On Sovereign handling -

i agree that the concept suggested in the first post lends itself to a number of exploits, most of them already explained by other users.

I'd prefer to have a sovereigns defeat have at least some serious repercussions - like costing a-not-so-small-amount of essence, 5 points or so for example (as, if i'm not mistaken, was already suggested by another user).

A concept like this would IMHO have several benefits:

- It would fit nicely in the whole essence concept, since through each defeat the sovereign would lose a part of "himself", essentially getting weaker every time (thoughts of Sauron, who after his "death" during the destruction of Numenor was no longer able to change his form, come to my mind here...)

- A sovereign defeated in battle would not necessarily mean "game over", but the player would still have to be careful with him.

- Another idea would be, if the essence sinks below zero, the sovereign would finally die, meaning game over. This would basically mean an "extra life" concept, as i think was already suggested by another user, but one that IHMO would fit very nicely in the whole "the sovereign has to give up a part of himself to do xy" concept.

- This would also keep sovereign "hunting" as a viable win strategy. In the above concept i think it could get very frustrating, if you defeat an enemy sovereign over and over again, taking (possibly severe) casualtys of your own and never getting any benefits out of it, as the enemy sovereign would just reappear in a neaby city of his unharmed.

On Sovereign handling :

Escaping when defending, and not when attacking, will eventually lead to a game that is not balanced.

I like the "heir solution" mentioned before. Your sovereign dies, his son/daughter/mutant weirdo baby takes over, with no experience.

Or, maybe you can use a system a la Dominions 3 :

1 - Your sovereign should always be necessary, be it for research reasons, resource reasons, or fighting reasons. You can't win a dominions game without your god carrying research, researching magic or fighting ; perhaps it should be the same in elemental. It gives a really strong emphasis on role play and allows the player to really care for his god/sovereign.

2 - When he dies, it takes many turns and resources to resurrect him, leaving you weaker and unable to attack or defend properly during the time he's getting resurrected ; or leaving you with a hole in your production or research, because, well, he's not there anymore to work.

I think this would be enough for players to care about their sovereign, and be strongly hurt when he dies ; but it wouldn't be "game over". A dead sovereign should never mean the end of the game, because this wont allow players to use them to their fullest potential. And i think most players want to use them a lot, actively, they want to be able to attempt dangerous strategies that would not automatically lead to "game over" if failed, but that would strongly penalize them.

Yes well....I would prefer to play with settings like these [..because frankly...I think that these settings would be much better, but this is my personal opinion of course..], but the Sovereign system in Elemental will be different. Our only hope will be modding [so that we will be able to create a different Sovereign system - like the mentioned "heir - successor system], or maybe Stardock will implement a different/additional system later on [so the player will be able to play with different settings if they want to..].

..Now with these new rules, the players won't be able to exploit the AI that much at least. I like this change.

Sovereign Losing -  How about linking it to city Prestige (a historical linkage)?  You lose a battle with your soveriegn and take a hit out of your territory influence.  Perhaps at a certain point of loss you start losing cities or they become neutral.  Conversely winning big battles should enhance your prestige.

I'd probably stay away from the Sovereign dying (it is a Hero game, and the Hero always gets away) and just punish you for losing the battle. 

As for endgame Sovereign killing (ie. you don't want them killed early on to prevent simple Sovereign Gank strategies), make a spell that allows you to destroy the Sov's mana based on destroying/corrupting his cities.  Or a corruption spell that is mitigated by how many cities you control.  So you have a way to finish off the lone wolf Sov's in the mid to late game without making them the sole goal of early game.

Ren

I think that if your sovereign dies you have failed. Game over. I don't understand why that concept strikes fear in the hearts of gamers. In every game that requires it, including chess, I can usually protect my king long enough to make a game of it. Tension is a healthy thing in all forms of art.

If we must forgive sovereign death, offense vs. defense seems extremely artificial.

I know there will be family heirs involved in this game somehow, if you have an heir, maybe they can become the new sovereign.

Also, one way wizards often avoid dying in fiction is by creating a phylactory of some kind. It should be somewhat costly to create. Store one in a hopefully safe city and ressurect there.

In general, one of the problems with design by comittee is that gamers 'think' they want the game to be easier than they really want. I have lurked on many internet gaming forums over many years, and this is a common theme, often to the detriment of many games.

I think you might be onto something here.

I would like the escape counter to be calculated like this;

Sovereign defending (+1)

Sovereign is in a town with an escape tunnel (+1)

Sovereign is within his own borders (+1), enemy borders (-1)

Sovereign's Army is out numbered (-1) [With an additional -1 per order of magnitude]

Sovereign's Army is out classed (-1) [With an additional -1 per order of magnitude]

Sovereign currently has Camouflage or Speed cast on himself (+1 per)

Sovereign is currently affected by Slow, Enemy Sight, or Bind(-1 per)

Etc...

If the Escape counter is >= 0 (or if he knows a teleport spell) then at the start of the battle the Sovereign should have the option to flee. If he does he re-appears in the nearest friendly town in X turns (however long it would take him to get there using his best movement).

If the Sovereign should decide to fight, they would then have the option to Flee whenever it is his action (The Sovereign unit) if the current escape counter allows it.

I feel that this would allow for more flexibility and less 'suicide Sovereign defensive stands'.

Sammual

Hmmm, my reply seems to have gotten lost.

Caravans - What is the point here?  What is the advantage of having a graphical unit moving across the screen when you could just as easily make any army blocking a road "raiding."  With Scouts, Armies, Sovereign's, Monsters, etc. all moving around each turn, do we really need more moving graphics.  Given the lack of skill or tension in raiding caravans (no battle), it seems more micromanagement to chase them around rather than abstract them into the road system.

If you make caravan raiding important, you are encouraging the creation of lots of small army units, requiring lots of movement orders, and depending on Fog of War, lots of units moving all over the screen.   And a big problem with Grand Strategy games is mid to late game unit fatigue when you have to issue 32 different unit orders EVERY turn.

Ren

UI  - You are going to need a Unit Upkeep Cost, or some way of easily seeing how your finances are doing (+ and -) on the main screen. Maybe a projected next turn Gain/loss and then if you hover over it, a general breakdown of expenses and income.

Ren

Agree 100 percent.  Frogboy seems to have a sort of affection for these caravan thingies, so I'm assuming he has something important in store for them

On a couple of points...

I think that Frogboy has violated his own golden rule of sovereign death = game over.  What I mean is this: a sovereign entering battle, losing, and then escaping to safety is mechanically the exact same thing as a sovereign losing a battle, dying, and being ressurected successfully, which a lot of people have been shouting is "NON-NEGOTIABLE!!"  The difference is that it is thematically easier to ping penalties to a sovereign that is defeated and ressurrected than it is to a sovereign that manages to slink away from a battle in women's clothing, and that seems to be the major issue of contention now.   

I think perhaps Frogboy should repeal his decree that a sovereign's first death on the battlefield = game over, because it's getting in the way of some mechanics that would be far more useful and far more coherant in addressing the problem of the sovereign's role on the battlefield than evasion scores or guarenteed escapes.

What Frogboy proposes doesn't allow the Sovereign to die (because it'd mean game over). And I'm supposing that even if your Sovereign falls during battle, you don't autolose but have to wait to the end of the battle to see if the fall was lethal or just some inconsciousness (scaping is an extra that appears if his army loses and he was defending).

To resurrect, you first need to be dead.

And totally agree with Sammual. ^^

I like that your sovereign's defeat shouldn't be a game over, on offence OR defence. I would prefer a system in which:

-An attacking soveriegn if defeated he is severely wounded, and out of action for a number of turns based on how badly he is defeated on the field of battle. This would put a severe hurt on your nation for as long as he is out of commision. Make the morale of the nation drop during this time, too.

-A defending soveriegn if defeated in battle, he should be possibly injured or possible he should have to pay some kind of high price in either mana or gold. I'm not sure. Something not as severe as losing while attacking.

I think the sovereign falling should be serious, but I also don't think him dying should be an instant game over. Maybe a research option that ties your soveriegn's life to a plylactery, so he can't really die unless it's destroyed.

God loves stupid people - he makes so many of them.

One idea that is a relatively simple combining of some of the previously suggested ideas is this:

1) If you are within your own borders, use Brad's suggested mechanic (if you attack with your sovereign and lose, the sovereign dies, but if your sovereign is attacked and you lose, he escapes to the nearest city).

2) If you are outside of your own borders, your sovereign always dies in a lost combat (whether you are the attacker or defender).

With such a system, a defensive player can keep the sovereign within his kingdom, provide city bonuses, etc. without having to worry about the sovereign being picked off.  However, the moment you decide to use your sovereign aggressively (either to make an attack or to move him outside your borders), then you face the risk of your sovereign's death.

I do not think the idea of no penalty while defending would be good..  It turns your sovereign into a very abusable tool.  A very powerful unit that doesn't actually die.  You could attack enemy weak units, or just stick him on defense in your town, forcing a war of attrition upon your advancing far more powerful opponent that is entirely unrealistic.

A few ideas to alleviate the concerns I have.

1. When your sovereign dies, it takes a while for him to pop back up.  Perhaps it takes a number of turns equal to the distance to the nearest town he can come back in, +3.  This will prevent a war of attrition, using your sovereign to defend otherwise hapless towns.
2. When you lose a battle while defending with your sovereign, prestige globally is affected severely.  Also prestige in the local vicinity is affected moreso, with the possibility of nearby towns being turned to the control of the faction that defeated you.  This would help substantially with the "mopping up", but it should be limited.  It should only be able to turn towns who have a defense rating lower than the one you lost the battle with.  Also it should not allow you to capture a town of a significantly larger size.  So no one can take out a new outpost your sovereign just founded and thereby capture a nearby city with a large defensive force.
3. Your sovereign should be heavily penalized for dying in enemy territory.  Perhaps not being able to cast spells for 10 days or something until you can have your sovereign back in play.
4. Your opponent should be rewarded for offing your sovereign. Killing a particular sovereign should reward the offender with increased morale while combating the faction that they just bested, which should have a noteworthy effect on the combats.
5. Items your sovereign possesses should be turned over to the victorious player.
6. Heroes, and troops in your army should consider desertion when you are defeated. If you are not capable of taking care of yourself, your followers are not going to be very willing to trust you with their life.
7. An attacking force that manages to kill your sovereign in your own territory should strike fear into the remaining defenders.  Your sovereign has just been taken out by a large invading army.  Until your sovereign respawns this one force is terrifying for the inhabitants of your territory.  As they come close to your cities, they send out couriers to surrender to the obviously superior force, and prevent the needless deaths of their families and loved ones.  They may even gain some of the troops stationed there.

By implementing some of these things, losing your sovereign could be a devastating blow but not game ending.  Attacking with him and losing, causes your troops to fear making attempts against the victorious combatants.  Defending with him and losing,  could potentially cause your nearby towns to revolt, and other various nasty side effects.  Obviously implementing all of these things would be over the top.

I believe there should be a balance.  Sovereign hunting should not be "the ezmode way" to win, but it should present some solid benefits to anyone managing to off one of these powerful forces in battle.  Do you attack the several small outlying towns first, taking your time and undermining the economy before going for the heavily fortified major city?  Or do you go straight for the heart, and attempt to take some of the smaller ones without even a fight.  Do you aim for conflict with the enemy sovereign, or do you avoid it?   I think these should be strategic choices you make.  As well as from the other side.  How much in harms way do you wish to place yourself?  Are the potential gains worth the risk of attacking a particular segment of enemy land with your sovereign worth the potential costs of failure?  I believe this should be a "sometimes yes, sometimes no" answer, if balanced properly.

One of the early ideas behind the game is that the sovereign can be managed differently to match different play styles. As I recall, there were playstyle examples a la Lord of the Rings. For example, you could build a powerful warrior sovereign like Sauron, or you could chose to go the Morgoth route and spend essence giving yourself more powerful minions.

Clearly, the nature and severity of the Sovereign Death penalty will dramatically impact which style dominates. For example, if any death means game over, then most sovereigns will cower at home. That seems like a major loss in strategic diversity.

In my view, all systems that allow tweaking have a big advantage here. It allows Stardock (or modders, or whatnot) to adjust the penalty to balance gameplay.

Essence loss. Fits right in, and doesn't screw any gameplay mechanics.

To expand upon the idea I posted on this thread this morning;

Ideas on Sovereign vulnerability –

IMO the Sovereign should be like a cross between the King & Queen in chess e.g. the most powerful piece you have at least potentially, but a piece that needs to be guarded because lose it and the game is over.

With this in mind here are my suggestions;-

In the early game the monarch should be more than a match for a reasonable size group of staring units and should get a big bonus when in one of his own cities. This will stop quick raids in the early game

At an essence cost the sovereign should be able to build reliquarys in their cities to which their soul will flee if they are every killed. While in a reliquary a sovereign cannot cast most spells or move around if the reliquary is destroyed while they are in it and there is no other available to jump to game over.

There should be various ways to escape  a reliquary and get properly back into play;

1.)    Spend 5 essence to create a new body for your Soverign from scratch (if you have enough essence).

2.)    Posses a member of their family, this takes that family member out of play but brings the Sovereign back in having taken over their body.

3.)    Ravage the land. The Sovereign without 5 essence can reform his body without possessing a relative or if he has none left by ripping the life from the land killing the city the Reliquary is in but restoring them to life.

Maybe the sovereign should have to research these options as tech or as spell as well, since how early to research them could become part of strategy.

In part because I think it's not fun nor 'realistic' that a kingdom disappears because one man dies. Because I want to play a nation, not an individual. IMO, RPG's are better for that, (I still play NetHack and adom). Because I think it leads to assassination strategies that are not fun. Because I think the ai will not be good at it. Because Brad said trying to protect the sovereign would be too hard for the ai to do, so a lot of work-arounds must be built into the game in order for the ai to be able to cope with that core concept.

I agree but would add I would prefer that the behavior be consistent on attack or defense.  If there is a stiff penalty why should it be different if I attack or defend?  I think you are doing this to stop the player from abusing the sovereign but a stiff penalty accomplishes the same thing.  The best penalty in my opinion is to lose access to your sovereign and therefor spell research for a time.  Maybe make it a long time but be able to speed it up by spending mana, something like that.  Having different rules on attack and defense just doesn't make logical sense to me and is the main reason I don't like it.  Also it might be confusing to new players.

As for sovereign death it should be possible but pretty hard to do in my opinion.  Something like he would have to be killed in his capital (or whereever he escapes to after fleeing) or have no wizard towers or something similar as others have suggested.

What a useful and helpful post. Thanks for contributing to the discussion.

One other suggestion, how about you're allowed 1 free life only. Not free, you become weakened...(different art) and the game carries on. Requiring a lengthy spell to restore yourself (taking your character out of action for say 20 turns?

On the Subject of Soverign creation I would like to see a flaws system included So we can define weaknesses as well as strengths for the Soverign.

I would also like to see cosmetic customisation options and a pose system so that the zoomed out minature version for the cloth map would be posed in a position you like. This sytem could also be used for custom units.

I agree picking a faction should not fix any aspect of your soverign other than deciding if they are Fallen or Human (obviously this means life or Death magic as well).

I like the Card idea very much maybe you could pose units against a choosable background and "snap" the picture for the card. That would be cool.

On the sovereign issue:

The idea of soveriegn death = game over seems a bit harsh to me. It should definetly be a disadvantage to lose your soveriegn, but losing the game over 1 battle doesn't seem like much fun. What if when your soveriegn dies, his heirs split the kingdom and you resume the game as on of the heirs? As an heir you would have to fight to reunite the kingdom while trying to fend off enemies of the empire at the same time. The heir could also still wield a limited number of spells to begin with, and would have to complete a quest line just to catch up to the power the original soveriegn wielded.

On Caravans:

The only way I can justify that these are units on the map is if they are actually carrying resources that can be raided. If they cannot be captured, or if their only resource is gold, that's cheap and they might as well just make it what an earlier poster said about hiding the caravans into the road and any enemy army on the road would be "raiding" the supply route.

I would like to see some ideas from the RTS genre cross over as well with the resource model (e.g. have us secure a source of wood to build with in addition to just a gold cost for buildings and units) A trade route management system would be vital to the success of your empire.

I don't like the idea of the Sovereign always escaping, but I do like the idea of the Sovereign often escaping, especially if s/he's not in the thick of battle.  Likewise for heroes who are similarly, ah, "conservative" during battles.

The goal, I think, is to avoid turning sovereigns into permanent bull's eyes to the detriment of other strategies.  If players have a variety of ways to conceal them, protect them from assassination, protect them in battles, that should suffice.  It should be a very expensive proposition to target a sovereign with such means.  I don't think we need a magic fairy wand to automatically protect the Sovereign, though.  Sometimes you make all the right choices, and the other guy just plain beats you.