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.

Yes thats why whenever I see someone bitch about no multiplayer being in such a game I believe them to be strange.

I played MOO2 for SIX years, Civ 2 multiplayer for quite a few years, SE4, and a few others as well. NEVER finished a multiplayer game for ANY TBS.

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

That is true and I have written as much. However, I think that there are more groups like mine out there. How many, I don't know. And I hope that some day, hopefully in the near future, Stardock will decide to implement MP.

One thing, MoO3 had a huge forum while it was alive. I see many but by far not all people here that also were on that forum. I wager at least some of those are MP fans

Btw, Apoc527, are you the same as the moderator on those MoO3 forums? If yes then a hearty hello to you.

Legendde, at least wait until you play the game before deciding whether or not you'll enjoy playing it.

Frogboy has already stated his case regarding the lack of MP over several posts on different threads. I happen to agree with the bossman on this one, it's not worth pouring a significant part of a game's budget into a feature that will not be used by most of the people buying the game.

This way, the people who aren't ever going to use it (like myself), can save some money on the game AND enjoy all of those features that wouldn't have made it into the game if MP was planned from the outset of the games design.

Frogboy has also said that they may bring in MP in the expansion pack, but only if there's enough support for it. So get all of those friends of yours that want MP onto the forums if MP is the ONLY thing that will make GC2 worthwhile for you.

...plus most of the people who were polled by stardock would rather have a game with customizable ships than a multiplayer...

I need to point out that the surveys that were conducted, as I understand it, went something like this:

Pick the one thing that is most important to you: (1) Ship Design, (2) multiplayer, (3) blah blah blah.

I really want multiplayer in this game, but I wouldn't pick it as the ONE thing that's most important to me. I'd rank ship design first, and THEN multiplayer. My point? THE SURVEY WAS FLAWED.

We also had a poll that asked "How important would multiplayer be to you in a sequel?"

Options were:

Very important

Fairly Important

Not important

I don't have the results handy but over 70% said not important, about 20% said fairly important, and 10% said very important.

Let's be clear - as much as I love working 70 hours a week for months on end to develop Galactic Civilizations, one of our goals is to make money on it. So believe me, we put a lot of energy into trying to know who buys these games and in what numbers as we could to cater to them.  Since we've made a lot of multiplayer games, we have a lot of first hand experience. 

Multiplayer advocates are vocal but few in number.  We will certainly have a sign up sheet for a multiplayer expansion.  It'll be $19.95.  I bet we can't get even 5,000 people to sign up.

I don't give a rat's ass about multiplayer. If I want multiplayer, I'll play a 3D shooter (FYI: I love Day of Defeat: Source and CS:S). I buy TBS games so I can play them at my own pace and save the game anytime I like. I've played computer games for more years than I'm willing to admit (LOTS!), and the only time I ever played a TBS game on multiplayer was against a friend of mine. After playing the whole game over several sessions, we both agreed that it was too hard for us to both find time to play another long game together. Someone raised a good point earlier about opponents who quit. That is so true. It's hard to finish an online game of backgammon without the other person getting frustrated and quitting, so what are the chances that your opponent will finish a long game of GalCiv if they started to lose. Stardock stated VERY CLEARLY at the start of development that there would be no multiplayer. I was glad to hear it.

If there is one critical thing I look for in a TBS game, it is an intelligent AI (and an AI that cheats doesn't count as "intelligent"). Even those who play multiplayer will get tired of a game with a gimpy AI, unless EVERY player is a real person.

I hope Frogboy doesn't reply to this thread anymore. Every minute he spends reading posts from MP whiners is a minute that is taken away from important development efforts.

OMG No cheese... I can't believe this game doesn't have any rare or pedigree cheeses in it. I thought it did, but after beta testing I haven't found any. Not even a single reference to Biere. I'm so Old Gold Bitter now.

Multiplayer advocates are vocal but few in number. We will certainly have a sign up sheet for a multiplayer expansion. It'll be $19.95. I bet we can't get even 5,000 people to sign up.

Hum... sad. Well, I for one was not here when the surveys were conducted, so now you have +1 in the multi-player faction. Even a few more.

However, would I preorder such an expansion? Don't know, I have never preordered a game yet.

I also did not know that adding multiplayer is so tedious to implement. Up until now I thought you just had to provide the software for the connection and not change much in the behavior of the AI. In my mind that would not be much work, but what do I know ^^. Maybe it is a challange if you want to do it 100%, but if there is only a minority who is at present vocal on wanting the MP option, is there a way to provide a toned down version? I have absolutely no clue (thought I had but from the comments that were made I now wonder) how much it takes, in money and mandays, to get MP to work. My guess was just write up the connection software and then make a few minor tweaks for turn management and battle management. Which would be a basic MP version I am sure.

But for USD 20 for the expansion, that looks like a rather huge project. Totally destroys my perception of computer software and the world in general (just being dramatic if anybody wondered).

I never said and I do not honestly think that the exclusion of MP would *ruin* the game. I said that MP is important for some and unimportant for others, with probably most in the middle leaning one way or the other or just not caring. So why not provide a basic MP version and then expand on it as it becomes clear how popular it is.

Preorders are imho difficult to read, as only the absolute MP lovers will preorder. Most are content to have the basic game at first and will not spare a thought on MP. That will probably come later.

I tend to like Galciv as a single player game. I do have experience with TBS games that are also multiplayer. Generally they were designed from the ground up to be multiplayer. My favorite example is VGA Planets. The thing about these games though is that they are SUPPOSED to take months. You spend 15-30 minutes a day giving orders to the system then you get the results the next day. Such a thing just wouldn't fit in with the Galciv 2 system design.

Stellar Crisis is the only other computer TBS that I've played that had an enjoyable multiplayer mode. It had blitz modes that usually lasted a couple hours and regular modes that could last for a year and were a turn per day.

If I want multiplayer, I'll play a game designed for it that favors interaction over depth in gameplay...