I don’t know if any one else has said this but it would be fun if as your villagers get older if your alchemist could brew potions that could extend there life. The more experienced he gets and the more research you do the longer you can have your favorite people stay alive. finally unlocking immortality but to balance this you would have to collect rare material to create the more difficult potions.
I like the idea of having control over that. That’s how RTS games should be in my opinion. The typical Age of Empires-style ‘train villager’ button, requiring a certain amount of food and taking up housing, is ideal as far as gameplay goes, but it doesn’t seem to fit the feel of this game… 
But hopefully it’s not too much more time consuming than that. Even just taking more time would be suitable for me.
Back OT, I don’t think units dying should be anything special. We have to keep in our minds that this is first and foremost an Real Time Strategy game (The best kind of games imho!), therefore there needs to be dynamic feedback and interaction in a dashboard manner with the player’s action and not too much extra stuff and effects in order to accommodate larger unit numbers and maps. 
I would like if when one of your settlers die, they just de-spawn in some flashy way and drop loot.
My idea is not that creative, but fairly simple.
1 Like
I think the game is more focussed on the city building side of things, with RTS and RPG aspects to it.
As for how to acquire new settlers, I don’t think we’ve had a confirmation on what this mechanic will be, but if the game is inspired by something like Dwarf Fortress, it could be in the way of migrants, that come to your settlement.
We’ll have to wait and see!
1 Like
I think funerals and special death ceremonies should only been done for special people or once in a while. Doing them every time someone died would be annoying.
1 Like
I agree, but in that case the body still has to go somewhere. Perhaps for John Doe a funeral is just carting the body to the graveyard as opposed to a bunch of villagers mourning them. I think the biggest issue with a funeral is the loss of manpower. Every person showing up would be incapable of working until the event is over. It could lead to some funny bugs though. Imagine a bunch of soldiers mourning when a raid comes through and they have to stay at the funeral!
The Devs want you to feel attached to your settlers (its the same reason you might never have more than 100 settles) so if say you lose insert name the Great Blacksmith, its possible that you might not even notice if he doesn’t get a funeral…
I suppose but there will always be favorites and settlers you don’t care much for. I don’t know if I would want to have a funeral for everyone.
Who says you have to watch, it could just be something that happens that you can watch if you liked that settler.
1 Like
Maybe but again comes the issue that funerals rob you of manpower for a time. That will always be noticeable.
while i can see having more emotional attachment to units in SH (as compared to most other games), i’m not sure having a service for the recently departed is necessarily the type of closure i would need…
having a town record (or a scribe of sorts) that chronicles the acceptance of new, and demise of existing units would be more than adequate for me… 
2 Likes
Somehow the way Tony talked about the way farming will work comes also into mind here.
So if its the same with the “departure system” that could be very nice, meaning that there will be an easy method that wont consume much time, but if you want to you can go into the depths of it and micro manage how it works until you have it optimized.
That would also allow to have closure the way you want it to.
for a split second there, i thought you were going in a pretty morbid direction… think fertilizer… 
Um… Hm… “SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!” - heh couldn’t resist sorry 
1 Like
Salutations!
This mostly a suggestion…but It would be great if you can employ a wizard/necromancer, that can resurrect them?
Then you will have an unstoppable army that can take over of the 2 factions that you are against!
hmm…maybe not…
Probably bets to have the citizens bury them…
-Wizard Max-
They’ve already hinted at the possibility of resurrecting your fallen guys … and how this has the potential of leading to some sort of zombie apocalypse.
i forgot about that! isnt it a lovely phrase too? 
Can we raise the dead? - Livestream - 27:15
“Yes …it has to make it in, we don’t know how, but it has to make it
in. There will be some way, you might not like it. Maybe this is how
the zombie apocalypse starts … maybe the penalty for losing
someone is that you have to ‘res’ them, and ‘ressing’ them too often
could turn them into a zombie … zombie apocalypse should be a way to
lose the game”
1 Like
The idea is very well written, but it’s a bit too much micromanaging for my taste. I mean, imagine having a 200 population city. Would you really want to assign each child for an apprentice? Wouldn’t that take a minimum of at least 2 minutes?
After playing T&S I can’t say I am a big fan of how they handle the death or your settlers.
How will this game handle that and will there be game over ?
Personally I would rather there be a loss of resources/armour/house destruction (say from enemies attacks), loss in XP (assuming settlers have levels) and KO’d settlers would be a better idea.
So for example, when a monster defeats your settlers they will move on and destroy your town, steal your resources/armour etc, after they leave your KO’d settlers would be weakened and have lost XP.
What is everyone’s opinion on this ?
Would be interesting to see what the devs have in mind also 
Well, I would think that they would handle a death the most simple way: just as it is. Wouldn’t it be less complicated to just handle villager death as what it is; a reduction in the workforce, and one less mouth to feed, as opposed to a complicated calculation of loss?