility of getting an heir. with that, even if your original character died, someone else could still take the place. as such, a succession system sounds interesting. requires essence, more than your standard hero/ champion, but he'd be able to do the same stuff as your starting channeler, only weaker.
if you killed another party, all their troops would not only go neutral, but also go on a quest of vengence. they left their cities and encampments and went straight to your lands to fight you. most of the time they fought hilarious odds, but the idea is nice. if you kill an enemy channeler, then his empire will forever hate you and fight you. they won't have their master's guidance or essence, but they'd still be trouble and prevent you from claiming the lands immediately.
an interesting point of course could be that the sentiment you get after you dispose of a channeler depends on how he treated his people, provided there are such options available. if he was a tyrann and slave master, maybe some cities gladly welcome you as their savior, while they would equally persue you into hell itself, in case you killed their good, just king. just an idea.
All great ideas!
Well I think the point is that you can't try and defend your kingdom, you're dead, and you have no kingdom.
I always thought of those things like: the avatar is your window into the world, when the window is closed you have no access any longer. And, as someone else pointed out, the channeler is responsible for the life in the land, upon their death, the land begins to die, your forces have no chance.
Good question, is it unit based or does the basic essence of the ruler imbue the land over time. (kind of like culture in Civ IV.) Spreading over any uncontested land over time and vying for control with any other channeler your come into contact with.
I know it sounds spiffy and novel to have the game end when the channeler dies, but I think this will be fatal to the game. The biggest problem with the original Age of Wonders is the ease of which the game promptly ended. You would walk into a dungeon or take a wrong turn and be up to your nose in enemies, even if you were proceeding with relative caution. From the sounds of it, channelers are expected to be proactive when plunging dungeons or attacking opponents. If this is the case, they will have to succeed in pretty much every battle or the game will be over. I'm the kind of person that doesn't load his game when I lose a battle or unfortunate things happen, so I would be having to start a new game every other time I sent my channeler to a dungeon (and I don't a game should revolve around loading). On the same token, I don't want to have to send my channeler to a distant corner of the map to keep him safe while my opponents rake in masses of power with their own channelers.
I'm not averse to the idea of a channeler being mortal and killable, but I think there needs to be plenty of safe guards. Perhaps at the beginning of the game, channelers are as vulenerable as any hero unit but, as time goes on, the channeler can develop spells or abilities that allow them to participate in warfare directly but have robust contingency plans that would make the casual death of a channeler in a basic battle almost impossible. For instance, you could develop an incantation avatar spell that allows your channeler to create a single magical avatar of himself (albiet, weaker) who can participate in specific battles while he remains safely in his tower. What's more, if an incantation avatar is killed, it could inflict XP damange on the channeler. There could be virtually a dozen means by which a channeler could have recourse if things didn't go well and, if an opposing channeler is whilly enough, can penetrate those safeguards and defeat their opponent.
If a channeler can be struck down by a couple of lucky lightening bolts or misteps, 2/3rds of your opponents will be dead before you even meet them (not to mention, you will have loaded your game 100 times by the time you reach midgame). For any of you that played MoM on a harder difficulty level, recall how difficult it was to keep a hero alive throughout the entire game without either loading your game after every other dungeon or customizing your wizard with nothing but life magic to gain a ressurection spell.
Also, I think that even if a non-player channeler is killed, their empire should continue expanding with a mundane monarch, but without the awesome advantage of having a channeler. Otherwise, the player will always, with almost no exception, plunge straight toward the "head of the snake" in every conflict to the neglect of other strategies. That's not even considering the fact that the AI will almost certainly not play cautiously with his channeler and give players an abundance of "cheap shot" opportunities to bring him down. How dull will the game be if almost every war ends with 1 channeler vs channeler battle, winner takes all?
Frog, I implore you to reconsider.
I loaded up Age of Wonders (the original) yesterday to get a feel again for the 'you die/you lose' game concept.
I went through 3 of the campaign missions with my leader taking a more direct role in combat.....and died a great many times (I refused to reload and would only restart the missions from the beginning)....it was very frustrating. Actually, it was extremely frustrating (but still oddly fun).
I then started again but this time using my leader as a support type hero (bard skills, leadership, ranged weapons) who used enchantments to buff his troops (Stone skin, bless, enchanted weapon). I went through the first 3 missions without a single leader death.
So, I think Elemental could actually work with a 'channeler dies = game lost'.....personally, I would even prefer that (especially in multiplayer).
However, I doubt many others would see it that way. Besides, the 'channeler dies = instant loss' would force players to either hide their leaders away, or at most use them as a support unit. Leaders as melee tanks really wouldn't be a feasible strategy.
I know the devs have commented on how cool it would be to have a super powerful leader like Sauron wade into battle. However, with a 'you die/you lose' game concept, there won't be any players using their channeler like a Sauron....unless they want to die like a Sauron.
Eh. I've never played the original Age of Wonders, but I have played AoW:SM. From your post I get the impression that wizards in the original were more combat-worthy than in Shadow Magic, but I think Stardock has something more in mind. Channelers are supposed to, if you hoard their power, be godlike and capable of single-handedly besting even entire armies. I don't think you'll have many opportunities to lose your channeler in the early game unless you really try to. And even afterwards I don't think it'll be so easy and I'm sure you'll be able to take countermeasures, like the ability to teleport out of danger, or use simulacra, or sauron-like measures like imbuing an item with essence in order to preserve your channeler even in the event of death.
Basically, if you focus on making your channeler powerful rather than making him more of a general support for your kingdom, your channeler will probably pretty safe if you're at all cautious. I'm very much in favor of the game ending when your channeler dies, but I'm kind of assuming that that implies channelers aren't going to be falling left and right.
Good point Pigeonpigeon. My little Age of Wonders test really only tells me about...Age of Wonders. The Channelers in Elemental might be made of sterner stuff (with proper essense hording).
I actually favor the 'Channeler dies = lose the game' concept. It will certainly make players bond with their 'avatars' and improve game immersion.
I am just worried that most people will find it too frustrating if Channelers get wiped out more often then not in early battles. But if careful tactics can prevent that for the most part, then I would have zero reservations about 'channeler dies = game lost'.
That's exactly what I don't want to see: Channelers that have such flagrantly powerful abilities on the battlefield that you lose out heftily if you don't have them constantly on the war path, leading your best armies. I think a lot of people are stuck on the single epic scene of the blood soaked demi-god channeler wading through the ranks of paltry enemy soldiers and aren't really seeing the full ramifications. And I think one of the reasons why most people aren't averse to the idea of "Channelers die = lose game" is because they'll just haphazardly send their channelers into every battle that they think they might remotely win and load their game if he/she dies (and in some cases, try the same battle over and over again until they eek out a victory). This will result in an artificially powerful channeler for the player because of all the narrow battles turned to victories vs the opponent's channeler who must play conservatively.
What's worse is the way in which people will be able to exploit enemy channelers. An AI will always have shortcomings, and regardless of how brilliant the development team is, there will be plenty of cheap opportunities to kill an opponent's channeler due to AI shortsightedness and abruptly end an otherwise gripping war.
On the other hand, if you make it too easy for a channeler to ressurect or reconstitue after being killed in the field, than pretty much every battle you commit to will be in the shadow of your all-powerful channeler.
This matter will have to be dealt with tenderly.
... As an option for those who would share your (very valid) conception of bonding & immersion.
In some of my games, I could choose to experience that kind of bonding & immersion, and then, your "concept" would apply ... because I selected that option in the game setup. In some other game, I might not wish to "bond" and I might prefer to explore another style of gameplay.
What I really don't want is other people imposing their subjective conception of how the challenge should be.
Game setup options, with variable victory/defeat alternatives.
This thread is interesting because of its analytical discussion of various options.
By all means, if the devs can make 'channeler dies = game over' an on/off menu option = WIN! It would also be a nice option for multiplayer (assassination attempts would be loads of fun AND would shorten the game).
But having some type of spell or tech to bring your channeler back to life (with penalties) would also be great.
Well for one, it will only be an option to focus your essence on your channeler. If you spread your essence around then your channeler will no longer be such an insanely good combat unit, but in return you get more/better settlements, champions and that kind of stuff. It's a trade-off. Secondly, I get the impression that if you focus your essence on your channeler his combat abilities and spell strength will increase (but I could be wrong).
Another thing is, balancing a feature based on whether or not people will save/load is the totally wrong approach. Those people will save/load anyways, no matter what you do. The game should be balanced for normal play. If people want to take advantage of the AI either through an external feature (like save/load) that is not available to AI players, then they are going to and there's nothing you can or should do - let people play the way they want to.
Yeah, that's possible. Although, I think it's quite likely that Stardock will implement an AI good enough that it won't happen that often. Additionally, I'm 100% in the camp that thinks that destroying AI channelers shouldn't cause their nation to immediately capitulate (or vanish, which would be even worse...). When you destroy an AI channeler, their empire should either continue fighting without their channeler, become a sort of neutral minor faction (with a grudge against you), or join another empire (which on occasion could even be you).
So yeah, I want the game to end upon your channeler's death, but I also want their to be countermeasures to prevent this that must be taken ahead of time. None of this Spell of Return crap (I've never liked that, honestly), but things more along the line of Sauron's ring, or spells/rituals made in advance to prevent a channeler's death in otherwise fatal situations. Like you say, though, these can't be too easy or cheap.
I could go with defeated factions become a neutral force with a grudge against you....but to have them join another faction afterwards!?!? That would be unbalanced as hell.
Killing an opponent would often simply result in losing the game as one of your opponents would suddenly increase in power.
Have you ever played GC2? If you're on the verge of conquering someone they will often join another faction (on occasion they will submit to your rule, but usually they joined someone else). I don't see how this is any different. And quite frankly, if you kill Channeler A and his kingdom then joins Channeler B, who already hated you, you aren't worse off than you were before. Channeler A and B both hated you already, now you have one less channeler to deal with and the same number of cities, same number of troops...
And maybe it'd make you think twice about assassinating a channeler.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
