Ever notice that when somebody says IMHO they're not being humble...

That's so true, people should stick to IMO...

BTW Rogerano, I assume you have access to the latest gmma build, with the latest AI, do you think GC2 suffers from not having a MP option? From the beta's I've played I don't think it does, although in the beta's there's still a case for it...

p.s I thought this whole Multiplayer thing was long gone from here...

Sorry about that, I usually don't whine but I and many of my friends and acquaintances wait for a game we can compete in and with just this exact setting. So now we have to wait another time span, if ever such a game will come out and be decent. I even took holidays already early march to have lan-parties with my friends.

Playing a game can take quite a while to finish aswell and with multi player games i normally like some 2 hour bashing and thats it, i don'y really like the idea of playing Galciv2 with someone else over the internet waiting for their moves to be completed etc etc and doing this for a couple of weeks to finish 1 game.

What you can do is to start a new game, save it andsend this to all your friends (so each will be playing the same game),
its up to the individual player to dominate the AI and see who of this group can get the highest score or finish the game the quickest.

You are still competing with your friends while player against the AI (and this can be really fun, especially when the final release has comeout with the final AI)

Just my 2 cents

Civ3Fanatic, I see your points. However, I have to say that in my opinion, what made e.g. MoO 2 great in its time was not only its single player gameplay (at least not for me) but also the ability to play MP against friends. I still remember the numerous lan-parties we had fondly. I have rarely played a TBSG online, though. If that, only with ppl I got to know in forums.

Moreover, I am a person who dislikes preset campaings - more of a random game type.

I just want to say, there are lots of different tastes out there, and I would not say more ppl are SP oriented in TBSG than MP oriented.

As I wrote in another post, the polls taken here do not tell us that much as they were done on a SP fan base. Thus the vote for SP is not that surprising for me. Had you asked a more open, broader audience, then maybe (and I am the last who would state that I know that for sure) results would have been different. At least I would have voted for MP, but as I did not play GalCiv I (for lack of MP) I did not even know of the existence of GalCiv II at that stage. Same holds true for all my friends and acquaintances, who are a very MP-oriented lot.

So its not only a question of long lifeblood, but also a question of broadening your business base, doing incremental business. The larger the fan community, the more fun a game usually is, is my experience. Just my 2 cents...

Hehe, thanks Shogun, now I understand what he meant with humble... could not quite get a handle on that. For sure, it is IMHO in my honest opinion, at least as I know it.

I do not think that my *humble* opinion will change anything, however I hope that not all the MP fans are gone. I also hope that this topic is present enough at Stardock that they will at least think about adding MP. I have not heared a comment on that in a long while (in fact, as I wrote, only today I stumbled across a line that enlightened me that there will be no MP, so I guess this topic has not been raised in a while...).

Another thought, I am from Germany, and over here I know many ppl who are MP fans. Maybe its also a geographic issue...

TBH I doubt MP would be used too much within GC2, even a small game would last hours, and with a decent sized game with a few human players, it would take weeks. let alone a massive game, which would take months.

it just doesnt make much sense to have it, and I agree that it would have been a waste of stardocks resources to put funds into something which would probably ruin peoples opinion of the game.

Yes, reviewers might complain about the lack of multiplayer, but they would complain more if there was a pointless multiplayer.

I can imagine playing a game with 12 people on a gigantic galaxy........ it'd take forever and get so tedious

There are tons of games out there that have multiplayer and I don't think ALL games need to have it. In particular it seems that turn-based strategy games don't lend themselves well to multiplayer, particularly games like Civ or GalCiv where even smallish or standard games can take 4-8 hours to complete.

I would think that RTS where a "map" can be won in 1-2 hours would be much more ideal, and there's no lack of that type of gameplay at all. (if anything, there's FAR too much of it and not enough TBS and CRPG )

I'm not even sure why Civ ever delved into multiplayer. I love Civ IV but it's not much of a wargame, it's a game of larger scope that includes war. And it'd also seem like play MP Civ without a lot of war would be nearly pointless. It's basically a move to try to please everyone instead of focusing on the best parts of the game.

Every multiplayer TBS game I've ever played on-line versus strangers goes goes something like this:

1) I play for an hour and the other guy quits.

2) I play for an hour and the game starts to turn in my favor slightly. Guy quits.

Whether this be CIV IV or HOMM3 or MOO2.

I love multiplayer RTS games btw.  It's the time issue really.

dunno maybe it was my wasting time with the civ 3 multiplayer but i have just never liked the idea of a tbs multiplayer i would rather have the developers spend more time on improved and more complex diplomacy, harder ai, more ship components, new gameplay features, ui improvements, and overall streamlineing than work on a multiplayer that will only appeal to a limited number of ppl

but of course this that is much better thanis just me and i understand that ppl do use and play tbs multiplayer but the angle that im getting at is why make a tbs multiplayer that appeals to limited ppl and might get a couple of ppl to play the game when you can improve the single player expirence for everyone its not that im fully against a multiplayer its just that with other things that could be worked on besides the multiplayer i would rather c them get higher priority

I am worried

All that you have said makes perfect sense. However, this is just your preference and taste. Other people have other preferences.

I am fairly certain that here in GalCiv 2 we have a SP preference oriented community. Thus I would expect all those replies. However, as GC2 does not have MP, its no wonder there are not so many MP fans here.

I completely agree that playing MP games on the internet with strangers is often a bother and not very much fun. To make that viable, you would need something flashy and new. Civ4 did that to some extent, but not that well either.

For me, the MP option is more for LAN-parties or online games with friends, where you spend some hours (or even nights or days) but always have the option to save the game and come back at a later time and resume at the milestone you saved. That really is extreme fun and very challenging.

And I have yet to find a game where the AI is flawless. All the TBSGs I have seen, especially the space based ones, have major AI issues such as attacking planets, defending systems, evaluating threat and so on. Sometimes it is better to cut your losses, sometimes it is better to stay and fight even if you know you will lose. With the AI its just bits and bytes, 0 and 1. And I will be very surprised if the AI will be as challenging and devious as another player...

Many games just give the AI races a resource bonus at the beginning to head them off. That is lame. Then in many games the AI will not even colonize correctly.

I am not in beta so I do not know if those issues are true, but I wager some of them are, if not most. Especially in the endgame, when you have big fleets running around, the AI always seems to be overwhelmed, overworked and acts erratically. A decision to lose a planet to a big fleet while sneaking up on some important system in turn I have yet to see in a game. Even if the AI by chance would do that, if a system is threatened it usually breaks off what would be a perfect move to protect the system.

You can only do so much with an AI. You can experience infinite scenarios with a player.

And that is really my grudge. Having played a couple of games, you will know how the AI reacts to certain situations and begin using them (the diplomacy and demand tribute is just one example). With another human player you can never be sure.

Now, to have a solid AI *AND* an human player would just be heaven IMHO.

Have you ever played GalCiv?  AI is what they're best known for.

The original Galactic Civilizations on OS/2 was the first multithreaded computer AI for instance.  A great deal of work is put into making sure the AI is very challenging.  Each computer opponent has its own AI module (i.e. its own C++ file with its own unique functions and strategies).

Have you ever played GalCiv? AI is what they're best known for. The original Galactic Civilizations on OS/2 was the first multithreaded computer AI for instance. A great deal of work is put into making sure the AI is very challenging. Each computer opponent has its own AI module (i.e. its own C++ file with its own unique functions and strategies).

No, I have not, precicely because it had no MP option available. Just one in my gaming group did and soon quit as we moved on to other games that promised a joint experience.

GalCiv2 could be what I (and most of my gaming group) have ever dreamed of (a bit melodramatic, I know). So all the more disappointing that MP is missing, for us anyways.

That's understandable that a multiplayer group would be disappointed.  No game can be all things to all people.