Tomm1974

i agree with you although i am not that much of a developer my self i also still agree that mutliplayer is great. nobody likes playing real sports or board games by themselves multiplayer has been around for many centuries and to not consider that is denying us history. it was man that came together to challenge one another intellecutually playing chess and tennis then football, baseball and so forth. multiplayer is what defines us as human when the end comes i would rather be playing a game wit

well i think that most here who are pushing for a multiplayer addition to gc2 is correct in their assumptions in the fact that the need for multiplayer will grow whether or not you create one and the appeal will be lost. i know in my own mind that i love jumping into a game single player and multi but single player only goes so far. i mean for example i like chess programs to but dont play alot against computer gets to be boring after a while. the human aspect is what is missing to be able to pl

hey i am with both sides for tactical wars and multiplayer. i play alot of turnbased games and tactical battle is a portion of any strategy type game i would like to see, for instance i also play rome total war which is a very good game but they dont have a true multiplayer system all you are able to do is have tactical battles you choose what troops you want then you fight. i am not a person that likes to play a game that is only a few hours long, i want a game that you can keep playing. i mean

i agree with everyone and the polls show that tactical battles are interesting and fun and it also furthers the game. but i do not like the fact that some are pulling away from traditional standards of games. i am all for empire building and for a game that is not just hack and slash but i would love them to make it lan capable, online is fine but i have three networked computers and love playing against or with wife and family, as we all know or at least me is that online is fun but even if you