Ah, DPDLC's comment reminded me of Myth: The Fallen Lords (hehe, Fallen Lords is kinda appropriate here).

At the end of the game, the leader of your side side realises that a military victory is impossible.  So he uses his entire army as a decoy.  The army is killed to the last man, but provides enough of a distraction for you to lead a small force to kill the enemy leader.

If strategies like that are feasible for the weaker faction, then this will be a fun ride!

No it won't because only an idiot would allow that to happen from the weak race to begin with. That's like beating your 8 year old little brother in chess in 5 moves because he's new and an idiot to that tactic. You might get away with it once, but, he'll find out the method to stop it and it will "NEVER" happen again. Only Total Obliteration will be fun. Wiping someones entire race from the map through TOTAL effort of each and every city down to the last man.

Here is my reasonings why. When playing multiplayer the last thing most anyone wants to happen is to be quickly wiped out and sitting on the sidelines as just an observer (I doubt there will even be an observer mode in this game). Making it so simple to wipe someone out by merely killing their wizard just makes for a frustrated gamer who is likely not going to come back and play this in multiplayer again. (I know because I am one of them). I buy a game to play it not sit on the sidelines or be wiped out of a match in five minutes because two goons decided to gang up on my wizard and grunt rush over and kill me. Allowed to continue play as long as I have ONE active unit on the map gives me a CHANCE at least to come back. Forcing me out by eliminating ONE piece is a rediculous design decision and I truely hope Stardock isn't ignorant enough to use it like Triumph did.

Ohhhh and I just thought of the perfect solution. If the enemy wizard is killed ALL of his/her CITIES, WEALTH and UNITS will goto his/her closest ALLY faction. Having no allies then it will goto his nearest closest other player OTHER THAN the one that eliminated him/her. Jest like good ole GalCiv2 does. lol That'll stop you wizard dies I win players in your tracks lol. Also the code should be placed that when a wizard is eliminated the diplomacy value of the conqueror goes to -50% to all the other ai factions. Thus, when the human player makes that first foray into eliminating the ai's the rest of them pouce on him and immediately all go for his wizard. yeah I'd like that.

This is a single player focused game. So I personally don't find it aproblem that someone wouldn't play it again in multiplayer because he wasn't "smart" enough to protect his most valuable resource and/or was outsmarted about it. And nothing prevents the eliminated player from joining other games after being defeated so why would he stay as observer in that one? (if that could be possible)

Death of the channeler is also a way to fasten the multiplayer games for those who don't want to spend huge amounts of time trying to finish a game.

Elemental's Channeler = Chess's King. Only that Chess is just 1vs1 and the King doesn't have the chance to become some kind of kickass god thanks to essence.

You need to learn that what you think is fun doesn't necessarily mean everyone (or even anyone) else agrees with you. Quite frankly I'm with Paradoxnt on this one. Also, you're assuming that there would be just one way to pull of such a strategy, but that's silly. A strategy more or less along the lines of what Paradoxnt mentioned could involve anything from exactly what he said, to luring out the enemy channeler, to a quick rush to force him to flee unbeknownst into a waiting ambushing army, etc (and each one of those could be tactically implemented in many different ways). You simply cannot protect against every strategy every game - it isn't possible. I'm also hoping intelligence/scouting will be more important in this game than in most 4X games, which would allow for all sorts of sneak attacks and deceit.

For one, killing a channeler doesn't sound like it will be easy. It sounds to me like the only way to lose your channeler is through reckless abandon, or in the face of a superior enemy (either by might or strategy, or both). If two players that are more or less your equal decide to gang up on you, they are going to take you out whether they have to kill just your channeler or everything you have. And if you want, you can force them to destroy everything you have before they even get a chance to kill your channeler. Secondly, Frogboy has already stated that he isn't willing to sacrifice even an inch of singleplayer in the name of multiplayer. Not doing something because a minority of the tiny minority of people who will play this game multiplayer will have a temper tantrum would be ridiculous. And quite frankly, I wouldn't want to continue playing if my channeler - the source of my magic - is gone (and I am completely opposed to any ways to posthumously resurrect yourself). If you really want to stay in the game run away with your channeler and start over somewhere else.

And ignorance is the wrong word. You don't call someone ignorant for implementing a feature that you personally don't like, if it's being done in a different way in a different game. Maybe in Triumph's game it was unpopular, but Elemental will be a totally different game and sometimes unpopular features in one game can be very successful in others.

Like Pigeonpigeon said!

I am curious psychoravin, you seem to be against a lot of game ending strategies.  So we know you are all for military domination down to the last city...but are there any other ways you think players should be able to win this game?  Or should the possibility for victory only be based on capturing every last enemy town?

Oh I'm fine with other ways of victory just not "kill enemy wizard entire race is dead and out of the game" If they can come up with other methods of victory without easy elimination as such I'll be all for it. It doesn't have to be total conquer as I play games where you can set the value of controlled map and cities provinces and I usually set them to 75% or 80%. But, at least the ai and other players get to hang around until the end. I'm all for influence wins or diplomatic wins. Basically all the ways you can win in GalCiv2. And if I recall if you eliminate the capital in GalCiv2 the race DOESN'T totally die off.

It's the AI that cannot deal with the feature not me. I don't care about multiplayer in the first place. I dab in it but hardly am avid about it. My point is that I never had any challenge out of AOW:II or AOW:SM because of that silly stupid ignorant feature of kill the wizard enemy race is dead game over. As a player of strategy and tactics it's just within ones mind to use the best strategy and tactic to eliminate your opponent BY GAME DESIGN. It's very hard to STIFLE oneself and just give advantage after advantage to the AI because of stupid programming or stupid ignorant program design decisions. Sure, I could play never attack the AI's wizard tower until I stomp every other castle and city and I have, but, it still takes away that I might like to have that capital or city that the wizard is in as my own and the AI player STILL BE IN THE GAME. Since Brad and Stardock aren't going to sacrifice even an inch for multiplayer play over solo play then hopefully Brad will realize that implementing that stupid ignorant idea of Triumphs would be bad for the game.

Implement OPTIONS is fine also I'm more for that than anything then I don't care what is implemented as long as I can turn it off.

Capitals in GC2 can't really run away, nor are they really any more powerful than any other city.

First of all, Stardock's AIs are so much better than the AIs found in games like AoW that even seeing that comparison makes me angry. Quite frankly, the AI in GC2 is almost as good a player as I am. I'm not excellent at GC2, but I don't think I'm bad either. Secondly, the channeler in Elemental should not be compared to the wizards in AoW. The wizards in AoW are weakling pieces of crap that are easier to kill than most regular units in the game. In Elemental, you can choose to make your channeler so insanely powerful that he can individually defeat whole armies. Also, in the very beginning of the game it seems like your channeler will outstrip any other military you'll have - unless you expend all your starting essence almost immediately. Basically what I'm saying is - again - just because you don't like something in another game doesn't mean the same problems will apply in a completely different game - especially when there are already known factors that should help alleviate those problems.

Also, I think most people who agree that the game should end on channeler death also agree that when you destroy an AI channeler, you shouldn't immediately take over their whole territory, and neither should their remaining territory vanish. Rather, it should become a 'neutral' kingdom - basically a kingdom that functions as such in every way except without a channeler. Maybe it'd become a little bit more like a minor faction from that point, or maybe it'd become the vassal of some other empire in the hope of gaining protection from you. The result of destroying an enemy channeler could be varied. But, for example, if destroying an enemy channeler is likely to result in his kingdom becoming a vassal or part of another one of your enemies, you might think twice before putting so much power into the hands of a single enemy.

And I'll say it again: calling something ignorant before you've even seen a glimpse of the game is real ignorance. Yeah, maybe it won't work (and if it doesn't it'll be scrapped). But at this point, the devs have a much clearer idea of that than you or I. Wait until the beta comes before making up your mind (because otherwise you're grasping at clouds).

For anyone that doesn't want to read any further, I essentially disagree with almost everything psychoravin has said.

Comparison to GalCiv is lame,a s in GalCiv you did not have an in-game avatar. In EWOM you start the game and the ONLY person on your side is your channeler. You have to build everything from him. Barring a "Call of Return" or some other way to get him back in the game, the game should be over for that player. What happens to his armies and cities? I have seen some good suggestions and am interested in what StarDock goes with. But a player without a channeler is like a jockey without a horse imho. No channeler SHOULD equal no game, and agreeing with pigeonx2, your repeatedly saying that StarDock doing such a thing would be ignorant is making you look foolish.

I agree with Pigeonpigeon and Denryu here on a Channeler death = game over.

Although I do disagree with Denryu's simile of a faction losing its channeler is like a Jockey without a horse.  A more accurate simile would be 'a faction who loses its channeler is like a jockey with a head'.  Hehe!

Ahhh just another bunch of carebear players the lot of you. I surely hope Stardock et all doesn't listen to such ignorance and makes the game like MOM where the game continues as long as the other opponent has cities to return and the auto use of spell of recall. It's one of the things that makes MOM great and I'm sure Brad will realize that. Please dont' listen to the carebears Brad and put some challenge into the game and don't make it so easy for the carebears that all they have to do is focus on the wizard or just one thing for victory....thanks Brad I'm sure you're watching.

Oh Oh!  Which carebear would I be?

Hey, at least he called us carebears and not idiots and/or ignorants.

Godwin Bear?

Best. Response. Ever.  Oh noes, he called us carebears!   All of our months of discussions and arguments are invalid, we must bow to the will of the great e-peen!

I agree with my last post.

Edit: For those who miss the point (I won't name Luckmann here), I want more options. Like the ones in Supreme Commander. Only it would work better here, as the AI should be better, plus TBS is expected to be long.

(I feel sorry for the Devs when it comes to my posts. I like options. Never enough options.)

Well first of all, the wizard dying in AoW 2 was game over, because the only way to actually kill a wizard was to kill them and control every one of their towers. So you've already taken all their good cities. If you kill a wizard and they still control a tower, the wizard just reappears there next turn.

Second of all, the AoW wizards were meant to sit in the capital lobbing spells at a distance, not to get into combat. Far as we know the channeler will be a much stronger beast in combat.

The detail is that if you're actually intended to use him in combat past the early game (where you don't really have a choice), it can't be death = game over. If you take him into combat, you're going to lose sometimes. If losing an otherwise meaningless skirmish means game over, nobody will ever move the channeler out of their most fortified city.

We had an earlier idea about putting up an enchantment to let you recall back to a city if you lose a fight, that would be a good way to solve it.

And as for what our resident troll spewed...

You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means. This is a single player game, "carebear" doesn't even apply.

Not that I'd say it applies in this particular case regardless, but for entirely different reasons. :p

Carebear Stare!

|||||||

Given how fragile they were, you really couldn't do much else with them past the very early game. Once tier 3 units started showing up, taking a wizard outside of a wall was really dicey.

 Given that Frogboy has stated flat out that he won't change a single thing about the game to cater to multiplayer? I'd say it effectively IS a single player game from a design standpoint. That is what they're building. The fact that it happens to have multiplayer isn't factoring in to decisions.

I've never heard that term applied to a single player game. I've also never heard it applied anywhere except by someone who means to be a condascending ass.

PvP blows.

I used to watch both carebear movies on VHS as a child.    I always found it odd that A: they contradicted each other on how the carebears and carebear cousins met and B: a horse and a bear could have kids to create a bunch of bears and a few random other animals.   (or if they are cousins, and the ambigious relationship between the elders was actually just friendly siblings, and nothing more.   who were the other parents? or did they procreate A-sexually)

Damn, I remember seeing a Carebear skit a while back, where the Carebears commit genocide against the Carebear Cousins.  There were a lot of Nazi propaganda devices in it, so I suspect I saw it on Robot Chicken....hehe, Lil Hitler!

it was Robot Chicken

AoW (at least AOW2 don't remember the other one) you ALWAYS wanted your wizard on a wizard tower because otherwise your domain was limited to something like 5 hexes around your wizard. With him on a wizard tower AND wizard tower, magic relay, or hero had domain around it which meant spell casting area AND an effect for your global domain casting.

Having your game end when your channeler dies is IMHO a very very BAD idea unless there are numerous protections (these should come at a cost) to prevent that from happening. Otherwise you would NEVER want to commit your channeler to a battle there was even a slight chance of him getting killed in. So either channelers would need to be nearly invincible OR a kind of lone wizard playstyle would be just terribly bad. Can you imagine playing 4/5 hours into a game and suddenly BAM it's game over in one little skirmish because you slightly overextended yourself? BAD BAD BAD!

Rather I think as long as you have essence a channeler should be protected from permanent death.

Some options?

1. Since essence is what a channeler IS according to the devs and that essence can be move around maybe as long as some of your essence is still in play you are still in play? Or at least enough essence to support your consciousness that would be cool. So your avatar dies but your spirit lingers in the land that you imbued.

2. When you are struck down you channel your essence far away where it builds a new body and your conscousness moves there. This however costs essence so every time you're chara dies he becomes gradually weaker (PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE essence regen, at least a little come on)

3. Your channeler CANNOT die until all essence is lost. Once your standard health is depleted blows will do damage to your essence directly. So if you have kept a large amount of essence your channeler can win most any battle BUT the cost to your future options will be great as much of your essence will be lost without great return.