So what happens to a hero if if I kill that hero's sovereign? Do they go back into the hero pool so they can be hired by another sovereign?
In an earlier game an enemy Hero returned to being hireable again after I killed his sovereign. But in a more current game in a comparable situation the hero vanished like all the enemy troops and cities. So it seems to me this has been changed.
As far as I am concerned I liked the old behaviour more.
Soverign resurrects if he gets vanquished in his own territory & has at least one city, otherwise he dies. It doesn't explain that in the manual, but that's how it works.
JimKnopf was asking about the adventurers that the sovereign hires, not the sovereign itself.
As in, when a faction dies, what happens to all the adventurers they had hired? Do they vanish, as they did in his game, or are they supposed to return to hireable status?
Edit: I meant JimKnopf and Nabbar. >.<
Might be even more fun if each champion had a 'roll' to determine whether he/she went back on the labour market, took up general villainy, or decided to go on a vendetta against the foul folks who murdered his/her sovereign.
I would like to see all the Sovs children and champions not killed in battle become free agents or form partisans, or maybe join other enemy kingdoms/empires. Would be bad ass, like in Romance.
They actually currently can defect.I was toying with this yesterday, and was able to get large amounts of my heirs and heroes to defect to other kingdoms . So at least part of the mechanism is there to expand from to incorporate other conditions and reactions for heroes and heirs shifting allegiances.
I also saw a heir to a kingdom that was destroyed,wandering around the map, still flagged for the destroyed kingdom.Its probably a bug,but it shows they can exist past the death of their kingdom.
I think it'd be interesting if heroes that had armies at the time of a kingdom's demise attempted to take a city for their own even, as a city state or minor faction. Most fantasy worlds have such heroes. Or even mercenary armies.
I like this idea... I like certain things to be unpredictable, but I like other things to be predictable. Then I like manipulating the predictable ones.
I've never seen a hero get resurrected. I have seen them get duplicated though, which is probably a bug.
That almost describes the whole 'role-playing by myself' thing that TBS games have done for me since Civ 1. You might also be pointing out the challenge for the designers when it comes to 'our sort' of players. It boils down to control freaks asking for a steady supply of surprises that turn out OK in the end. And it makes me belatedly notice the total absence of anything like the regular random events, much less mega-events, that GC2 has. I plead innocent on account of obsession with the still-scanty magic mechanics.
I like this idea.
In my own past games, I have encountered free agent heroes I had previously hired, but who had died. Since it seems everything goes poof when a sovereign dies, it could just be coincidence that you later saw one of their heroes.
On a related note, after destroying a faction by killing it's sovereign, I later encountered a single hero belonging to that faction. I believe it was a grandchild of the deceased sovereign who had defected from their father's faction.
[quote who="GW Swicord" reply="4" id="2801745"]Might be even more fun if each champion had a 'roll' to determine whether he/she went back on the labour market, took up general villainy, or decided to go on a vendetta against the foul folks who murdered his/her sovereign.[/quote]
Yes and yes!!!
Indeed, that would be amazing and more accurate with the way things shake out when a dynasty crumbles. When Alexander the Great died, three massive empires arouse from the asses lead by his generals and their armies. Conversely, many rougue troops and leaders didn't give up the fight. Warlords are still present today. Cutting off the head of the snake rarely works if the organization is large. There is too much power and money at play. Look at Mafia and gang history alone.
Perhaps the heroes and their armies could also ally with those factions that were friendly or at least similar to themselves? An example would be Poles and French in WWII who didn't just say, "What the heck, the Nazis won, so let's join up!" Something similar would help counter rush tactics.
>.>
"three massive empires arouse from the asses"
I laughed at this.
This seems like a no-brainer to me, but why doesn't your first born (if you have one) become the new sovereign?
Yea, and the game already list who is next in line to the throne, it just seems set up for this feature. And if someone was able to take over if a Sov died, then we wouldn't worry so much about Sov suicides making the game so easy.
I would gladly lose some of the RPG experience for an improved 4X experience. When making decisions, SD should always ask themselves first, if a feature or component will make Elemental a better 4x TBS strategy game...and only after that, if it will add to the RPG experience. EWoM is and always will be a strategy game first.
This heir thing is a perfect example...it's seems perfect that if your sovereign dies, the first born heir would become the new sovereign. Why else call your children a 'dynasty'? It suggests that they will take over your kingdom. To NOT do this because it would take players out of the RPG experience is a mistake.
I don't even get the RPG experience part. Not sure what we are losing, shit I'm not even sure what we have. Not like my Sov, or any Sove has any personality. No Champion or Sov acts any differently than any other, no matter allegiance, race, etc, or attitude. In Romance of the Three Kingdoms, in the later games, Generals had different attitudes, some were brave, some were greedy, some were loyal and so on. Each had their own personality. You could expect Lu Bu to betray you, but you were always tempted to use him because he was so bad ass. This game has none of that feelings with anyone.
RPG stuff aside, I've always supported sovereign-death=game-over because it is just more fun for me strategically.
Having succession for AI players seems like it might be fun, but I'm still more interested in being able to play a game with factions that don't simply vanish after their sovereign dies but instead leave the map seriously rearranged in rough proportion to their overall 'power.'
For single-player human sovereigns, death=game-over just means that I have a truly unique unit to work with. I've yet to have a game where a military goal required putting my sov at serious risk, but I'm looking forward to it, assuming that the magic system finally gets interesting enough to really hold my attention.
I would suggest just making like a normal strategy game, if all cities are conquered, game over. OR, if you lose your sovereign and don't have a suitable heir, you lose. That would add a whole new layer of importance to marrying and having kids.
That might be interesting if there weren't already a powerful motive to breed: new, spell-casting champions. As the game is now, the only question about your sov getting married is how long you want to wait for someone who looks like they'll help spawn crazy-strong kids.
Inheritance should be in the game, but be optional (possibly with three settings: none, AI only, and everyone). And something needs to be done other than erasing nations when they lose their leader as that is just no fun at all.
Wait a minute...I also just noticed that under my child's picture in the game it says, "first in line for the throne...".
Now it really seems like your children were designed to take over for your sovereign.
Prior to one of the recent patches, children could defect to a defeated AI faction and become the ruler. Therefore it can be concluded they did implement inheritance, but it is over ruled when the nation is erased.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
