Like I said aboved, I agree with Stardock's priority of making a great single-player game first. But, I don't understand why people seem to equate multi-player with live play over the internet or a LAN. Sure, GC is not ideal for this type of play. But PBEM is perfect for turn-based games. Within limits, you take your turn at your convenience, spend as much or as little time thinking about it as you desire, then send it off. Okay, it may take a while to finish a game, but who says a game has to be finished in an evening--or a week--for it to be enjoyable? I started gaming during the days of board wargames and play-by-[snail]-mail. It could take a good long time to finish a game like D-Day or Anzio via the mail, and the wait between turns probably averaged nearly a week--longer if you were playing someone from another country. PBEM cuts the time between turns drastically.

I can see why many people have no enthusiasm for live multiplayer over the net--neither do I---and I already purchased GC2 despite the intent to release it without any multiplayer capability--because I love Space 4X games and am confident, based on GC1, that this will be an excellent one. But, nothing could make me happier, in terms of a subsequent exansion, than the ability to PBEM/hotseat GC2 with a human opponent. And, as I said before, from a non-programmer's veiwpoint [which I realize could be completely wrong], it seems like implementing PBEM/hotseat would take MUCH less work than accomodating live multiplayer via the net or LAN.

Yes, there are other types of multiplayer, and as I said, hotseat is the only type of multiplayer I've enjoyed with turn-based games. PBEM is too slow paced for me to enjoy.

Now, I'm also not saying that noone would enjoy net-based multiplayer games, for that matter. I'm just trying to get the point across that as much as someone might love them, that doesn't mean that everyone, or even a majority of people would enjoy it.

I WILL buy a multiplayer expansion pack to GC2 if it ever comes out, even if 99% of my games are single player, but I'm not willing to sacrifice noticable parts of the single player experience for it, either.

Ok, let me start off by saying that I agree with stardock's decision to drop the multiplayer in order to improve other aspects of the game, and even if i didn't it's not like it's going to be added in now for the final release anyway, no matter how much we all beg or debate. I do, however, really want to see multiplayer in this game at some point, so instead of bashing them for a decision they have already made, those who want multiplayer need to convince them that making an expansion with multiplayer capabilities would benefit them, instead of just saying I like multipeyer so put it in.

So, as I said I would really like to see a multiplayer expansion to Gal Civ 2 and there are quite a few reasons to do so. First let me say that I know of very few, well actually no TBS pace based 4X games with a good engaging story. This is mostly do to the time it takes inbetween forwarding the story (you have to finish the mission in order to continue the story along), so if you get caught in a hard mission you might loose interest in the game and perhalps never come back to it. However, if a game has multiplayer it is in essence, immortal, it could last for decades, especially a well built TBS game where the gameplay is paramamount instead of graphics. I still play BOTF (Birth of the Federation) even though it's pretty flawed, and has no single player story but it does have multiplayer, and after a mod of my making it became really enjoyable, especially with friends. I'm not trying to say you should of done multiplayer instead of making the single player experience better, i'm just saying that multiplayer could add years and years onto a games life. However you never know, maybe Stardocks going to blow us away with a good story, and implement it in an all new way, i'm just saying that TBS games in general don't have as engaging stories as RTS and FPS where your right in the action, at least that I know of.

Well, i'm probably going to think of more reasons latter, so i'll add them in later. So like I said people, if you want multiplayer, stop complaining and start thinking, we have to convince them thats it's worth it, I meen i know there nice guys, but there not going to spend there money and time just making something if they think there not going to get anything out of it. Well thats my peice for now, so put on your thinking caps and lets get a nice jucy list of reasons going here!

It's been a few months since I visited the site and here we are again. I for one will not buy this game because no single player game has the replay value of a solid working multiplayer title PERIOD. I don't care what genre were talking about if done right multiplayer is far more interesting. Your survey data is flawed because what people really want is all of the above AND multiplayer. Fine you don't have the time money or resources to make multiplayer a priority but don't go saying stupid things nobody wants multiplayer or it doesn't work in turn based strategy games because you are dead wrong. Personally I don't want some tack on multiplayer expansion either. If it's not built from the ground up with multiplayer in mind it will probably suck anyways. Here's looking forward to Civ4.

I'll be watching for that 2006 announcement

FWIW, which probably isn't much, I don't have the slightest interest in multiplayer. I hesitated to post in this thread, but it seemed to be so one sided ...

AI's cannot compeat with humans, humans are smart, sneaky, tricky, cleaver and on and on. Not olny that how much enjoyment can you get playing the computer vs playing with friends. Who would you rather play chess with the computer or a friend.
As for games that take a long time to play, save it and playreal it with ytour friends next opertunity when you can get together.
I just cannot understand why someone would go through all the trouble to make this type of game with not haveing in formost thought in their mind of makeing it playable with friends amazing!
Well I'm glab there are smart humans like Lord Brazen that keep good old Moo II rocking n rolling on xp.
Thats my 2 cents worth.

Master of Orion 3 should not even be compared with bad games, and of course, never with GalCiv. MOO3 was the biggest disappointment in a long time. A brought it back the same day.
Nevertheless MOO2 is the classic game of the genre, at least in my opinion. Ship Design's popularity might be a consequence, Multiplayer as well. If it is about budget it is obvious that the mayority will prefer a sound game WITHOUT multiplayer and not a bad game like MOO3.
However, the questions are: Can you afford to publish a modern game without multiplayer mode? Will Civ4 or Heroes5 really compete with GalCiv2?
Personally I have to agree with other people: Even a great AI cannot replace human players (real opponents) and I cannot understand the "antisocial" threads at all. It is not about to be social but to be really challenged for a long time.
That´s way I have to prefer other turn based games, unfortunately... but I hope GalCiv2 will be a succes anyway and I´m hoping for the expansion "GalCiv2 - the return to Orion", that would be awesome!

Moo2 multiplayer was slow because the game needs lot of micro. It was good thou, I only had the problems with the lack of game balance, which was annoying. Things like MIRV and Unified Tolerant races made the game suck :/ Still I like playing it here and there.

Frogboy: I've been making games for over a decade and on top of that, let me just say that game developers talk to each other quite a bit.  And the consensus is, multiplayer in a 4X game is a luxury. It doesn't really make a big addition in sales.

This sounds interesting. Yet, does it still hold true?

Especially considering the number of Internet-based games that have sprung about lately. For instance, there are mostly text-based (generally very much simplified) 4x games that attract thousands and thousands of players. If a mostly text-based game manages to attract so many players, ...... .

Frogboy: Master of Orion 3 has multiplayer.  Go onto Gamespy right now and see how many people are playing it.

As a number of people already mentioned, this isn't a very useful comparison. It'd be alot more interesting to hear your opinion of Civ IV having multiplayer (even though it obviously isn't a space game).

Other than that it's good to see a Stardock representative actually participating in the discussion .

ForesterGC: Point argued and decision made

For this version yes. For future versions / a possible addon, no. The more people that argue / post here, the more likely the possibility will be taken seriously next time it is decided upon. (at least that's the idea )

Personally I'd like to see a multiplayer component.

I've heard comments that suggest multiplayer and replayability are mutually exlclusive, or at the very least conflict with one another, I would suggest that the opposite is true--particularily for 4X games. Let's face it, no matter how hard developers try to make a clever AI the computer's flaws and idiosyncrasies eventually become exploited and most gamers lose interest soon afterwards. OS/2 Galciv1&2, PC GalCiv 1, Civilization 1,2,&3, and Alpha Centauri are all 4X games it took me less than a couple weeks to master at the highest skill levels and I hardly played them afterwards. The only thing left to play for once the computer is rendered predictable is trying to get higher and higher scores, or in other words, trying to find ways of exploiting the computer as efficiently as possible.

Until some drastic change occurs in the realm of Artificial Intelligence I don't see this changing; it doesn't matter how much time and money one throws at it.

Hey AlexD What troll feed brings you to this neck of the woods?

Astax... do you have anything valuble to add to these discussions, or are you just out to troll?

"I won't buy it without multiplayer!"
"I wouldn't buy it even if it had multiplayer because the game stinks!"

How do you even know if the game stinks yet? Gameplay isn't in beta yet.