And if I recall if you eliminate the capital in GalCiv2 the race DOESN'T totally die off.
Capitals in GC2 can't really run away, nor are they really any more powerful than any other city.
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.
First of all, Stardock's AIs are so much better than the AIs found in games like AoW that even seeing that comparison makes me angry. Quite frankly, the AI in GC2 is almost as good a player as I am. I'm not excellent at GC2, but I don't think I'm bad either. Secondly, the channeler in Elemental should not be compared to the wizards in AoW. The wizards in AoW are weakling pieces of crap that are easier to kill than most regular units in the game. In Elemental, you can choose to make your channeler so insanely powerful that he can individually defeat whole armies. Also, in the very beginning of the game it seems like your channeler will outstrip any other military you'll have - unless you expend all your starting essence almost immediately. Basically what I'm saying is - again - just because you don't like something in another game doesn't mean the same problems will apply in a completely different game - especially when there are already known factors that should help alleviate those problems.
Also, I think most people who agree that the game should end on channeler death also agree that when you destroy an AI channeler, you shouldn't immediately take over their whole territory, and neither should their remaining territory vanish. Rather, it should become a 'neutral' kingdom - basically a kingdom that functions as such in every way except without a channeler. Maybe it'd become a little bit more like a minor faction from that point, or maybe it'd become the vassal of some other empire in the hope of gaining protection from you. The result of destroying an enemy channeler could be varied. But, for example, if destroying an enemy channeler is likely to result in his kingdom becoming a vassal or part of another one of your enemies, you might think twice before putting so much power into the hands of a single enemy.
And I'll say it again: calling something ignorant before you've even seen a glimpse of the game is real ignorance. Yeah, maybe it won't work (and if it doesn't it'll be scrapped). But at this point, the devs have a much clearer idea of that than you or I. Wait until the beta comes before making up your mind (because otherwise you're grasping at clouds).