Phoenix - That is a very good idea also...

Ah well, we've posted many suggestions already.

Alright, I'm ready to bury the hatchet--- it takes at least 2 people to make a flame war, and it can only damage the discussion.  You've made a lot of detailed and thoughtful observations in many different threads (as your karma would imply) and I'll credit you with that.

I'm actually perfectly fine with the sovereign death = game over mechanic, but I just think everyone needs to be very sober about how that will impact the game, especially when it comes to empowering the player with the "load asset."  Now believe me, I'm not the kind of gamer that hates being "punished" for failing.  I'm about as hardcore as they come.  When I played Diablo 2, I played on Hardcore mode (meaning when your character died, even from a bad connection, he/she was gone forever.)  When my character was killed, I'd start another.  Ultima Online was my favorite MMORPG, because when you died, you lost all of your gear... until Eve Online came along, because it was even more harsh on the player (months worth of work could be lost in minutes).  I would say that 99 percent of players aren't as okay with catastrophic losses in games than I am, but that being said, I will still load my game if a brief miscalculation ends what could still be a very exciting campaign.  In Master of Magic, I would almost always play with Life magic (the only way to revive fallen heros), because your heros were guarenteed to die before they ever hit Commander level, and I wasn't willing to load my game to save them.

As for Wintersong, I'm not sure what to say.  I've explained it to you at least 4 times in different threads, but it still sounds like you are arguing with someone else's point.  Telling everyone to adjust how they play a game isn't a workaround for the shortcoming that a game might have, and neither is just assuming that the programmers will make a godlike AI that will trump all hurdles (as godly as the Elemental team is .)  You declared that we should all just have "balls of steel" and never load our games and that will solve the problem.  Well, if that's the case, then why even have a voluntary save game feature at all.  Or better yet, have a feature by which all of your saved games from that campaign are promptly deleted once your sovereign dies?  That should have an identical effect.

So seriously, what I want to see is functions in the game that marginilize the load advantage that at least 90 percent of the player base is sure to use (and that DOESN'T mean that this 90 percent will be using it every time they suffer a minor setback).    

I only say that you cannot design things with the Load thing in mind because you cannot win. Never. (as I have said also in such threads, I suppose) Obviously, if you design a feature that encourages to load the game then we can have two things: a) possible a bad mechanic (by nature and/or implementation) and/or b ) players that by some reason (justified in their eyes or not) prefer to "cheat". Note the use of "and/or" between a) and b ). If the system works as intented (and the user doesn't cheat), then everything is ok. If they user beats the system cheating, then there is nothing to fix. Obviously, in case I need to point it out, we are talking of a system that is fun and all that and that doesn't encourage loading (more than the other parts of the system like losing a hero in a battle, losing a city, not getting a good drop from a chest, not nice initial placement.... pick your poison). What's the worse thing that can happen? That the player wins versus the AI? Because it's not like you are going to lose your Sovereign in multiplayer and then load the game to conitnue, right? Maybe Frogboy should give the AI the ability to load the game in its favor in the same way some players do.

As I have said some times already, it has nothing to do with people loading. You cannot control that. What you can control is the system and make it so it's balanced and fun. People cheating by loading? any time of the day by any random reason. SO you don't forbid saving (I save every few turns and some times in the turn because I'm a bit paranoid with electricity shortages where I live... what an agony the FF were!!)

But before some random user decide to use the "W" word on me for repeating myself like a parrot and getting the same understandment than an ape, I consider this topic dead for good. You (as in: anyone) can reload it but I won't be there. I'm sorry if I somehow hurted someone's sensibility ("balls of steel" was just a colour expression that some might recognize... if someone took it seriously, I can do nothing more than laugh... sorry ! )

I think everyone is concentrating way too much on gritty gameplay and not enough on awesomeness and fantasy. Frankly, if an epicly powerful being dies, of course there is a way to resurrect them. What slain sorcerer or demon or whatnot doesn't threaten the world beyond the grave? A pathetic one.

The idea of a sovereign dying = end of game simply goes against a lot of high fantasy I've read. Even Gandalf "died" after his encounter with the Balrog and was given new life. Frankly, I really like my idea of making dead sovereigns into disembodied spirtual forces with a possibility of resurrection. I don't like the idea of sovereign dying = end of game simply because it is less epic and fantasyish than any other option.

I understand the need to make a game playable. But we need to take advantage of our genre. If my channeler... a being with the unique power to bring the world back to life simply dies... well, that's anti-climactic and disappointing.

Well, I didn't say that the sovereign shouldn't die. I just think there's a much more creative and fun way to handle it.

Gandalf not dying was because he is the good guy, fantasy novels are full of powerful bad guys that die. In general if the bad guy resurrects, it's usually to sell more novels.

So well, two reasons that don't apply to games.

This still lets him go kill trolls as if they weren't a threat, which doesn't sound consistent with the ability for him to be killed if he takes risks.

That would be interesting way to do it. It definitely forces a player to use their sovereign in an interesting way... although if this is a late game thing the channeler who hoarded all their magic has a serious advantage in this department. Allow mundane forces to weaken said channeler before the other channeler comes in for the kill.

Sauron persisted after his physical form was destroyed. That was one of the premises behind LotR. I just think it would be more fun and interesting done in a different way. I'm in favor of the Sovereign dying. I'm not in favor of the Sovereign just dying.

I think people are concentrating too much on what makes a good fantasy novel and not what makes a good fantasy game.  Something that was really, really cool in a fantasy novel might be a game breaking feature for a game. 

Fantasy novels are scripted and follow a definitive path.  Fantasy based strategy games don't.  If sovereigns are as frail as it sounds like they may be, 9 out of 10 times, they will not die gloriously or meaningfully like they do in fantasy novels.  Anyone who has played hardcore D&D (without any DM interventions on the player's behalf) will find that most often, the protagonists don't usually die when the stakes are the highest or at the moment where their death will be the most poetic.  Instead, they end up in a pit of spikes halfway through an adventure or get eaten by a troll that wasn't even a major villain.

I don't like it. If he was killed by a troll, he's probably been eaten after all. If he dies, he dies, no matter who kills him.

I agree. My favorite option is a big defensive bonus inside your territory, based on the amount of territory (or other) you control. You wouldn't get any bonus of using them in battle if you initiated a fight or fought outside your borders.

IF Souv death = EoG, and currently a Souv ability to gain Exp is in Battle, then perhaps if the Souv gained his Exp as a percentage of his troops kills, via proximity/radii, then if his force begins to lose, he can simply flee, with a head start, versus being stuck in the middle during those game periods when his powers could be overwhelmed early on.

My first lost Souv happen 2 nights ago. I attacked another Souv with 5 armed guards in tow (all same group). The fight ended and I had no Souv, but did have an armed soldier left over.... wth? That seemed strange...

Wait.. what's the problem here?

Just do it like this.  If you have points in evade, the sovereign has certain bonuses to an "evade" stat.  The evade stat is adjusted depending on the circumstances of a combat.. IE, if the enemy brought 50 pegasai scouts with helms of true sight, and magic-seeking bows, then it's a big negative.  If you bring a big army or are in a city, the confusion is a very positive effect.  If the enemy does an attack that leaves the evade bonus positive, he gets away, period.  If the evade is negative, he has a chance to get away.  It would work more like Dr. Doom's robot doubles than a random dieroll.

Would this be overpowered with the 100% chance?  There's lots of ways to expand it to add additional factors, (Say, your channeler got away by teleporting into the abyss, he now has to get back to this plane of existance).. or whatever.  But if it's guaranteed under reasonable circumstances, then it becomes a non-trivial decision to make before and during gameplay.

Now if only this doesn't get lost in the thread..