would buy a multiplayer expansion. You can have the hardest AI in the world to challenge players, but it just doesn't compare to the fun of going against a thinking opponent. An AI can throw a few curves your way, but there is a huge difference that sets a human apart from an AI: the human opponent feels fear, shock, betrayal, and wonder. The AI doesn't fear the wave of your ships approaching its homeworld. They aren't shocked to find out you're spying on them. The AI doesn't feel betrayed when it discovers you have been using it as a pawn in a war you had no intention of entering and were just trying to weaken the AI's military before you attack them. And the AI doesn't wonder what secrets you are keeping from it.

Avenstar a human opponent is ever better than the most perfected AI. But what you shall demand yourself is not if AI is better than a match between two people but if MP option is fine for this type of game, how MP will be implemented and finally if u prefer MP to new gameplay features. Personally if i have to play online i will ever pick Counterstrike instead of GC2, if i want a single player experience GC2 is ever my choice, and the game IS PROJECTED TO BE ONLY SINGLEPLAYER

An expansion with multiplayer will sell to more gamers than an expansion without multiplayer. The future of your new favorite game means getting the developers to sell as many games as possible.... which means multiplayer since lots of gamers don't even do singleplayer games.

A multiplayer expansion might be welcome to some of the hardcore fans, and possibly a way to reach out to non-fans, but I hardly think the "future of the game" is at stake. #1 seller at Wal-Mart, remember? This little singleplayer TBS has beat out not only every PC game but every console game too.

I hope that good sales figures will improve the chance of a real multiplayer function to be added.

Avenstar a human opponent is ever better than the most perfected AI. But what you shall demand yourself is not if AI is better than a match between two people but if MP option is fine for this type of game, how MP will be implemented and finally if u prefer MP to new gameplay features. Personally if i have to play online i will ever pick Counterstrike instead of GC2, if i want a single player experience GC2 is ever my choice, and the game IS PROJECTED TO BE ONLY SINGLEPLAYER

I can't really follow most of what you said, but I did not state anywhere that I was demanding multiplayer, I expected multiplayer, that I don't enjoy single player games, or that I thought GC2 would be better with multiplayer. I simply posted my opinion on why an opponent who feels emotion can lead to a more enjoyable gaming experience. And yes, Counterstrike is a good example, but hardly the same emotional experience one would get playing a mutliplayer turn-based game. After all, that is why there is a gaming industry. Not everyone likes first-person shooters and don't just turn to Counterstrike for multiplayer. But then not everyone likes multiplayer turn-based games. Some people would be happy just playing a nice game of chess, and given a choice, would prefer a human opponent.

And, in reality, up until 2/20/06, I didn't even know this series existed, and when I ordered the game, understood that multiplayer would not be included. So sorry to bust your chances of flaming a multiplayer fanboy.

Some features I recommend to include in the next expansion: 1) Multiplayer 2) New Races 3) Game Editor -- create galaxies for others to play 4) New Campaign ((maybe even a campaign editor)) 5) New Technologies

An expansion everyone finds tasty and will rake in money from the multiplayer community. The last FAQ says the developers will ' probably ' be adding multiplayer.... so marioflag is still wrong. I'm wondering when this expansion will arrive.

Looking at the postings on thier sales, I do not see multiplayer having much of an impact on it. Sales are WAY up and thats without multi-player. Sure, a few more might buy it for that feature but given the length of the games most may not have the time nor the patience for it. Most MP games are quick events, single battles or quick action. ever try Civ4 on Epic in a MP game? I dont recomend it....

when can we stop beating this dead horse?

bah, my last game took 3 days.. who's going to play a gigantic galaxy with you ? and not fall asleep, leave to eat or goto bed. It is not feasible the way people think of MP.

So sorry to bust your chances of flaming a multiplayer fanboy.

I don't think my post was offensive or it was meant to be.I said you only that the game isn't fit for multiplayer because TBS are better SP experience than MP, and that 90% of gc2 players will surely appreciate more some gameplay addons and improvements instead of a MP addon; so i didn' try to flame anyone

I will not buy a multiplayer expansion.Give me a more advanced spying system,better exploration,ect anyday.Just how many people play 4X games online? bugger all.

Well, good for you. I, personally, would. Now, as to the *type* of multiplayer I would prefer, I would prefer being able to set yourself up as a host and allow clients to connect via TCP/IP, this would limit multiplayer to LAN (and people able to navigate their router firewalls if they have any. ) for the most part. The type of multiplayer I hear most opponents to the idea bring up when they deride it is a battle.net type of multiplayer wherein you connect to the company's waiting room and meet up with random players. This type of multiplayer really *isn't* all that appealing/feasible for a few reasons.

First, as most detractors from the whole multiplayer idea point out, 12 year olds.

Second, as most detractors also point out, is time. Even if you get a mature opponent, it isn't likely you'll finish today, and trying to meet back up to finish the game with a stranger in a b.net setting is not an ideal setting.

In a LAN or TCP/IP setting, I can either go LAN at a friend's house or just connect to his computer across the internet and play a game, save when we get tired, and resume play the next time we call each other on the phone and want to play again.

Thus, I put forth for a 'limited' multiplayer if you will that allows you to set yourself up as a host and wait for incoming client connections, instead of a battle.net style multiplayer.

bah, my last game took 3 days.. who's going to play a gigantic galaxy with you ?

I will, but it would have to be PBEM. Something like the Pitboss feature in Civ IV.

bah, my last game took 3 days.. who's going to play a gigantic galaxy with you ? and not fall asleep, leave to eat or goto bed.

Many multiplayer TBS games take days or months to finish. Dominions_2 is a TBS with multiplayer and can easily last several months. I've played these long multiplayer games and enjoyed them the same as others which is why an entire section of their forum is just for multiplayer... because so many are playing multiplayer. What's great about TBS multiplayer is that players can complete other tasks while someone is working their turn... tasks such as eating, cleaning, studying, etc. .

With the addition of multiplayer means this community will grow with more people as well which increases word of mouth and sales. More sales = More game sequels

A lot of it boils down to how much fun (in hours) you get for your money really.

Frogboy... based on that statement from you I will guarantee most gamers will have increased gameplay hours and overall value if multiplayer is added. The exception is the percentage of gamers which do only single player.

Adding multiplayer without a doubt will increase the size of this games community... the larger your gaming community the more 'word of mouth' is spread about your game. The more 'word of mouth' the more game sales which will arrive. The more game sales the more expansions we will see.


Bumping to wait for quick comment on whether multiplayer will be a download update or in an upcoming expansion. No hurry... just curious. Thanks.