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. 

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...

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. 

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!!!!!   

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.

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.

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

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. 

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?

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