But the point still stands that LAN games would just be silly with a TBS when you could just have Hotseat instead, and thus only need one computer.

Well, if the game allows simultaneous moves (as SE V does) then multiple computers on a LAN is a huge improvement over hotseat. You don't have to sit around waiting for Joe to do his turn until you can do yours.

Well, if the game allows simultaneous moves (as SE V does) then multiple computers on a LAN is a huge improvement over hotseat. You don't have to sit around waiting for Joe to do his turn until you can do yours.

Simultaneous moves is the way to go with multiplayer when it does come to GC2. I'm sure that multiplayer on GC2 is inevitable but exactly when is uncertain. I'm interested in multiplayer but in any case I would expect to play far more single player games than I ever would play multiplayer. It would still be a nice option to have.

As to the OP's question. SE V sounds like a good game, it's just that I'm having too much fun on GC2 to have much time to give it a try.

I don't think that you have to worry, unless I missed something thier will be Never any Multi Play in GC2. So play the game and have fun.

If they do add MP to GC2 someday, I'd be real interested to see the implementation, but probably would not play online or LAN. I imagine a game where multiple players take turns simultaneously would be quite interesting.

I don't think I could handle playing more than one strategy game. They're just too time consuming. Until I'm done with GC2, I won't be buying any other strategy games. And, DA is coming which is going to breathe even more life into an already long lived game. I think I'll pick up a shooter or two though. They're mindless and can be played for an hour here and an hour there. That Crysis looks amazing, I sure loved its predecessor, Far Cry. 3DRealms released Prey not too long ago and they're coming out with a new Duke Nukem one of these days, "Long live the king baby."

True, but what about people who just want to play with friends or family instead of perfect strangers ?
I think you may be missing quite a few sales without a MP mode. I know there was that poll and that the masses spoke against MP. But maybe a lot of these people chose Gal Civ because they don't care for MP in the first place.
I'd pay for MP in GalCiv2, and I know a lot of people who would pay for the game *only* if it gets a MP mode.

You are surprised that people wants greater challenge than they can get from an AI?

No offence but even though the AI of this game is relatively good it is still no match for veteran players (unless it "cheats").

Also playing against a real human being is different from playing against AI algorithms. Humans are unpredictable and are capable of both master moves aswell as really stupid moves, AI does not have this cappability.
And there is a huge variety on how human plays and rarely are they predictable. AI is predictable at its core and coming up with counter strategies is easy.

Futhermore, roleplaying against a set of computer algorithms feels weird, kinda like talking with yourself.

The opponents in GalCiv, while not perfect representations of idealized human opponents, I think are more satisfying that the typical person you'd find on-line.

This is a joke correct? Ive played multiplayer games for over 10 years and no way in hell is the AI in this game better than most online players, just no way.

The AI in this game is incapable of basic defensive strategies and his offensive strategies are predictable. It sends waves of ships at one or two locations and thats pretty much it. If your military fleet is half the strength of the AIs you will win because the AI is both predictable and does a bad job designing his ships (putting way too many points in one defence area for example).

The only way it can win in this situation if it vastly outnumbers you and this is done only if either you as a player cant play well or the AI gets huge bonuses.