i guess the best way to look at the whole sovereign death thing is this.  are playing the kingdom or are you playing the sovereign? 

because if you are playing the kingdom then it makes sense that when he dies the next child in line becomes the sovereign and you keep going.  if this is true the sovereign should be weaker and closer to basically a champion, because he doesn't really matter.

if you are playing the sovereign then when the sov dies the game should end for you, because your dead.  if this is the case then the sov should be more powerful and unique among the champions to show that without the sov your civ simply cannot be.

so basically which is it?

Yes, this would work better than what is currently proposed, I think.

Um, I have to disagree. The entire point of killing someone is to remove them from the game. If they want to sign a surrender treaty were they pay tribute or something thats different. Besides this way would completly ignore the entire Dynasty system. I would like the Dynasty system to actually matter thank you.

Me too, I have pushed for this from the beginning.  And yes, a surrender option would be better than auto vassalisation.  But vassalisation need not remove the succession mechanic - the next in line would take over the throne, but become a vassal of the conquerer.  If vassalisation is refused by the conquerer or the vanquished successor does not surrender, he could attempt to continue the fight against the invader.

My idea to add traits to each descendant would greatly affect the next-in-line's decision to fight or surrender, and many other decisions in diplomacy.  As in the excellent Crusader Kings (and the upcoming CK2).

Um, I have to disagree. The entire point of killing someone is to remove them from the game. If they want to sign a surrender treaty were they pay tribute or something thats different. Besides this way would completly ignore the entire Dynasty system. I would like the Dynasty system to actually matter thank you.

Killing the sovereign does not necessarily means killing the player out of the game.

Some random ideas: If your sovereign get his capital captured, then he will probably need to surrender. If the sovereign actully dies. Either the children takes the place and continue to live, or either the kingdom fall in ennemy hands, but the children are exiled and plan a rebellion. Or the children controls the kingdom under their conquerer's command.

In the viktory 2 board game, vassal essentially means:

You cannot attack your boss.

If another player takes your capital, he can free you, or you become his new vassal.

The only problem with that is that the vassal player could get sloppy and not manage very well his kingdom. But there could be ways for the leader to enforce his command to the vassal. For example, the leader could ask for some production/income quota, else he will capture more cities from his vassal. So the vassal would be forced to assure a certain efficiency or get weaker.

My question was this: Do you mean that in v 1.3 the ratio of HP / Unit will remain fairly similar, but that for that same base unit one would require FOUR population instead of ONE? In other words, will the materials cost of training a unit with X hitpoints increase fourfold, will the population cost of training a unit with X hitpoints increase fourfold? This will have consequences across the board that go way beyond the question of unit balance / glass cannon.

So... just like monarchy in real life? How often did monarchs kill and fight their relatives for land? Aren't all the royal families in Europe related to each other?

Don't get me wrong though, I like the ideas you suggested. After all this isn't IRL but a tactical game. Plus the idea of say, trade benefits, is realistic (and a good idea from a gameplay perspective)

Yeah, so if you have to train peasants in groups of four what would that mean?  Something like 8 gildar, 12 mats, and 4 pop?  Really, is this unbalancing?

Should it not first check for children of age to take over the kingdom?

Why? its not like they need to do every little things themselves, and a guardian can be appointed to do the bulk of the management. A guardian being, say, you the player.

You could make an argument that not even the eldest son of sovereigns are as powerful as sovereigns. Thus when a sovereign dies the son who takes over is the one that has the backing of another sovereign.

Sigh. This appears to have disappeared from the OP without comment from Brad. Please, could that be an editing mistake?

There are so many good reasons to try to keep Essence as a stat, not the least of which is making the game unique in the genre and hence more fun. I'm not married to any particular way it should work, just to the idea that it has potential to make the whole game much better. Having Essence and mana together could sustain both the 'routine magic' feel that many of us expect from a fantasy game setting while also having a serious 'magic is special' layer, for a more Lord of the Rings/Song of Ice and Fire feel.

As a day 1 buyer, I dpn't mind however much you cut back on v1.3 development in order to make FE the best game.

Sounds good so far.  Question:  Will level of 'notable location' correspond with level of 'monster' inside / level of reward??

Great! A reason you're even more screwed if your husband/wife gets killed off early in game and you cant re-marry.

true

Yeah, hopefully this will get fixed along with any improvements made to the dynasty system.

Could death of a sovereign eventually lead to the next in line taking over? That way, an extensive family would have to lose a lot more of the royal line until someone with a stronger connection can take over.

...

With regards to what happens when a faction dies, what I want to do is work with the community on this. I plan to put up code snippets and everything so we can walk through exactly what we (and by we I mean myself and you guys) think is funnest on this.

I can't promise what we come up with go into Fallen Enchantress. We're only talking about War of Magic. But if it's sufficiently good it'll make it into there.  

But it's important to note that the concept game from Game of Thrones and so there are reasons why it is draconian in some ways (like if your wife gets killed early, you're screwed).

I like the Romance of the Three Kingdom way. 

1. Sov Dies

2.  There is a council with your heirs and champions.  (Now, in these games, the generals each had different personalities, some were stubborn, some ambitious, loyal, etc).  And they would express their opinions on who should take over the Kingdom.  Some times they were united, some times there were rival factions, usually the oldest child of the Sov had the most support.  You as the player could make anyone the next Ruler, but if you chose some scrub over an Heir, or someone that didn't get a lot of support in the council, then the nation would fracture.

3. If there is a pretty unified opinion, then that person is made Sov.  But, if there were rival factions, the Kingdom would split, and a new nation would rise. 

If there are some changed already made for 1.3, e.g the short War of Magic v1.3: Changes Implemented list then are/can/will these be bundled into 1.2 , say making it go straight to 1.21?

After the sovereign dies, I think the kingdom should be split up among the factions who have married into the dynasty and any unmarried heirs who would start a new faction.

For example, Relias has four kids:  Nambo (married to Capitar), Nimbo, Nombo, and Numbo (married to Pariden).  Some cities and armies would go to Capitar, some cities and armies would go to Pariden, and two new factions would emerge one following Nimbo and one following Nombo.

Whatever the mechanic, I think it would be a lot more fun if the nation always fractured. Some for you, some for me, and some for the guy next door. As important as family connections are, I can't help but think a certain amount of cities would surrender to the guy who just offed their sovereign - and has armies bearing down on the remaining cities. Personally I don't find it rewarding to "inherit" a bunch of stuff cause a random nation happened to kill a random sov who I happened to have a marriage connection with. Hooray for me, so well played.

PS, the ability to re-marry would seem to solve a lot of issues.

I vote for the way of doing it that is best for preventing the AI from being taken out easily.