Okay, here's our latest thought process on the sovereign.
First, let me say that the sovereign dying is a non-negotiable thing to us. It's an important core concept.
That said, we do not want users to have to play defensive with their sovereign. The idea is to give players the option to gamble it all if they want.
So here's what we're thinking:
Heroes will have a skill called Evade. The evade skill determines the odds of them escaping a disaster (lost battle, taking of a city, etc.). When they escape, they are transported to the nearest friendly city.
Players will be able to put points into evade when they design their character.
There will be major evade modifiers. For example, if your sovereign is in a city when it's attacked, odds are, he'll escape. If he's in a large army, he'll probably escape too. But if it's a 1 on 1 encounter, odds are, he wouldn't escape.
The entire system would be automatic and players worried about losing their sovereigns can simply put some points into him and park him in a city and not have to worry.
I, for one, am happy that your sovereign can die. YOU are the sovereign, so basically when you die, the game should end. The point is that while it's logical, it's not fun for quite a lot of people. There are 2 problems however: how easy is to kill a sovereign and how should/could you continue your game after sovereign's death.
Let's start from evade system Frog proposed. To be honest - I don't like it. The mechanics, that while the army is big you can escape, and if not - you can't. Strange, at least in my opinion. I vote for no evasion-kind system. Ok, there should be some chance that your sovereign survive after a lost battle, but it shouldn't be that high (~20%). After the sovereign dies, it will either move to nearby space (if there are no friendly towns close by), or to ONE OF closest cities (so it will be random, not to allow enemy to know the position of sovereign right away).
Together with easy death, should come the rather easy revival system. I opt for a system in which your sovereign can be resurrected in town that has a special structure (a church?) for a steep cost. Of course such revival shouldn't happen fast (nothing close to 3 days ). During this period you will normally control your kingdom/empire - of course you won't be able to cast spells, aid your units in battle as a sovereign unit & found cities.
Coupled with the above solution comes one question: how can you permanently kill a sovereign? I vote for a fixed period of time during which the sovereign has to be resurrected - if you won't revive sovereign before the dead-line, you will lose the game. Important note: many options (arguments) of this system should be modifiable in the game options menu.
Start from the evade system :
instead of dieing if you lose the dice roll, you esacape but severly damaged. It would depend on the roll.
Anyway, crushing other armies won't be the only way to achieve victory, but how could a smaller empire compete with someone that is steamrolling everyone ?
How should/could you continue the game after the sovereign's death...yes, this is a good question, but it's kinda pointless to talk about this. Even if we could play on....without the Sovereign, you wouldn't be able to cast spells for example.
@Tormy-:
For me it's also pointless, as this game would become more or less a modified Civ v.XX. It's the magic that makes it so much better. However - as you can easily see - so many people still want to play AFTER the sovereign has died. In short: does the PERMANENT death of sovereign should mean the definite end of the game, despite of all the whining?The easy resolution would be: sure, allow them to play (it would be a game option, just like blind research). I consider this topic NOT a discussion whether or not to allow playing after losing the sovereign (as it is relatively easy to code, I think); it's the balance of sovereigns vulnerability system ie. how easy is to kill the sovereign (aka win the game).
I presented some solution centered around idea of resurrection. Main elements of such system, are as follows:
I understand that such system will have flaws, but it's rather simple (VERY important), forces you to care about the sovereign, but on the other hand, one loss shouldn' result in a game over screen. Think about all the games you've played in which you lost a vital unit/structure/resource. Did it automatically result in "mission failed" screen, with no option to continue?
A random chance of not losing the sovereign is pretty bad in my opinion. What happens when this happens to an AI sovereign you want to kill? 60% chance of not killing your target? So you have to try again, and again, and again, until he stops escaping? Looks boring. Makes assassination strategies useless.
Resurrection? This is the Dominions solution, and it looks like it's ruled out. Because to be resurrected, you had to die in the first place, so it was game over. If death = game over, then you can only be resurrected after the game over, so you just cannot. In fact, escape is a cheap resurrection that tries to avoid losing the game on a battle.
Sovereign death shouldn't happen easily. It should be likely if you risk yourself outside your territory, it should be unlikely if you remain inside your empire, particularly near its 'heart'. This way one doesn't need to design kludges around the system.
I don't mind the AI escaping if I didn't put much effort in "surrounding" the sovereign, and simply battle him in an effort to kill him. Either way, assasination strategies shouldn't necessarily be easy ... especially since in this case it wins/loses the game in an instant, rather than as a way to severely cripple the opponent.
I still think we should wait till the next beta to get a feel for how the Sovereign will interact with his environment in an aesthetic, power proportional way ... as a scampering mouse or as a deadly lion.
Like the idea of an heir. I also like the idea that a sovereign can die permanently. I hate the idea that it ends the game.
One of the biggest keys between companies (and presumably kingdoms, though I can't speak from experience there) that last and flash-in-the-pans is that the enduring companies invest long-term in a diverse and talented group that can operate without the top dog. Losing a sovereign should constitute enough of a power hit to represent a serious handicap, but if someone's actually invested in succession planning, the kingdom should benefit from that too.
The voice, of reason - Tau Ethereal
It seems you're hellbent on having a Sovereign and death is gameover. It seems you really believe in this concept and I will give you the benefit of the doubt, for now....
But have you considered other options like one of Age of Wonders startoptions where you start without a hero and you have to lose all your cities to lose the game?
That would make Elemental more about army vs army instead of spreading things out since you don't want to risk your channelers which would make Elemental more like an RPG which is a big HELL NO!
I don't see why it would make it more like an RPG ... but it would definitely make it more like Highlander or God vs God ... and I could see Sovereigns (human player at least) trying to slaughter whole armies, and running in at very low odds for survival as long as there was not an imbued hero or a channeler in the enemy army. Get as many lives as you have to to destroy the opposing army.
Heh, it would completely change the gameplay, but would really = loss of sovereign/game over in an opposite way .... if you lost your sovereign (with the theory that you could continue playing) then you would have no way of killing the opposing sovereign (unless you had a channeler). In this way, even if you had the bigger army, his sovereign could use his magic to tear up your army each battle, and you would have to either retreat or incapacitate him as quickly as possible, with least loss of your own troops via devastating magic.
I'm sorry but unless you aleaborate more, I don't see what are you tryig to say with that. As far as my memory goes, my comment was about someone's else comment of the Sovereign being only killable by another Sovereign (Highlander thing) to which I'd prefer to be by any channeler (the Sovereign being one as well as any creature that has Essence). All that said as one way to treat the "keeping your Sovereign alive" topic.
And as far as I understood the idea, it could not lead to what Tasunke says because the Sovereign could be incapacitated just that not killed in battle unless a channeler was there.
In any case, what has that to do with a RPG? Your "HELL NO" is going to grow x 1000 when Quests get implemented.
What I meant to say was that it could encourage using your Sovereign as a "Gandalf" ... and using him to attack/attempt to kill off soldiers from your non-channeler supported armies rather regularly, as there would be no risk of dying. Its not that I would mind that, Im just saying that is likely what it would lead to.
But he could be defeated by your non-channeler supported armies so altough it means the defeated sovereign doesn't die and appears somewhere else (a city), it's not like Easy Mode for the Sovereign because in any case he is always able to attack enemy armies (with or without channeler support).
So he could attack weaker armies (without channelers) to cause some casualties without real risk of dying but he could still be defeated and I haven't read anywhere people suggesting that he shouldn't suffer penalties for losing the battle. So:
okay thats nice ... but why has no-one commented on my environmental type post?
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
