A B or C, this game would make a great BMEM option but ts fine as it is. I dont agree with the arguments that giving a PBEM would mess up the single game - why would it?, keep the excellent AI but allow 2 or more wetwares to play it and spend $1/2mill on the PMEM code, they can afford it now

i would really like multiplayer, mainly just a direct ip connect. i don't care for playing with people i don't know, but i have friends that i would love to play gal civ II with.

SM

A. Enhanced feauters and gameplay i don't ask more

wow thats alot in such a short time lets c here that makes....

A 11
B 8
C 2

note i only counted those who specifically siad A, B, OR, C i didnt count those who siad and or just had a description

just as a reminder...

another note i probably messed up countin somewhere so dont murder me for it
A Single player only
B Lan, Hotseat, Play by Email only
C Everything multiplayer online lan hoseat u name it they need to put it in

A. But if people MUST have multiplayer then make it B, C is a total waste of time.

You guys that want to vote C are not going to win with your current tactics. You need to start trading some techs and cash for Influence Points.

Maybe Stardock can put a vote into a future patch/update. Make it an in-game Galactic Council vote. lol

I think I have been playing too much. . . .

Tony

You guys that want to vote C are not going to win with your current tactics. You need to start trading some techs and cash for Influence Points. Maybe Stardock can put a vote into a future patch/update. Make it an in-game Galactic Council vote. lol I think I have been playing too much. . . . Tony

id have to agree with you on that one

FWIW, I'd vote 'C'. Without some form of online play I think it would be far too slow.

But in reality, such a poll conducted on a forum for a single-player game is going to be skewed...period. I would wager that many folks who ARE interested in MP games arent following this forum since they already know the game doesnt have the feature they are looking for...MP (and hence the reason I feel Stardock's original poll was incorrect as well).

I posted this in another forum on this site, but i guess i didnt know that the "ideas" forum isn't viewed very often... let me know what y'all think

Let me preface this with the statement that I absolutely love Galactic Civilizations, I've been a fan of drengin.net games (now totalgaming.net games), and I am completely impressed with Galactic Civilizations II


Now this is how I believe multiplayer could work:
1. Make it only available to a LAN and/or TCP/IP connection
a. with this option in place, massive online lobbies won't need to be created nor maintained
b. you would generally play multiplayer only with your friends (ie people you trust giving certain information to)
i. Any connection problems would be able to be talked about via a phone call

2. Set an option at the beginning of each multiplayer game for a set amount of time per turn
a. this way, game times won't reach into the stratosphere
b. this could be any amount of time you want
c. "turn time" could not be built up/ "turn time" remains constant

3. "Game time" is not nessecarily linked to "Turn time"
a. each player could work on things that do not require "movement" during the other player's turn
i. ship building
ii. tax increases/decreases
iii. decisions on what to build
iv. decisions on what to research
v. decisions on where to go
vi. etc.
b. however certain items would be restricted to actual "turns"
i. diplomacy
ii. movement
c. certain actions could include two players at once
i. invasions
ii. united planets
iii. diplomacy (see below)
iv. combat

4. There would be an option to "end turn" just as in the main game
a. again, this is to limit game length from days long to hours long

5. Certain limits would be recommended for brevity in game length (albeit not required)
a. Galaxy Size
b. Number of computer players
c. Number of human players
d. Lessened victory conditions
e. Game Pace
i. Amount of time for things to be built, researched, etc.

6. Diplomacy would be handled the same with computer players, although different with human players
a. With human players, one player within his turn would "message" the player with a proposed trade
b. Although not in his "diplomacy time" (see above), this player would be able to make counter demands/ accept the trade
c. If either player involved in the trade wish to "discuss" the trade, a "discuss" option would be available
i. this would bring both players to a specific chat/lobby area, where they could formulate a bargain.
ii. this would not count towards "turn time"

7. Game balancing features would be put in place
a. "First turn" would be decided upon a dice roll
b. Handicaps could be put in place to limit/hinder the economy of a race, just as in single player games

8. At any point, this game would be able to be saved and downloaded onto each party's computer, and then reloaded at any time wished

I vote A
I'd rather see thedevelopment team continue refining the AI and creating more content and depth of single player
content. As it is, I already see lots of replayability in the game, but give me more

Never been a fan of hotseat, but I could go for LAN play on occassion. I'm thinking that hotseat will pretty much make it into any official multiplayer expansion anyway, since it's already basically in the game. Heck I could see stardock making hotseat free, since it really isn't any work for them. Other forms of multiplayer will require the addition of a TCP/IP component to the game, which can take a lot of time.

Not sure which I voted for, probably B, but I don't give a damn about PBEM...it would drive me nuts.

I think a version of PBEM could be done through the metaverse...instead of using email as the transmission medium, you would just open GalCiv2, open the metaverse and check your game to see whose turn it is. If you're actively logged in you get your turn notification immediately, making it practical to play an opponent "real time".

I think a version of PBEM could be done through the metaverse...instead of using email as the transmission medium, you would just open GalCiv2, open the metaverse and check your game to see whose turn it is. If you're actively logged in you get your turn notification immediately, making it practical to play an opponent "real time".

an interesting and easy way for those at stardock to do online games with an infrastructure already there... hmm.... well im agaisnt c (i voted for A) but if they were going to do multiplayer over the internet that seems like the way to do it

I'd think multiplayer would be fun, but pbem no thanks and i would never go into some little server browser and randomly find people.

LAN would be all i'd play, but it would be nice if wasn't fixed to LAN with a little server browser so i didn't have to VPN in friends to play. Allow a IP connect.

I think anyone who wants the development team to add multiplayer should consider contribute some of their own personal funds to finance this effort.

After GalCiv, the Stardock was willing to put in MP if enough players were willing to pre-order it. Only a very small pct of fans were willing to do that, so MP wasn't put in.

The game would have to be so dumbed-down for MP, it would ruin the SP experience.

A -for all of the reasons already stated. Sorry.

A is my two cents

A all the way for me. The developers can then focus on the game from one angle. A good example of why A is a superior option: what is a diplomacy bonus for in a multiplayer game? I think that many of you think that multiplayer is "win win" but it's simply not true. I would probably play single player 99.9% of the time, so even a very small detraction from single player would be a raw deal for me.

Definitely B or else C

alright now that makes

A 16
B 11
C 3

so far the polls dont surprise me too much, this is kinda what i expected and although i really dont like the idea of puttin in multiplayer i wouldnt mind too much if the devs did B becaseu that would quiet alot of opposition to the game, the thing that i would be mad at is if they did C cause im pretty sure that ppl would play 1/2 a game and then after that only a few people would go on hardcore