i guess the best way to look at the whole sovereign death thing is this.  are playing the kingdom or are you playing the sovereign? 

because if you are playing the kingdom then it makes sense that when he dies the next child in line becomes the sovereign and you keep going.  if this is true the sovereign should be weaker and closer to basically a champion, because he doesn't really matter.

if you are playing the sovereign then when the sov dies the game should end for you, because your dead.  if this is the case then the sov should be more powerful and unique among the champions to show that without the sov your civ simply cannot be.

so basically which is it?

Um, I have to disagree. The entire point of killing someone is to remove them from the game. If they want to sign a surrender treaty were they pay tribute or something thats different. Besides this way would completly ignore the entire Dynasty system. I would like the Dynasty system to actually matter thank you.

Um, I have to disagree. The entire point of killing someone is to remove them from the game. If they want to sign a surrender treaty were they pay tribute or something thats different. Besides this way would completly ignore the entire Dynasty system. I would like the Dynasty system to actually matter thank you.

Killing the sovereign does not necessarily means killing the player out of the game.

Some random ideas: If your sovereign get his capital captured, then he will probably need to surrender. If the sovereign actully dies. Either the children takes the place and continue to live, or either the kingdom fall in ennemy hands, but the children are exiled and plan a rebellion. Or the children controls the kingdom under their conquerer's command.

In the viktory 2 board game, vassal essentially means:

You cannot attack your boss.

If another player takes your capital, he can free you, or you become his new vassal.

The only problem with that is that the vassal player could get sloppy and not manage very well his kingdom. But there could be ways for the leader to enforce his command to the vassal. For example, the leader could ask for some production/income quota, else he will capture more cities from his vassal. So the vassal would be forced to assure a certain efficiency or get weaker.

Yeah, so if you have to train peasants in groups of four what would that mean?  Something like 8 gildar, 12 mats, and 4 pop?  Really, is this unbalancing?

Why? its not like they need to do every little things themselves, and a guardian can be appointed to do the bulk of the management. A guardian being, say, you the player.

Sigh. This appears to have disappeared from the OP without comment from Brad. Please, could that be an editing mistake?

There are so many good reasons to try to keep Essence as a stat, not the least of which is making the game unique in the genre and hence more fun. I'm not married to any particular way it should work, just to the idea that it has potential to make the whole game much better. Having Essence and mana together could sustain both the 'routine magic' feel that many of us expect from a fantasy game setting while also having a serious 'magic is special' layer, for a more Lord of the Rings/Song of Ice and Fire feel.

Sounds good so far.  Question:  Will level of 'notable location' correspond with level of 'monster' inside / level of reward??

true

Could death of a sovereign eventually lead to the next in line taking over? That way, an extensive family would have to lose a lot more of the royal line until someone with a stronger connection can take over.

I like the Romance of the Three Kingdom way. 

1. Sov Dies

2.  There is a council with your heirs and champions.  (Now, in these games, the generals each had different personalities, some were stubborn, some ambitious, loyal, etc).  And they would express their opinions on who should take over the Kingdom.  Some times they were united, some times there were rival factions, usually the oldest child of the Sov had the most support.  You as the player could make anyone the next Ruler, but if you chose some scrub over an Heir, or someone that didn't get a lot of support in the council, then the nation would fracture.

3. If there is a pretty unified opinion, then that person is made Sov.  But, if there were rival factions, the Kingdom would split, and a new nation would rise. 

After the sovereign dies, I think the kingdom should be split up among the factions who have married into the dynasty and any unmarried heirs who would start a new faction.

For example, Relias has four kids:  Nambo (married to Capitar), Nimbo, Nombo, and Numbo (married to Pariden).  Some cities and armies would go to Capitar, some cities and armies would go to Pariden, and two new factions would emerge one following Nimbo and one following Nombo.

I vote for the way of doing it that is best for preventing the AI from being taken out easily.