I would like hotseat at some point though. That should be easier to do, just allow the human to take control of several factions at once. I just got the idea of playing eight factions myself by creating eight alter egos instead of just one. So if that is ever on the table, I would enjoy it. But MP is for shorter games, the ones built only for that. I think it is a good strategic choice to eliminate MP. For a TBS game you really need to personally know the one you are playing with get any sort of stability out of playing it. Even at LAN parties I have had to tie my friends down and threaten physical violence just to finish a solid MoM game. 

Also, balance would be totally different in an MP game, causing people to want to be able to mod the online play. So many headaches for the people dealing with development. Any efforts that would have gone to MP would be so much more valuable at making some of the modders wishlists come true. 

In that case, cutting the MP is good business sense, but only if you can provide top-notch AI, which is going to be a lot harder then it was in GC2.

Also, you're going to have to make sure the AI can use everything Derek put into the game.   A feature isn't good unless the AI can use it, in a game with no MP.   I don't want to have to throw half the game away to have the AI be competitive.

I'd state clearly in any interviews (which you have) why MP isn't in the game though, and what would have been cut if you had put it in.

Fantasy games are harder then space games due to magic and terrain. 

I agree that if it would require 6 months rewriting to get decent MP it's not worth putting in MP at all in FE.  But if you made a system some time in the future where you had strategic MP and tactical SP, that would be something, for sure.  But if that sounds like too much of a risk, even though if done right it could be a hoot and possibly have a big windfall, it's probably best to stick with SP only (with strong AI and strong mod support) for your TBS games.

EDIT: I agree with Alstein too - only cut MP if you have top-notch AI, or perhaps if you have decent AI and a strong hotseat mode (where on the one computer you can take turns in the hot seat).

SP only.  I can't stand multiplayer in TBS.  

And I got a random chuckle from the dollar = hour ratio for fun thing.  Makes sense, but then it giot me thinking bout how I got Alpha Centauri for $3  giving it about a 100 hours to dollar ratio for fun factor at least.  And What about FE?  Cost is going to be $0?  That calculation is going to be quite a pickle...

Nobody's getting FE for free without first having bought E:wom. So just combine time spent on E:wom with FE, and there you have it.

Oh, I know how strategic MP, tactical SP could work:   co-op only.   If you had 4 players online taking on AI, fog of war (including not seeing each other's every move), now that would be interesting.  And that would be enough to say you have MP.   Next step up would be to allow for all humans to take their turns in parallel--also interesting, but the developer would have a lot of multi-threaded race conditions to work through.  And vice-versa:  if the AI attacks multiple humans on its turn, allow for the humans to play tactical defense in parallel.   I think that would actually be very cool, personally.   I'd sign up online for that.  Best part is, once you're set up to run 4 humans in co-op, you could probably scale it to 20 humans and higher. 

This is another case of scalability.  You should be able to add features that the AI can scale to account for.  For example, if all you did was add a bunch of units with lots of different attack/defense values, your AI should be generic enough to handle any N unit types with Attack X and Defense Y.  In that regard the AI can actually be potentially better as you scale up, because the computer can track all the different possibilities better than a human can. 

As a person that played a lot of Birth of the Federation (BOTF) multiplayer matches, I would suggest you cut MP if you cannot do combat for it.

In BOTF playing all those turns, researching better ships and weapons, building your perfect armada while trying to get ahead economically or sabotaging the other player would mean nothing if in the end you couldn't have that big fight that would decide the winner. If it was only Click->you win (or you lose) I would have played 1 MP game of BOTF and then never tried it again.

On the other hand BOTF is a game that stands as a great example how turn based games can be great in MP. If done well (and the game itself has to support that kind of gameplay) it can be a great boost for the quality of the game.

Also, the quick battles in WoM were initially really fucked.  Not sure if they have changed them or not, but I played 1.4 last night for the firs ttime and noticed a lot of other similar problems, so I imagine it's still bad.  Although bad in predictable ways.  Fighting units that do that dumb shit one hit kill attack?  Quick battle!  Because they didn't use it then.  Units that would devastate you in tactical battles, were wimps in quick battles.  I kind of hope they didn't fix it, now I think about it...that was the only way to deal with those units, like Scions, that one hit killed anything.  Poor design countered by poor design.

That above is the result of my rage quitting due to my hero being one-hit killed by a weak unit last night.  Grrr....

EDIT: But to be fair, I still bitch on forums about Fallout 1's critical hits.  I get hit 5 times, take 1 dmg each, then they get a lucky critical, and I take 250 dmg? DEAD, WTF!!!!!   

The last game EVER they make? Or just the last game in the Elemental series? I can't see them quitting making games just because FE falils. THeir GCII series rocks though I am bored with sci-fi after playing GCII like forever now. I honestly don't know why anyone likes that "Distant Worlds" POC game from Matrixgames either. A stupid real time game that practically plays the game for you if you set it to automation which you really have to since the worlds are so huge and there's noway in hell anyone could control 1000's of colonies and ships and production etc. etc. Stupid game really.

I usually buy games only when they reach bargain bin below $10, but, in the case of EWOM I jumped into the fire that has burnt me time and time again on software games newly released. I paid the $80 for the game also cause I wanted that Pewter Dragon which will probably be worth a fortune ohhhh about 4000 years from now because I'm going to bury it in my backyard. lol I'm not really disappointed in the product though since I believe that Brad will make good on his WORD and PROMISES of FREE EXPANSIONS (2) of them regardless if we like FE or not. If he fails to come through on the 2ND one then he becomes just a LIAR an a CAD ana DASTARDLY DAN an every bad thing in this world especially that smelly stuff. I will also hire a lawyer and sue for BREACH OF VERBAL CONTRACT along with PAIN & SUFFERING after years and years of waiting for a GOOD working product with reasonable expectations fulfilled.

He did say that if FE fails his standards of a good game, then he will take it as proof that his company is just not able to make good games and stop trying. But it looks like this one is going to rock so no need to take it too seriously. 

I'm still worried about balancing.  A year of work didn't fix WoM balancing issues.  All the great content in the world doesn't matter in a strategy game if its basics (units, weapons, armor, magic, tech research, single hero vs groups)  are not balanced.  If the only way to play is to tech straight to Lord Hammers again, I will rage vomit in a bowl and mail it to Brad.

We have more elements to deal with in this version and they are well balanced in theory. From what I saw, daggers are fine for their tech level and stage in the game. I would be more worried about unique items smashing up the balance we saw on the weapons spreadsheet. Gonna have to give us a list of those to keep up our confidence. 

I do remember that spreadsheet and it did look good...

Well, I'll be the odd man out and say that I would support MP without tactical battle features. I sympathize with those who don't get online MP at all. I've never been able to play online CIV either. I remember the first time I tried online, I wanted to play my usual slow, long-term strategy, only to get blown away by a rush in the earliest of the early game. But at least for this poster, I'm not in it for the online crowd. I just want to be able to play it with my brother, and if FE is really good, I've got a group of friends I'll want to take on. FE promises an RPG/TBS experience unlike any other, and if the promises prove true, it would be tragic if I couldn't share it with my friends. Tactical battles might be nice, but it really isn't a big deal to me. CIV III and IV didn't have them, and that didn't stop us from having lots of fun with them. I don't see why the loss of tactical battles would crush the MP experience.

If Civ III and IV had good tactical battles like in Rise of Nations or Total War, ohmigosh that would be like crystal meth.  I would live for the face-offs between two mega-stacks-of-doom.  Only problem would be that that is hard to implement, having to deal with all the technology levels and unique units.  Plus the really early tactical combat such as scouts vs. animals would be just silly.   Civ is already insanely long as it is:  I know a girl who broke up with her boyfriend because he dated Civ more than he dated her.  To add tactical combat to it would only make games yet longer still. 

I think I was one of those people in Civ III who started the rush.  I found that if I played as Aztecs or Zulus and rushed the tar out of everybody, I was beating Deity, finishing before 20BC, and getting insanely high scores.  I posted the high scores on Apolyton for awhile until eventually other people caught on.  People were all busy trying to build these huge, fantastic empires, lots of culture, trying to run up the high score.  My Zulus were still wearing G-strings and feathers and beating them handily. 

No I disagree about "balance" as Master of Magic was surely NOT BALANCED and is STILL the BEST FANTASY STRATEGY GAME available because of the imbalance. It gave players the opportunity to try every race to see how they could fair without being balanced and it was fun. Balance is only needed when MULTIPLAYER is the MAIN GOAL of the game and in this case according to BRAD et al it is NOT the MAIN GOAL it is just an added form of play. So, no I will never agree this game needs BALANCE. In fact I appaul it or the idea of it. Make it like MOM Brad and the MAJORITY of players will love it. THe MAJORITY of players will always be solo single player experience players and if anything we/I want VARIETY of play NOT BALANCE.

Another game that was excellent and fun to play WITHOUT BALANCE is "Sword of Aragon", you certainly start out much less than the computer ai opponents and have to fight your way through that imbalance to the endgame. Another one of the best Fantasy strategy wargames out there. Balance is for CHESS & CHECKERS not fantasy strategy games.

And you did this Diety feat playing against 14-15 other AI PLAYERS? or did you just cheat and play against 1 or 2 computer opponents?? lol Gaming the game is no victory. Play the game at MAXIMUM DIFFICULTY with ALL the AI PLAYERS and tell me you beat it. lmao

Thats not the type of balancing I was talking about. And WoM balancing issues make the game LESS fun. I didn't play MoM, but I want the choice of making a unit with a sword and shield be fairly balanced against a unit with a two handed weapon.  I would like to not have to spend several researching branches to gain the use of a bow that is incapable of hitting/hurting anyone. You can't try many methods, as many methods are useless due to the imbalanced combat numbers and system.  Maybe, "balance" is the wrong word for what I want.  I want a system of research, training, gear, and combat that can be approached from many different styles and still be effective enough to be fun.

And your response to Tetleytea was truly dickish.  Keep your e-peen to yourself, and stop getting defensive about someone else's reported skills with a damn video game.  Is it really so important to confront and challenge him on whether his claim is true or not?  Who cares?

Who died and left you moderator ? When you get to be one then you can tell me what i can an cannot say. Until then just STFU eh? lmao Talk about your EPEEN you actually think cause you got 70 karma you can tell others what to do here? lmfao

I've been sent by the Lord above to cleanse the world of e peen waving, basement-dwelling, slack-jawed troglodytes such as yourself. 

OIC you're schizophrenic also and delusional yeah that makes all the sense now. LMFAO

It's important to note that talking about WOM combat is meaningless in FE.  It's a completely new system. There are no turns per side and such.

To auto resolve and that kind of thing are totally different. So if they're bad, they'll be bad in totally new ways.