I think he did not mean the in-game time but rather having played 100 tunrs is the game at an end because everything is conquered (i.e. victory conditions are met) or at the beginning or are you still in the thick of things.

However, I still fail to see why it should be radically redisigned just for MP purposes. Every game is basically ffa free for all and the strategy of the AI, if valid against one player, should also be valid against two players, moreso as those players are likely to compete against each other (at least secretly ).

I cant answer how long an average game takes as I am not in beta, but 15 minutes to 2 hours per turn is likely to be way too long. From my experience there will be long turns and some where you can just click away. The magic lies in agreeing between players when to have redesign rounds or planet management rounds so that those occur fairly at the same time.

However, I still fail to see why it should be radically redisigned just for MP purposes.

Well, I guess the problem isn't in the strategy involved but in processing human player turn. There is no simultaneaous turn in GC II. So with the current design, a MP game will looks like to a game in a hot seat mode.

So you mena the way it is coded now is that the human player finishes a trun, then presses the turn buttom and then all the AI things to do are calculated?

not quite: the AIs do some calculation during your turn I think. But the movements of ships, the ships battle and the invasions are processed race by race.

The way that should work then is that all what the player did is saved and processed with the other AI players.

Well, that IS a tricky part since you move your ships one by one, and one ship acan influence others: for examle, if you establish a new colony or build a new starbase, that may ehance your range and allow yours ships to go in previously non reacheable areas. It is a bit the same from invading a planet: you need to first kill the defensing ships, then move fleet of transports to the planet.

BTW, MOO have that kind of behavior: ships movement occured simultaneously. But you couldn't move only between planets and battle tale place around a planet. In GC (I and II), battle take place anywhere in the space.

You have said previously

However, I still fail to see why it should be radically redisigned just for MP purposes

Are you beginning to see something? Ensuring a simultaneaous processing of ships movements can be a radical redesign of the game.

To the poster who suggested the $10 expansions. No way would you ever see a major expansion that cheap. Lets say 5k people buy one of those expansion packs, that's $50,000 in revenue. Now, lets say that the pack takes 3 people 6 months to make. Give them a modest salary of $50k/yr each, not counting the expenses of operating the company, you're going to run $150k in employee costs. You've just lost $100,000 on the pack. I'm sure SD has numbers on how many bought the GC1 expansion, so they could easily figure the break-even point, but I doubt it could be managed at a $10 price point.

Now, take into consideration how small the MP demand is. They couldn't get enough pre-orders for the GC1 MP expansion, so they canned it. If MP were as much a "must-have" feature as everyone here claims, if the game is solid, the MP expansion should have been swimming in pre-orders, especially considering how highly acclaimed the original was when it was released.

As Brad and Co. have said countless times, it's all a matter of economics. You may stomp and yell and say that Multiplayer is ESSENTIAL to you purchasing the game... you may say that "a lot" of people require it too, but until it can be proven with quantifiable numbers that a MP component can turn a profit, you're essentially demanding that they include a feature JUST for you.

I might play MP GC2 if it were available, at least for a few games. I'd get my butt kicked though, so it's not a big deal for me. I'd order it and play it if only to support SD, but I doubt most others here would do the same unless they had a deep love for MP TBS.

And to the RTS comment, there was a Firing Squad interview with Brad about a year or so ago I think where he mentioned the concept for a RTS based in this universe had been kicked around, he called the game "Galactic Federations" and as things stand right now, I doubt we'd see any word on that until probably 2007/2008 since they will have their hands full with expanding GC2 and putting out Society: The Game in the next 1-2 year period.

Devster_C: IMO, PBEM is just about the only way to make multiplayer GC2 work due to non-simultaneous turns (and how much of a major change it would be to the game to make it simultaneous).

Where traditional PBEM would fall down with GC2 however (in my very limited PBEM experience), is in those times where every human involved is just hitting the turn button waiting for something to happen. I can see one way to speed this up, with two variations on the theme

1) The "current" player can make multiple turns which get stored and if nothing has happened that would change the player's move, get used instead and that player is bypassed. If something has, then the saved moves get pitched and that player redoes them. In the early game, it's easy to determine what would change a player's move, but that's where having to wait on someone else to make a turn would be the biggest pain anyway.

2) The "current" player could have a "Make turns until something interesting happens" button, which would skip the user until something changes (would get a dropdown, spots a ship/planet/star/resource for the first time, a spotted ship moves, etc).

Both of these ideas involve having other users able to make your turns for you on your behalf, even if it looks like it's letting one player get ahead of the other in the timeline. The game would get passed to the next player as if the user had only made a single move (unless all the other players had anticipated moves that weren't affected by that player's move), but that player's "anticipated moves" would be saved there as well.

Examples (all based on 4 player games):
A) method 1 used, at start of the game.
1) Player A makes a few dozen turns, colonizing several worlds near his/her starting point, then passes the game to Player B.
2) Player B makes a few dozen turns, colonizing several worlds near his/her starting point, then passes the game to Player C.
3) Player C makes a few dozen turns, colonizing several worlds near his/her starting point, then passes the game to Player D.
4) Player D makes a few dozen turns, colonizing several worlds near his/her starting point. After each of Player D's moves, the game realizes that all the players have anticipated moves saved, and makes them. Before Player D is done, player B and C make contact with each other. At this point, the game stops marking the moves as having happened, and stores Player D's anticipated moves until he/she reaches a breaking point. The game then says that Player B goes next.
5) Player B then can either contine with his anticipated moves, or delete them and start with new moves. When done, the game says that Player C goes next.
6) Player C then repeat's step 5.

Second method used
1) Player A gives initial marching orders, hits "autoturn"
2) Player B gives initial marching orders, hits "autoturn"
3) Player C gives initial marching orders, hits "turn" (wants to buy another improvement on second turn)
4) Player D gives initial marching orders, hits "autoturn". Game then makes player A and Player B's turns for them unless something interesting happens, and says it's player C's turn.
5) Player C buys second improvement, hits "autoturn". Game then makes everyones turn for them until something interesting happens, and hands the game off to that player.

The first idea wouldn't work well in the mid to late game when turns take a while, because noone is going to want to make a turn of that kind of length over again, but the second is more limited in what it lets you do. The first could let you colonize several planets in a single sitting, but the second one couldn't, since landing a colony ship would have to be an interesting event.

IMHO IIRC this thread brigns back memories LOL

Most crappy TBS MP XP id due to crappy game design. People, by their nature, will not play a losing position for a long time if they can see the outcome. Secondly, if it's clear to the winner they will win, why would they care if they finish the game agaisnt a player or an AI? I've always advocated quiting/resigning/surrendering. Saves both people some time.

Most TBS games are 3 phase: Build-up, Climax, Mop-up

All TBS MP games are 2 phase: Build-up and Climax

Forcing your opponent to sit through hitting turn button as you Mop-up their empire is cruel and unusual punishment.

I've played tons of MP games. And when I was totally kickign the other person's posterior, I didn't mind them quiting. I still win don't I?

Also to note, losing a game in Civ4 is more fun then losign in any other TBS. If the game has mroe than 2 players in it, you can try to hold on and pull-off an upset. I once laid siege to the capital of my enemy (His only city) for soemthign close to 20 turns, and I was unable to take it. He was very clever in his defense and I finally grew weary upkeeping an army 3 times his size right outside a city I just couldn't take till I had more technology. So I made peace and marched on. Stumbled upon another chap who wasn't so adept at his defense and whiped his empire clean.

This is of course an example of good game design. One which makes playing a losing position all the more bareable and not so close-ended where you are sure to lose.