I have to say, its really hard to ignore assholes like that. I have no problem with different opinions, different merits, different worldviews or ideologys, but i have a real problem with impolite and rude people no matter if it is in reallife and virtuallife...

*bites one´s tounge*

Why are there certain people here STILL arguing about MP should have been included when there have been official word as to WHY it isnt!

Stop beating a dead horse! Accept what Brad et al has stated. Or better yet, do it yourselfs! Thats right, YOU who complains about MP not in the game, do something about it, if you think it is so easy to do (I dont think it is easy to do), or make your own game based on your ideas on how a game should be. But dont continue to bash and nag and generaly being brats about no mp!

Oh god no. RTS sucks plan and simple. There are those of us who perfer TBS MP and we don't mind waiting for turns to end. Besides there are things such as Timers options that can be used (however I never had to use them in MP games with friends.)

And how would a TBS game be harder to adapt to MP than a RTS game?  If anything it should be easier.

LMAO soooooo true and I LOVEEEEE how you turned that sentence around on them about the few empty vessels in the community. lol Of course everyone wants what THEY want and could care less about anyone else. Instead of that being "selfish" I say it's "human nature" you're born with want want want and mine mine mine and gemme gemme gemme. lol Hurray for your answer back to the MP minority.

Games that I love that I have spent maybe 1% of the time playing MP as opposed to SP? Civ is great, but I only played MP with friends or roomates just a couple times. The other 99% of the time I was playing by myself. Same with GalCiv. Same with HoMM, although I'd say maybe 5% of my HoMM playing was MP because my sister liked it so much. I like playing campaigns and not having to wait for other people. You can't really do that in TBS MP (although HoMM5 simultaneous/ghost mode was a little fun). I love SotS as well but 95% of my time playing that game was in SP. I don't need other people to make the game fun.

Actually, Fallen Enchantress is a Turn-based 4X. Just like those previous games you mentioned, Civilizations, GalCiv and the HoMM series. It certainly isn't an RTS, true. And generally RTS games are more multiplayer oriented than TBS 4X games. Most of us that participated in the beta don't care about MP. That much was evident when the poll for multiplayer was taken.

Similarily, I can't imagine a HoMM without SP. No campaigns? Having to wait on friends anytime you wanted to play? Same thing with Titan Quest. I loved that game! I have over 1500 hours played and I'd say only 20-30 of those hours are playing in MP. I can't imagine a TQ without SP. No fun.

I also really like HoMM4. I thought it was a great addition to the series that added a lot of new, interesting mechanics that made for a fun, enjoyable game. I find it hilarious that the same people bashing HoMM4 for not being an upgraded HoMM3 are the same ones that complained out HoMM5 gameplay being "too stale". Anyone that says HoMM4 sucked should just go back to playing HoMM3.

I'm not sure where you got your empiric data from but I can assure you that in no way do 9/10 HoMM players only play multiplayer, and in no way 100% of Civ players play MP. I play HoMM, Civ, Titan Quest, Torchlight, GalCiv, Minecraft... all SP. I leave the multiplayer for console games and FPS. You'll probably find that gamers like me aren't alone. We would prefer that FE have the best SP experience possible and only then if resources allow, put in multiplayer.

I'm not really interested in arguing over the Roman Republic or Roman Empire, but if someone wants to discuss Herodotus' contributions to social history, I'm game.

I too am very disappointed to learn there is no multiplayer.  As far as numbers go though, we should not take a single number, such as the % of players who attempt multiplayer, to necessarily evaluate the value of that feature. 

For example, I, as an avid multiplayer gamer, will test out a game in singleplayer to determine if I want to play the game in multiplayer.  If I find the game fun, and if I do well against computers, I often try my hand at human players.  As for the first elemental, the reason so many people did not try multiplayer may be becuase they did not have enough fun in singleplayer.  As for other games, although only 10% to 30% of a player base may actually play the game multiplayer, I think we might consider whether those 30% may be more invested (financially) in the game than the remaining 70%.  

This can occur becuase these people are the players who are most likely to solicit their friends and get them to buy a copy, or buy second copy themselves so that they can obtain the experience they want.  For a person that plays singleplayer, they have little or no incentive to do this unless they have lost their old copy.  In addition, simply having an active multiplayer base gives the game a greater online precense, through game replays, after-action reports, blogs, and other informal news.  This again, helps to market the game.  Finally, there is also an aspect to multiplayer that often helps the singleplayer game become better.  When two players compete against each other, one will often win.  To some degree, this will always have some degree of luck.  But more than anything else, and especially in a game like this, it is the person with the better strategy that will win.  This means that when human players compete against eachother they will find optimal strategies and balancing flaws that people who play solely singleplayer will never find, which in turn allows the developers to make adjustments and make the game better. 

So, is it true that the majority of players will never even attempt multiplayer?  Absolutely.  But does that mean that not having it will be beneficial for the game?  Certainly not.

If I did not have one good buddy to play coop or multiplayer games with I would only be playing single player.

You know what I would like, is games where you can join as a spectator and maybe give some feedback.  I could sit for ages just surfing games and watching tactical battles.  Especially the replays.  When a champion with barely any health scores a lucky critical and takes out one of the champs from the other side I want to see that again.

Go buy you a copy of GUILD WARS 1 then as it has an observer mode and you can watch to your hearts content and then berate the players who are BAD and tell them where they can go an all during the battles. Although the battles you see are about 5 minutes after the fact but many of the players that were playing in it are still online though now because they got so much horrible feedback put themselves offline or do not disturb. lol

I don't mean to ignite any argument (or further any) but I just wanted to toss in my word. I've been a fan of Stardock's games for a while (Sins being one of my top favorite games ever) but I hadn't picked up FE until recently due to the poor reception of WoM. My boyfriend recently got hooked on Fall from Heaven, which got me interested in FE. After playing it a while (and griping because I can never seem to win a diplomatic victory, or even avoid war at all) I'll say I like the game and really like the art style. I was very sad that it does not support multiplayer though.

I don't typically play games online, I play them on LAN or online with some friends. I never use any sort of matchmaking. I've put hundreds of hours into Sins and never played that online once. I've played lots of those hours on LAN though and really enjoyed it. CIV5 was a major disappointment for me, especially its multiplayer. I know it costs a lot of resources to develop MP systems and I can understand why they decided not to pursue it in FE. I will say that I hope Stardock considers adding a MP component at some point, maybe even in an expansion if they want. I personally prefer simultaneous turns but I'm not picky. My reasons for hoping are strictly self serving. I won't say adding MP will massively boost sales (It may help a bit but I have no idea about that sort of thing) and I won't say it will fix everything. I just think it would be wonderful to be able to play this game with my boyfriend. I have really fond memories of playing FFH and RiFE, something my boyfriend never got into. Regardless, I do really enjoy the game as it stands.

Many games boil down to rushing out your basic units and clashing instantly when it turns multiplayer. Way too much to gain with this playstyle compared to a passive one.

Not blowing further time and money on MP is fine with me. Not only do we get the game on time, we got it with additional content that may have been rubbed out in favor of multilayer. Which would suck because you'd have MP but less game content to play with.

And without MP balance isn't as much of an issue as it would have been. People picking purely the meta and steamrolling others who are looking to play for fun is a problem. But with SP if you don't want to play the meta because you prefer a different play-style you can do that without needing to worry too much about certain things being useless. The AI offsets some things being worse, because you can compensate with mushy non-silicon based human brains.

I completely disagree, in fact I believe the opposite is true.  The long time players of TB strategy games aren't the MP players.  They'll get bored and be onto the next hot MP game in short order.  The people who will be playing FE for years (as I have played GC2 and the civ games for years) are the people that appreciate an infinitely re-playable, randomized every time, single player experience.  Part of this is that the things that make TBS games great (building a civilization from the ground up over a long period of time, focusing on economy, tech research, and diplomacy, and sometimes war) don't translate well when many people are playing a game together.  

Just-dead wrong.  And I'll link here to a poll about this very topic in the Endless Space forum.  NOT the same game, I know.  But another great TBS with essentially the same type of players.  I think it speaks for itself.  

http://forums.amplitude-studios.com/showthread.php?10833-Do-you-prefer-playing-SINGLEPLAYER-or-MULTIPLAYER

I'm going to also link to this pot in the GC2 forums, I couldn't have said it better myself. 

https://forums.galciv2.com/98074/page/25/#3214100

After reading Froboys post as a fan of Gal Civ I and II and their DA/TA expansions, I say if people want a multiplayer put your money where your mouth is and buy it as a expansion and not demand it to screw up GC 3.And considering how few people supposedly come on the forums why for the love thats all holy should stardock/Kalypso/whoever monkey about with the game we love because "some" people want to play online for 3-6 months till they get bored and throw it back on their shelf. Whereas those of us that not only play it all the time but come back to it time and time again get shafted with a multiplayer feature we either never wanted or cant use and the developer see's that all their game budget,time and effort go for nought!.

Personally I'd rather have a good/great single player game I can keep going back to than a ok/good game that has a major function I cant use or wont use and after I've completed the campaign sits on my shelves gathering dust or thrown away.

DONT RUIN GALACTIC CIVILISATIONS,DONT COMPROMISE WHAT MADE US LOVE THIS GAME IN THE 1ST PLACE!

ok,rant over - welcomes ban with open arms!

sorry for the WoT!