Asking for confirmation: Sovereigns get to be in remote battles?

It sure was a cool feature in AoW2 too.

I haven't seen anything that said something about remote casting, think you could try to find the post?

Just putting my 2 cent in here: This has been done already. That isn't to say the system isn't interesting, but I think stardock wants to stay away from creating clones. Plus there is a system in place for this sort of thing that could be tweaked a little to provide the same level of immersion. Imbued champions could acquire some of the stats from your sovereign (the percent can have some limiting factor such as spellpower) while providing some of the experience that champion gains from combat if the soveriegn is not present.

This doesn't have to be limited to spellcasting either, as you could have your sovereign imbue a warrior with extra strength or dexterity, and simply rule from within your palace. When applied to spellcasting, the champion could gain increased intelligence as well as access to some (or all) of the spells your sovereign can cast. In other words you can easily have this system in place while not actually being a duplicate of either of the other games. Indeed cities might provide buildings with spellcasting benefits to champions stationed there so you may want to have a 'stay at home' soveriegn.

I don't know about that, all of the AoW games were closely tied to chasing 'Master of Magic's coat tails. FE sounds long a great deal like going in that direction. I think at someone one of the SD people even compared it to MoM. Which is not a bad thing. MoM was awesome in the extreme.

"Old man Stardock, You seek the spell of mastery?"

One of the features of MoM was hero's that were minor wizard. Some had the 'casting skill' ability that helped your wizard cast when in the wizard's citadel, and allowed them to cast spells of their own independent of your wizard. There where even sub-sets of system for casting spells overload, during combat from anywhere ,even other planes of existence, and for persistent globe spanning affects.

Master of Magic is and was a trend setting that I've yet to see truly matched. A few have tried, a few of echoed it, but no one has ever to my knowledge has even paralleled or surpassed it. It's a classic, and if FE can even come close it will be awesome!

Btw, in case you missed it or lost it, MoM is back on the market:

http://www.gog.com/en/gamecard/master_of_magic

From the site:

What's cool about it:

Maybe it could be balanced by either having ICBM level spells too broad (thus killing your friendlies too) - so only tactical spells are allowed.

Or have a trait in your heroes that allows them to channel some magic of the main wizard through them onto the battlefield. The trait would be part of a set, with each level giving a greater degree of mana that can be channeled through. So "Remote Channel I" allows 10 mana, "Remote Channel II" allows 25 mana. Etc. This would require a hero-unit to be present in the battle for the sovereign to be able to cast AND that hero needs to have the Remote Channel trait(s) AND the sovereign would have a mana-cap that could be shot into the battle.

It doesn't need to be very complicated, imho, just make the sovereign be able to cast one spell before battle starts. Mana is still a factor. And the enemy sovereign can do the same, so that's balance taken care of. Higher mana cost if the fight is taking place in enemy territory? Maybe.

MoM increases the mana cost based on distance from capital, I think

Though I still like my suggestion for the new layers of strategy it creates.

Distance was a factor in casting costs in Mo. It ranged from a .5 to 2.5 multiplier. Hero's on the field had no such multiplier and depended purely on their own mana reserves. Heros in your citadel added half their skill to your own.

In deference to leeboy26 , if you like the randomness, that's fine. I personally edited the game to balance out many of the random factors. MoM was and is very detailed game. (Thankfully it always had in game help to walk you through 99% of everything. If one could be bothered to read it.) That's what I like about. The Age of Wonder series probably is the closest mirror to Master of Magic, but they don't have half the detail. Game play or interface wise.

You can easily get by with ignoring 75% of the content of MoM, if you really wanted to and didn't mind nasty surprises. You'd just miss out on 75% of the game, that you full price for.

I've been accused of hacking more then once over the years simple because I read the manual, and was one of 2% of the player-base that knew how the game worked. Then, shock and horror, actually applied what I read. I look forward to FE with slavish and fan-boy glee simply because of the likenesses to Master of Magic.

----

[soap-box]

My apologies to Stardock if they take offense, but it seems to me as time marches on games get stupidly simple for all the "advances in technology". I don't mean easier to grasp, I mean stupid. 'Frozen Bubbles' ( http://www.frozen-bubble.org/ ) is easy to grasp and hypnotic fun! Modern games seem to be based are shiny things and avoiding having to do that ...re.... read ..."reading thing". In fact, avoiding having to do anything like actual thought or longtrem planning. Just short-term or 3rd grade math if someone can be bothered to even do that. Then press 'fire' or 'A' for the next endorphin hit.

If YouTube is anything to go by the literacy level, comprehension level, and just general attention span of the average gamer seems to be around the 3rd  grade level. May I never speak such a snobbish thing again, but still, It's true!

[/soap-box]

There is a lot of truth in that. Age of Wonders (and follow-ups) were entertaining for a bit, but it doesn't have (for me at least) the lasting and legendary appeal of MoM due to lack of exhaustive options. More units, more magic, more interaction, more special abilities, more everything.

Compare Civilization 4 (and the associated Fall from Heaven 2) - there's LOTS of complex interactions and stuff to know about; and the game just benefits from it. Personally I'd like even more units and promotions and the like, but that's just me.

Yeah ditto. I loved playing AoW:SM but not enough to buy (rented it on gametap). It wasn't... dynamic enough. One of my favourite games of all times is Colonization. I got the remake Civ IV: Colonization and whilst not being as good as the original practically anything can happen in the game. Got a plan to make nice with the natives and squeeze every penny from them? uh-oh, the Dutch just paid them to declare war on you. Time for a change of plan.  Plan to take down the French using bribed native allies? uh-oh, the king just wanted to up your tax and you refused, boycotting all cloth imports and a major source of income. Time for a change of plan.

Anyways, those games that are considered legendary like X-Com had a huge amount of variables; leaving the battlefield with alien artifacts and an 'Excellent' rating depended on about 85% skill and the rest luck. Quite a few times my squad got wiped out and I lost my Skyranger. Did I ragequit or throw the game in the bin? Hell no, I played it again and considered the lessons I learned, and I had a great time doing so.

I think it is a hard lesson to learn: strategy games like AoW, MoM, Civ and the like are not for the mainstream - and I think a lot of executive board decisions are made to try to appeal to a broader target market by being simpler and more accessible. In the process you are invariably shooting yourself in the foot.

There are some German strategy games that are all numbers; and I guess that appeals to a certain turn of mind. But those are not what we want. The game of strategy relies on meaningful strategies being possible and many many many options. That, and that the options should interact heavily and in subtle ways. Then all you need to do to make it a great game, is add more options.