Lack of Multiplayer

there are multiple threads why Galciv 2 multiplayer are not developed. You should search the forums around for them. Not having a multiplayer do not detract the quality of a game. It might even added value to it. Consider the elderscrolls series. People play it over and over again because of the non-linearity of game play and immersive story line. Galciv 2 has strong AI and random map generation, hence it has a great replay value. It is more important and much better that a strong AI is present in a single player TBS game rather than having a weak AI in a mutliplayer enable turn base strategy game. If people lose interest in playing multiplayer for a game, then what makes the game has any play value is the single playing experience. In such cases, having strong AI means always being able to have meaningful and challenging gaming session with a computer. You would not want to play a weak computer chess engine in a game of chess for solo play when there is no one to play with. So there are benefits to just having single player in a game. Wait for Twilight of the Arnor to come out, the replayabillty value increases for the series because of unique tech trees for each races.

Ya, what elias said.

And, you could always mod the game to make it more 'interesting', in just about whatever way you want.

Wow what an amazing dense thread to post. Given the endurance of the game already, 3rd expansion soon to be finished with beta and having received some of the best turn-based strategy rates since MOO2. You're suggesting that the game has no staying power when it has already "stayed." GaseuosDeath gets 2 thumbs down for being a noob who missed such glaringly obvious points that blow his argument out of the water.

I've been playing Dread Lords for almost a year now. I'm about to move up to Dark Avatar and have my sights on TA. There are others in a similar boat. A year playing the same game equates to incredible staying power.

If you look around, there have been people here much longer than I and they're still actively playing. As far as computer strategy games go, I've only seen Chess match that kind of longevity.

I understand the longing for a multiplayer version though. If I understand it right, there's SOASE to fill that need. While I might not personally be interested in that sort of game for now, it's certainly understandable.

Here is a link to that forum, if you'd like to check it out.

i forgot to mention that in the new TA that is coming out, there are more additional features like map and scenario editors, and other extra goodies.

ALso, would you consider chess is not a good game if you can only play against one player. But what if i tell you that the computer is as strong as a human if you were to play against the computer only, or even stronger, does it make chess a bad game.

Having multiplayer might not be as attractive. Let me illustrate. For Sins, i have heard from acutal players in person and likewise from reviewers that for multiplayer experiences, it is simply too long to finish a game. In chess, a game can take hours to finish, and the tasks for each player in terms of what can be done with the individual pieces relative to game rules are fixed and the number of these type of moving options are extremely small. What i mean are there are the pawns, a king, 2 rooks, 2 bishops, etc, and they can move only in certain ways. And there are the only options with respect to each player. Take something like Galciv 2, you have an empire to run and the set of moves or the amounts of options are infinite per turn. Sooo it would take a long time for a player to decide a strategically sound move between turns. If you don't believe me, go play one of the avalon hill board games. Or ask any hard core table top war gamers how long they can take to make one move. I used to have a friend, he told me, for the game Third Reich. it takes one week just to decide one move. And third Reich is very similar to a 4x game except it is play on a table top. It is true that 4x tbs ocmputer games, there are a lot of automation due to computing processing power. But the complexity to make a sound decision remains. And the options that needs to be weighted are more than what can be offered in a chess game.

I know that one can play civ 4 has multiplayer, but to complete a game in a resonable of time is still not short. Try playing Sins, or starcraft, between skilled players, there are still rushing strategy being used, and it is being constantly being used, and a lot of the research options don't get done in a multiplayer game. this just shows that many people would rather have shorter multiplayer sessions and for galciv 2, that simply can't be done if you want a short game.

I kinda was hoping this game would have Multiplayer too, since I love space 4x games, and seeing it didn't require a CD-key to install, I thought it'd be possible to play it over lan with my dad.
I'm kinda depressed now that I realized it wasn't possible

MP provides "staying power" for a select group of people, those with a large amount of gaming time to spend in large blocks that happens to coincide with the gaming time available to other people with whom they enjoy playing. To say that a minority of gamers fit this category would be a laughable understatement. To the rest of us, a game that has been developed solely for single player and as such has the best AI and the most versatility possible for a game of its type has massively more staying power than a more typical game that had its development resources split between SP and MP.

But this is the deadest of dead horses anyway. There's a world of MP TBS games out there that are crap in SP. I think it only fair that the single player crowd finally has a TBS game that's designed with them in mind.

Excellently put Vinraith.

Saying that the lack of multiplayer ruins a game is very short sighted, would you say epic games like Mass Effect, The Elder Scrolls, or Bioshock suck because they have no multiplayer? Of course not.

HOWEVER! Multiplayer does VASTLY improve on the enjoyment of a game. Would you say epic games like Mass Effect, The Elder Scrolls, or Bioshock would be freaking awesome if they had multiplayer? Anyone who says no is just as dense as someone who says "lack of multiplayer ruins a game"

Make a game great, add multiplayer later, it's a recipe for success. Admittedly the ONLY reason I have not purchased GalCiv2 is because it has no multiplayer, I'm sure it's a great game, however I'm just a sucker for killing time with friends on games rather than just wasting away all alone in a room playing a game. And to devs who say "it's impractical because it would take to long" one word, LAN! (Well technically thats three) If I can sit around long enough to finish a game then WHY THE HECK would my friends be any different?

(Oh snap, there's the edit button lol)

Oh and to Vinraith (wth is there no edit button?) I work a 40-60 hour work week, as well as doing custom work on cars and playing paintball in my spare time. When it comes to games some of us just manage our time well, so to say that multiplayer only provides staying power for people with large blocks of free time is quite inaccurate.

I agree. I have been playing GC since GCI came out (see my member number). After DL was released I switched to that, then to DA and now to TA. And I will still be playing TA until GCIII is released.

And if GCII would never had been released, I would still play GCI. So I can't agree that the game lacks staying power.

Turn-based epic wargames fail at multiplayer, anyway. How many people, exactly, can you find to sit through an 80 hour campaign, most of which will be spent waiting for the other player to move? The way GalCiv's turns work is completely incompatible with a multiplayer format. There is no hope of retrofitting MP into this game format.

I Agree with this. That is why to make up for the lack in multiplayer Stardock made the metaverse to upload your scores and the library to upload modes. I think it's perfectly alright considering how hard it is to make multiplayer for a turn-based strategy. Turn based is not like real-time, people would get bored waiting for their turn and in the end no one would play. no to mention trying to make it user friendly so people could play custon races. It would be an absolute Nightmare. sure Multiplayer would be cool but you have think about these things before hand. all the variables that make it boring and impossible to make. Call to power 2 had a multiplayer but it was SOOOOO boring no one use it... it took 10 minutes just for 4 people to have 1 turn each. your talking about 8 people here with many more options and a far more complex system. your looking at about 20-30minutes for everyone to have 1 turn. That is why multiplayer wouldn't work on Galciv2.

Why does it have to be real-time? I think GalCiv would make a fabulous WEGO game. Each side mails his turn to the host who processes the turn. Like Stars! or the Combat Mission series. Of course, you'd need to expand time compression for each turn since your average GC game consists of hundreds of micro moves.

The simple way is building game for muliplayer mode! The dump AI strategies is good to learn how to play. Of course, AI is big in GC2 because the economic power can be higher x2 than humans...
In fact the best strategy turn game is realized in PBEM mode (play-by-e-mail) - the other way 10 players and 100 turns or more is creasy in standard rule game (player by player).
I think that the true way to no-multiplayer-mode is problem with diplomacy abilities, fast conversations between AI and human, different victory conditions, UP and the best thing in this game: events (can destabilize the game, if you f.e. lose your homeworld fast)
..and do you know than many PBEM strategy game are played without AI? because the AI has no chance to win if players play together to eliminate AI first.

The players will have big problem, if Stardock prepare multiplayer for free...
but only for ToA version