Dominions did a great job with assassinations. They are actual fought out with the person being assassinated and there are many ways to have bodyguards. Not everyone had access to assassinations as well.

I would thouroughly agree Darkodin. I only played the demo for AgeofWonders, but this was the coolest thing by far i saw in the demo.

Being realistic isn't a very good reason for it to be in the game, being fair is a pretty good reason. But, for some reason, you're missing the elephant in the room: many-sided battles are so cool, and so much more fun! Plus it makes for better strategy. The HoMM type of 1v1 combat in series is really gimmicky, while the AoW:SM type of combat where everyone within a tile of the defending army joins the battle requires more thought and the outcome can be affected in many different ways.

  I usually arrive on the RPG and TBS  forums... but you won't find me on any  FPS  forums. 

  For  RPGs and TBS games  I always request:   Random Game Generator;  Map Editor;  and  Multiplayer.    These features provide great replay value. 

   Actually realistic is a good reason because the more unrealistic qualities the less gamers are drawn into the gameplay.  The Elemental community would not accept swords being made of candy, dragons being afraid of mice and water mixed with fire creating mud.  As I've also written in the developer journals this provides more strategies.  It's funny how you try to disagree with me even when you agree with me.   lol

Realtiy is not balanced. A game must be balanced. The pretty standard way to do this is put mechanics into games because they are fair, then make them realistic through cosmetics, text, and lore.

Haha, well I agree and disagree with you

Realism is not what makes games good. This is a fantasy game, and as such the vast majority of it is inherently unrealistic. That is, after all, the rough definition of the word 'fantasy.' It isn't realistic to have people who can shoot fireballs out of their hands, conjure up mythical beasts, set fire to the world or cause earthquakes with a thought or gesture or some words.

An enormous amount of things that are realistic are not much fun. It isn't realistic to have one overarching entity manage all the little aspects of an entire empire simultaneously. If we wanted to be realistic, we'd have to issue orders to generals and administrators, who would then propagate those orders down to their subordinates and hope that they are carried out how you want. There would be delays and miscommunication - and the same would apply to gathering information about your empire. But quite frankly, that doesn't sound like very much fun - you'd spend the game giving vague orders and receiving vague, delayed information.

And I'm sure there have been games with swords made of candy and all - we don't want it because we want Elemental to have a fairly serious tone. Not having swords made of candy is less about realism than about the tone and atmosphere that we are looking forward to. I mean honestly, having swords made of candy is more realistic than having magically flaming swords made of fantastically durable and light materials. Really for me, I only care about realism in the sense that as much of the game as possible should be intuitive, and taking some cues from the real world can help there (but it can also hurt!).

Realism isn't even secondary IMO, it's tertiary at best. I would put fun factor way at the top, followed by tone/theme not that far behind. Standing at fun factor, you'd need good eyes to be able to make out realism.

I always liked multigroup battles in AoW. In particular for cases where I'd help an ally by putting a garrison in their town, that would let me join combat if they got attacked.

Given that towns can be multiple tiles in Elemental, it seems like something similar would conceputally be possible. I put some of my troops in your town, and if the town is attacked, I can help out. It would certainly not make any sense for a third party to be able to conquer an allies town while my troops are sitting in it without them helping the defenders.

The point I was making involves realistic fantasy and unrealistic fantasy... you're not the first I've had to explain the differences.

Unrealistic fantasy would be swords made of candy, mixing fire and water to make mud, dragons being afraid of mice, etc., etc.,  =  This is generally a bad idea...... unless some childs game.

Realistic fantasy would be swords made of iron, water and holy magic to create holy water, and dragons ignoring mice.

So we do look for a realistic fantasy world... unless you're into candy swords.  

I'm so looking forward to a mod where the first turn we witness dragons being slaughtered by bunnies and the player hopes to find the cotton sword of candy in order to defeat said bunnies before they invade his town.

Actually that sounds like a lot of fun.

No I'm not. I understand the difference but you're also missing my point. In the Total War series, there is no magical excuse for having complete, immediate and simultaneous control over vast swaths of land and huge numbers of people. You have that ability because not having it would result in a whole lot of tedium and not very much fun.

The exact same thing is true in fantasy games. The only difference is that in fantasy games, particularly those with magic, we can come up with excuses to explain such things away.

Another thing to keep in mind is that there is a difference between unrealistic and silly. Candy swords and dragons terrified of mice are silly. Realistic fantasy is exactly what KellenDunk described, and that is completely irrelevant to whether swords are made of candy and dragons are afraid of mice. One could create a perfectly consistent world in which those things occur. The difference between that and what you and I agree we want is the tone of that world, not its realism. There are few enough fantasy strategy games that I'd rather the ones we have the pleasure of playing be serious and not stupidly silly.

Your example of fire and water magic being used to create mud is a good example of where realism should come into play, though. Like I said before, the only real place where I think realism should enter the fray is to help make aspects of the game intuitive. We don't really have any realistic sense of magic (such a thing doesn't exist, if you ask most people) - but we do understand water, and fire and earth and air and what those things represent and are associated with. People's opinions will differ somewhat (it is ultimately very subjective), but pretty much everyone will agree that fire and water shouldn't make mud. So I will agree that realism should be considered when crafting the magical requirements needed to achieve specific results. We want the magical system to be intuitive, not something where you have to memorize everything by rote - and realism in this case is probably the best way to achieve this.

I can agree with both sides here. In my opinion, i like to see realism in games, to an extent of making the game more enjoyable. I want to feel like i am actually in charge of a nation, or that my life (as a channeler) is important, and realism is necessary to make that happen. This is mostly why i was excited to hear we might get a more advanced economy in this game. I want my game to be fun and unpredictable, realism can make that happen too (through random events, etc.) because life itself is unpredictable. I don't think the argument is whether or not candy swords and docile smiley-faced dragons should be used (bc pigeon is right, that's just silly) but rather to what extent realism should be used. And even though it's in a fantasy setting, i think we still want to feel like the world is alive, and not just a game.

Exactly,  right on target!   Some individuals such as yourself grasp the understanding quickly.