Survival of fittest...or survival of the biggest?

I think the best possibility that has been discussed is the need to actually defend all of your territory (to avoid trade routes being disrupted, etc etc.) Certainly there are going to be some unavoidable benefits to a larger kingdom. And I don't think those benefits should be arbitrarily coded away. But the need to maintain long supply lines and resource caravans, and basically protect ALL of your territory (not just garrison your cities) is a natural way to deal with urban sprawl. (Nothing wrong with being big, but it might not be the best idea to go out and just grab up territory at the beginning that you don't have the capability to protect.

I really do not like when a developer says "We don't want 'large' kingdons" and then code to make them overly punitive and they come up with really questionable methods to force a certain play style. The concept that you have to imbue land with some of your VERY valuable essence is also going to make you very careful about doing so if you can't keep it (a reason that I am against the idea of channelers getting their essence back when they lose land, btw)

The channeler-essence system should alse have an interesting effect on this, as a powerful channeler and a channeler with a lot of cities would sort of be equally tough (if not equal).

The essence/city founding concept should balance the problem of 'the most cities wins'.

That's roughly how I read the public dev goal discussion so far, but there's still plenty of room for devilish details.

My ludicrous desire to see the game work for a channeler who doesn't even want to found a single city ('going Gandalf') has led me to more than half-seriously hope that strong champions will be able to provide many of the same resource flows that you get from a city/colony in a traditional TBS. If essence is the essential resource, it seems like one valid strategy should be neither essence hoarding nor essence-based territorial expansion--it should be team building (beg pardon pardon for the awful biz jargon).

And now that I think of it, there really should be a champion-centered version of conquering cities. If both cities and champions are defined by an essence investment, don't they both deserve a mechanism that enables a player to lose that investment? Shouldn't failing to keep the loyalty of Shanna the Sharp be as much a risk as failing to defend Lower Knifetown from an invasion?

We have a new term: "Going Gandalf".  Let's just consider this one officially entered into the game's lexicon everyone.

"Where the heck is the Kingdom of such-and-such?"

"He must have gone Gandalf."

Your chance of losing the champion is if (s)he dies. I am not sure I like the idea of a champion that you invested essence in needing a loyalty check. The threat should be the same as the city - loss thru defeat. And I really hope they do not include a revolt mechanism for cities in the game. Again cheap shot you invest your essence into the land that makes them able to live better lives, and then they backstab you? Seriously WTF.

......Errrr, have you actually met many humans?

Well this is something that I say only very infrequently, but I actually disagree with GW Swicord on this one (and I agree with Denryu).  I think there's going to be enough risk of losing a champion as it is, simply by virtue of death in combat.  To add having to secure/retain a champion's loyalty would be too much IMHO.  Not that it wouldn't be realistic, of course, but from a gameplay standpoint I don't think it would be a good idea.

"Quantity has a quality all its own." -Whoever said that, some general.

Why WOULDN'T you be the most powerful as the biggest?  If you do it right anyway, you certanily could still be beaten, but population/commerce = power, usually.

Stalin said it.  Hehe, he also said 'how many divisions does the Pope have?'.

A big, well run empire will pretty well always be preferable to a small, well run empire, unless the game has some really bizzare penalties in place to deliberately cripple a large empire. So I don't really understand what you're asking. If we go to war and I take half your land, shouldn't that give me an advantage over you?

Now if you're just talking about curtailing initial city spam deciding the eventual game winner, then that's pretty reasonable. But if we're playing equally well, it'd seem odd to have an empire twice your size not have an edge over you.

Well, having big empires always win, while realistic, does not always result in a fun game. Generally, the problem that happens is that you know you are going to win halfway through the game, and the rest is just mopping-up. I for one like the idea of a "going Gandalf" option.

That is also one of my pet peves.

I like this idea for tech but not spells.  Why?  The cost to roll out new techs will increase with the size of your kingdom.  The cost of YOUR personal spells will not.  You could take this one step further by placing a limit on how much the player can do in one turn. Create an 'Attention Pool', no matter how big your empire gets there is only so much you can pay attention to.

Sammual

I disagree.  I think the Channeler who weakened himself to create that extra city will no longer be strong enough to protect it from the Channeler that kept all his power to himself and then just takes over the area others have created.

Sammual

Well said. Realistically, in many cases, the more a territory grows the harder it becomes to maintain it. Not only for defence, but administration as well. And maybe you want a small kingdom because it fits the story you have made for it. Besides, I think that if you want a small kingdom you should be able to make it and keep it small. 

Re champions defecting, I guess it's a matter of taste, and maybe of setup options. I have about as strong a dislike of champions as mindless slaves as Denryu and Martok have for the possibility of a champion defecting (or maybe just wandering off alone or returning to the Indepedent Power where he or she came from).

And on the 'balance' side of the argument, if towns can defect (which at least a share of us think will likely be in the game in some form b/c it is in GC2), why shouldn't champions have the same possibility? Both represent essence investments, and champions already have the basic protective advantage of being able to flee. Towns can't flee, at least not without some very serious magic.

Him and what army? Literally.

I agree if towns can defect, champions should be able to also. I just think that "happiness should effect production levels in cities and morale levels in champions, but again I think having either outright defect, when in the cities case YOUR essence made their existence possible, and in the champion's case it made him worth a damn, I don't think outright revolt/leaving is a reasonable option. Yes I know it has become standard for a Civ type of game, and in GC2 it fits the universe, but I think in this game it would not fit for the reasons I have stated. Just because every other game of this type has it doesn't mean this one should. I do agree that IF cities can revolt, then champions should be able to either go AWOL or outright turn traitor.

I don't know about how in depth, but it has been brought up before.  I think the basic idea is that a channeler who has many cities will be chosing to invest his power in the industrial might of his empire.  I.e. he will be the one who has large armies/trade routes/better weapons etc.  On the other hand the channeler who has very few cities will have far more power invested in himself and would likely have access to spells that could handle the legions sent against him.

The other question this brings up however is the strategic value associated with multiple cities vs very few.  I.e. the person with a large amount has strategic depth and could afford to lose a few cities, whereas the player gandolfing it couldn't afford to lose too many cities or resources.  Also with the idea of shards (a la nodes from MoM) these are other resources that will need to be defended (heavily) as well.  A channeler with more territory will be more likely to be able to hold more resources, especially if they are inside his territory.  The gandolf channeler would have to be able to transport around somehow to defend not only his cities but shards as well...

Indeed, I'm not saying having more terriotry shouldn't be an advantage, I'm just making the point that in alot of TBS games that is the only important factor in determining overall power. If smaller nations can't remain competitve in technology, then I think this removes alot of gameplay possibilities. If small countries don't have a chance of winning, then players will obviously have to try and build a large empire EVERY game they play (assuming they're playing to win...) Maybe one game I want to have only a few cities that are protected by mountain ranges, and concentrate on trade, and being a naval power...this will not be fun if I can't compete with other nations technologically.

Type "going Gandalf" in Google and this thread is the 2nd returned item!

Perhaps more interesting, though certainly more complex, would be to have a spell (or spells) that allows Player A to take control of a champion of Player B.  Bonus points: continue to allow Player A to control the champion until Player B says so; all the while, terrain/events/etc. seen by Player A's champion get seen by Player B.

Naturally, spells or events should be able to reveal such sorcery, and perhaps break it.

maybe one other thing to note: big does not necessarily mean territorially big, it could for example also refer to a large amount of (possibly fairly undeveloped) territory or to just one or two massive cities. that might mean less territory, small in a sense, but you might still have a high industrial and military capacity. and of course it'd be much easier to defend. on the other hand ofc you might not have access to all the resources you want.

My Channeler will need an army?

From what I have read so far a Channeler has to expend Essence 'cleaning' land to build cities on or empowering heroes, casting powerful spells, creating magic items, etc.

For Example.

You spend some of your essence on land to build a second city.

I spend the same amount on a Hero (Bob).

You spend some of the gold, mana, and resources you have on building up your new city.

I spend the same amount of the above on equipment and followers for Bob.

How is your new city going to defend itself from my Channeler and his band of adventurers?

In the long run the production of your cities will be a telling factor but the first person to attempt a second city is placing themselves in a weak position, they have to weaken themselves and invest a lot of time and resources before they get a payout.  This happens in most games but everything I have been reading leads me to believe it will be more extreme in Elemental (I have to spend Essence as well).

Sammual