You know, it would be really fun if someone created a 4X space RTS game. Just like Galciv2, but multiplayer and real-time-strategy. You're constantly monitoring your planets and building stuff, launching ships and transports, rallying them to the other guy's planets. When you get in range, they automatically fire. One game would take hours on end, but nowhere near the days it takes to play Galciv2 now. Oh man, that would be SOOOOO fun......!!!!

I like the idea of more than one player being involved in the running of one empire, even if it is still against the AI-controlled civs, although I'm not sure it would really catch on.

I HAVE HAD NOTHING BUT BAD EXPERIENCES DEALING WITH RANDOM PEOPLE ON THE MULTIPLAYER BOARDS. MOST OF THE PEOPLE WHO USE MULTIPLAYER BOARDS ARE IMMATURE. I HAVE PLAYED 1000's OF GAMES ONLINE AND HAVE ONLY MADE 1 FRIEND. TO PUT IT MILDLY THE PEOPLE WHO USE THOSE BOARDS ARE JERKS.

I think that the saddest part of the whole multi-player debate is when people think that EVERY game MUST have multi-player ability. It has come to the point that it is totally expected. I feel for the people that bought the game expecting it to have multi-player even though it never once mentions it.

That being said, I think that GC2 did one thing amazing through its use of single-player only, that many people may overlook. When you can only play against a computer in this kind of game, it necessitates the creation of a much more talented AI. Seeing how you cannot use your strategies against other people, the AI needs to be ramped up a few more notches in order to compensate (somewhat) for it, before it is given a bonus. Do you truly believe that this game would have turned out the same if there were multi-player included and was given the same release date? Features would have been left out or poorly implemented. Imagine this game without the shipyard. Either just like GC1 (there are only ~10 ships. <--notice the period) or it would be 'here is the hull and now you X space for stuff'. Then also think on how much time Brad\Frogboy\Draginol\Team put into creating the AI and its algorithms (which I would be interested in hearing a ballpark on that). Some of that time would have been chopped off to accommodate the inclusion of multi-player.

Personally, while I would enjoy playing a game of this with my brother (the only person I know that has played it at all) the time that would be spent on each game, if the game were taken as is, would be unworkable, if not outright unfun. Depending on the phase of the game, I can spend anywhere between 1 click on the turn button to 10 minutes on a single turn (most often happens when I am consolidating the galaxy under my rule and am war with 2-4 races by myself). There is no way that I would wait for a 10 minute turn to go by if I am just burning time, or even wait 5 minutes after I am done. And this is with someone I know in real life that I could chat with on Vetrillo! This isn't even with a random person that is a pick up game.

And Yamota, I would like to remind you that the Stardock team does not have the resources that were put into Civ4. And while many people enjoy playing with another person, using chess and tennis as examples are flawed. A game of GC2 takes how many hours of play? In how many days? Think about that, then think how long does it take you to play a game of online chess. 30 minutes? 10 minute timer? Tennis takes....maybe an hour. And you are both active at the same time. Even World of Warcraft is a poor example. There are things to DO while you are waiting for your raid group to get together. Once you hit the turn button, you are stuck in a TBS game.

The closest thing that a TBS multi-player is to, is any play by email system. Your next turn is totally dependent on what the other player does and when they send it to you.

Don't bundle new single player stuff in a multiplayer expansion. If multiplayer can't stand on its own, then it doesn't deserve to be in the pack. Don't make SP gamers pay for multiplayer they won't use.

I've posted on another thread about MP incorporation. So I'll keep it brief here.

I'd pay hard cash for a MP release of some kind.

Collective turn system (all take turn 1 at the same time, then all move to 2)
Do not 'balance' things for MP. We really don't need to change the stats for MP.
Don't remove the fluff. People who play this do so because of the detail and depth.

I'll be playing on a LAN with friends or my brother. I see no need for a matching type service for joining games. I too bought the game thinking it was already MP. All I would like is a 'host/join' game button and the ability to save MP games to resume after sleep

Please, Stardock, strongly consider a MP release.

P.S. As for all those people complaining that the anti-MP people shouldn't have to pay for a MP addon; well that's just stupid. If you don't buy the MP addon, you're not paying are you? There's no subscription for this game, so you're not paying per month for new features. If you like GC2 as it is now, why do you care if others play MP with a patch that they've paid for?

Set up a donation button. Anyone who wants multiplayer can pay/donate a little in advance to cover the development costs. Even anyone who dont want to play multiplayer can chip in just to get the vocal masses to be quiet

After a while, when there's like enough money to work one full month of development, or whatever how long it will take, development can start, and donations will keep coming in. When the game is finished, anyone who donated could get the sum they donated in discount, so if the multiplayer expansion costs 10 dollars and you donated 5 dollars, you can chip in another 5 dollars to get the expansion. If you donated 20 dollars, you get it for free (and dont get the extra 10 dollars back ).

This solves several problems, SD can develop content that is financially secured, and via the donations, get a feedback as to how much we want this content.

And also it makes the player base feel like they can "invest" in SD.

I'm not even looking to play against people I know - my girlfriend and I both have galciv and we're dying to ally up and slap the AIs around.

Also, the human player experience in a Civ game is so much more different than an AI. You can trick humans with feint moves, though you cant embroil them in wars (unless you pay an AI to get into it with them) and you may or may not have to give your left arm for techs, but some of the trades probably wont be nearly as bad.

You haven't read a single thing here, have you? This makes the case better than I could:

https://forums.galciv2.com/?forumid=162&aid=98074#1194261

but the gist is simple, time and money spent on MP are time and money not spent on SP. If ever there was a game that proves that a focussed SP experience is fundamentally better than the SP component of a game with both MP and SP elements, it's GC2.

Some SP players may not realize it and most MP players will naturally try to deny it, but if you're an SP-only gamer all this focus on MP for every game on the market is costing you plenty.

Hello denyasis,

Kali does still exist but isn't used any longer since DOSBox supports IPX. Kali is just used as meeting point, though we have an alternative IRC channel in the meanwhile. DOSBox is pretty convenient since it runs even under Vista, Linux and MAC OS - You find the details in this DOSBox guide:

WWW Link

Hope to see ya.

By the way: I don't know if your ship design comment refers to MOO2, I have never seen such a long turn there.

the AI in this game is crazy though. And in this game, I take my sweet time per move, and have fun with it. MP would kinda kill it for me. in Pax Imperia getting a LAN was interesting, and people often got screwed when trying to design a ship and they would get attacked or something dumb.

Sign me up as an avid multiplayer supporter. All it would take is hotseat mode, basically, and it seems like Stardock is already at least halfway there!

I am a pro-multi-player person. I tried the demo, didn't go all the way to victory, but i had fun and thought wouldn't it be cool to play with others. online, hotseat, lan, doesnt matter. i would love a multiplayer to be added to the game. Stardock you dont have to add multi-player to the game, but the game would go good with one. I love multi-player modes in video games. I love playing with other people and it may be cool if i could probably play with friends. And also... I have a suggestion for dealing with the anti multi-player crowd. here it is... make it so that multi-player is sold seperatly, but make it an option for those who want to use it, but like i said sell it seperatly. i too wouldnt want to pay for an option i don't want. so selling multi-player seperatly would make almost everyone happy, because the non multi-player people wouldn't have to pay for it if it were set up that way, and those who want to play multi-player would have that option if they wanted to pay for it. I have aspirations in game design and i know what is needed for an online game. first of all you need a website (90$ a year at least), then you need a hub for the game in which you could either use java for or some other code, then you need a way to get everyone connected lets say chat room style, which also is like you said hard. then the extras that cost money but are often neccessary are moderators (they require pay) and also good cheat protection helps(probably norton anti-virus or whatever). like i've been pondering, its more that its expensive than hard, but it is difficult to spend that much. probably hard on the company

am i right








is my post too long?

edit: if you make the ultimate edition multi-player in the future. it would be cool if you could make it so that multi-player is in the options for those who purchased multi-player so they could get into multi-player easily.



what does everyone think about what i wrote.