Just cause you got a bad exprience with another game, doesn't mean that this game can't have both a multiplayer system that works, and a good multiplayer exprience at that. Just cause the AI cheats on their program, they may not have had the time or the budget to make it work and just rushed it out the door. What I've read about Stardock, is they do have the funding, and the desire to create a quality product as well as the know how to make a product work, also should they make a monster of a turn based galatic strategy game, I believe the sales numbers could be huge if word of mouth about their expansions being quality and innovative, spreads. I understand they are committed to consistent improvement, and mutiple expansion paks and if they do it right, perhaps work with gamespy to get a centralized place setup for a lobby room where players could link up to play I think that would be the way to do it.

Well I can explain why the game's not doing well from your own statements

"The forums that ttalk about the game are having a riot about connectivity problems, crashing, performance during multiplayer."
"I might find a couple of 2 on 2 games if I go on during prime time. Games that almost certainly end with someone quitting or crashing out."
"I have only managed to get one game to actually start due to lack of people to play and that game crashed."

But you have to make sense of why it's not working for yourself... If the game company doesn't execute MP well then why should the rest of the gaming community, most of which researches games months/weeks certainly days ahead of time, in the magazines, online, in the forums, and at the local PC gaming center, bother playing the damn thing online. I'm not saying you should expect ppl to play a poorly executed game, look at Counter-Strike, well executed, 5 years later ppl still playing online. Try the multiplayer for Political Machine, interesting game concept even though it was pretty narrowly themed, and come on who really likes poltics when it's not election year and the base isn't energized, anyway, poorly executed MP, though I must say, plays good when you get a player interested in playing, but again same problems of ppl disconnecting when they think they are going to lose and just generally dropping out. The game play of Pol Machine, was pretty much linear and also over and done with in 1 hour, cause you only have 52 weeks of moving around, you knew before the debates, just like in the real election who was winning, DON'T READ INTO THIS AS A POLITICAL STATEMENT, plzzzzzz plz plz I beg of you, just the facts. If a game is more hassle to play or not rewarding enough in the MP arena it's out man. CS rounds are over in 3 min but in the 3 min you got the chance to get 5-6 kills in a row if you do well, basically own the other team. In Gal Civ 2 you could autosave every round, in case your worried about crashes, meet up on teamspeak or a chat lobby, similar to a poker table type room and find players, maybe make some friends, meet online with the forums, how many members are there here, ppl are just sooo ready to try this, not only that but the expectation from each player would be for a game that could go on for more then an hour or even 2, how about 4-6. Maybe set a time up each player can commit to, 1 hour at a time, 2 hours, whatever, then meet back each day or week, release the MP with a scheduling system where players can decide how they want to be organized and matched, for time if thats the most critical barrier. This can work, if you implement well. Just think if you play a game that lasts for a combined 12 hours over two weeks. How much fun that would be how may angles you could work, and mini alliances you could make. Like a game of diplomacy or risk, lots and lots of fun. I think the level of depth the game has right now is a lil shallow for single player but add a chat bar and a multiplayer hook up and all you need is a bowl of popcorn and let it ride.