I, for one, certainly hope that they forget about FE multiplayer. Why? Because it allows for a much richer and more fun singleplayer experience.

That's because they don't have to worry about balancing every single faction, spell and item in the game and can instead allow for a more epic experience. This will allow them to keep stuff in that would be consider OP in multiplayer. MP would make the game much blander and take up a crap ton of developer resources. I'd much rather that they make FE the best singleplayer game they can with the very limited resources they have at hand. TBS multiplayer is not very popular at all and for good reason.

If they simply added hot seat play or hotseat co-op play to the singleplayer at some point down the road without redoing balance, I think that would be good enough. That's about the only way I ever enjoyed similar type TSB games like HOMM with more than 1 person anyway.

so your idea of epic single player experience is playing with unbalanced stuff?

really? -____-

how can something be OP in multi and not in single?

I guess that's the difference. I much prefer a 3 hour chess game with every move carefully considered than a 10 minute game. Each to their own.

Multi-player is a zero-sum game.  That means for every winner, there is a whiner (meaning loser or losers).  In single-player, the AI doesn't mind losing.   And if some factions are stronger (or weaker) than the others then no one really cares.  People will care a great deal in multi-player and there will be non-stop whiners complaining that X faction is overpowered, "whaaa, whaaa, whaaa" and MY favorite faction needs more love "whaaa, whaaa, whaaa".  You avoid all of this in single-player.

  Besides, TBS games are games of taking your time and contemplating.  I don't even WANT to play a game where I have to feel bad about taking my time in getting through my turn while I check every city to be sure it's producing what I think it should produce or some other such micro-management triviality.

The choice SD made here is a good one; first get the basis in place. Make sure the game is rock solid and fun; then add MP through an extension. They are well on their way of succeeding and certainly are making every effort they can plus a little bit more like we are used from SD.

1. Make the base game fun, addictive and replayable and a commercial success will follow.

2. With success an expansion will see the light and knowing SD that will bring MP.

You have to remember that SD is basicly redoing WoM as FE having taken considerable losses on WoM; is it all about the money? No, it's about protecting the SD name and I even dare to say Brad will call this a success if he manages to break even on WoM and FE combined but with a large active modding community and a base game that is conisdered fun and a must buy if you are into the genre.

MP wise I don't think the genre lends itself for it. Ever tried to play CiV:Rev online? You always end up winning because they all quit, but you never actually win. I'd be more interested in a PBeM system or "submit orders before" system then live MP.

Also don't forget Brad basicly sacrificed his sabitical in order to bring us FE. You go and tell your wife that you just spend one year working crazy hours and that it basicly was for nothing other then a tough lesson learned "ow and btw you know I promised to take you sailing next year and wouldnt be working? Not gonna happen dear..."

Using E:WoM as a basis for how used the multiplayer component is/was used is ridiculous. It was - unfortunately - a terrible game; one that I was embarrassed to have followed so avidly. As such, I never really touched the MP component. I doubt I would be alone in feeling that way, either.

The Civ games and Age of Wonders (sometimes even PBeM, but many live games too) have lived much, much longer in my 'current' gaming rotation over a span of many years due to their ability to be played MP. MP can make a good game great and a great game better still, but it can't magically fix an awful game into being anything other.

All this said, FE is shaping up to be pretty spectacular so far. It is beginning to reach the potential of the first and it would be an absolute crying shame if MP was neglected. No doubt I'd play it anyway -- I certainly have been so far -- but I can guarantee that it would not have as much longevity without.

Who cares? They have your money already? Well, yes, they do -- sort of, I preordered WoM so they don't have any additional money from me at this point -- but I can say that other friends and even just online acquaintances will sometimes buy a game in order to play with their group of friends.

An extreme example of this is Neverwinter Nights 1, which lasted years longer by the power of it's MP and I can account for slightly shy of a dozen direct sales, some of whom I know had a knock on effect and some of their friends also purchased it. Closer to our genre, same thing happened with Civ 4, although to a lesser degree, I think I can only personally account for 4-5 additional sales outside my own, but again, there is the knock on effect, and more importantly still, this is multiplicative across all the various multiplayer hubs of activity.

In any event, I do hope that MP is considered more seriously for this title; ideally at release. If it is going to come in the form of an expansion, have a reasonable bundle offer right from day one. Makes it easier to on sell.

im sry for you if you are such a bad player

i hate winning with ai cause of exploit or unbalanced settings of the game, its totally unfun and unfair

i do care if there are factions much stronger because ruin the whole game, surely much less than in a competitive online, game, i get your point but still for many good and fair players the fun is spoiled even in single player

See ddd888, Asymmetric balance is more easy to, well, 'balance' in Single Player. (assuming good AI of course).

For instance, Fall From Heaven is an awesome game to play due to how different the factions play. GRANTED the AI is pretty bad and their are some obvious exploits ... but just because you pick a 'good civ' that is synergetic with the Mapscript you like and your playstyle, you don't have to use exploits.

Asymmetric balance adds much Replayability. I can play 21 different games of FFH2, and each can play very differently. Furthermore, the slight differences in gameplay/huge differences in lore also encourage 'role playing' according to the lore.

Have you read any of Shatner's epic FFH AARs? They weren't played on the highest possible difficulty, but there was always an element of 'artificial difficulty' due to the role playing.

However, in a game where all civs are played the same, there is much less inclination for role play ... and there is no real synergy between 'play style' and 'civ mechanics.'

For instance ... I'd like to play with a variety of different playstyles, and I'd have a different Civ Favorite for each playstyle.

Probably the most fun on a large map with World difficulty cranked up to near max, most AI's on challenging, 2 AIs on hard and one on rediculous.

(and I agree, a Comp Stomp)

Than you Naithin great post, I loved Age of Wonders and FFH and we did those all as MP, and AoW had tactical combat. Without MP in any of those games I doubt I would have played much longer than a week or 2, instead we played for years. AI will never, for me, take the place of other people's moves and tactics good or bad. FFH had some bugs late game so if it ran past 250ish turns it had some synch issues, but Age of Wonders, Heroes of Might and Magic, Master od Orion 3, Sword of the Stars, and others were great games that we had going on for weeks. We had Co-op and VS, usually big maps with lots of hard AI, partly because normal AI was to easy or didn't cheat and have more gold or whatever was needed in that game.

Might as well give this one up, guys.  ddd888 is not going to concede the point no matter how many, solid rational points we make.  He's incapable of rational discussion and resorts to ad hominem attacks when he runs out of rational arguments himself.

I actually play D&D with a group of friends.  We started with 1st Ed and are now with 4th.  Been at it for ... gah 30 years now.  And yes we're all happily married and have real jobs.  Dogs too.  We also enjoy tabletop strategy games and will play those occasionally for variety, our current favorites are Caylus and Agricola, if you are in the market for a boardgame I can highly recommend both of those.

That being said, my past experiences playing something like HoMM or CIV4 in multiplayer mode are somewhat horrendous.  It takes for EVAH.  Given our other options, we'd choose D&D or tabletop strategy every ttime.

- Manii Names