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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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!

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

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.

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)

it was Robot Chicken