The biggest problem is I dont know that Stardock can actually pull off a full multiplayer game. CIV5 couldnt even run multiplayer with full graphics and im sure there budget is much bigger. Honestly the fact we have to make a poll on the subject of mutliplayer options is just sad. It used to be mutliplayer was kind of expect, and it seems computer companies try to do to much and out smart themselves in the process. I mean look at the the EMOW release ffs. Still months and months later its a bit more stable and polished but still not there, but there moving on already and reinventing the wheel before they made it round.

Still want full multiplayer though

At least this I agree with.  I've long thought there were technical reasons for the lack of implementing a "single-player" with more humans game mode, and that its omission is not entirely due to balance and gameplay concerns. 

The reason for the outcry though, from some, is that Frogboy has explicitly said that the reason for not giving players even the option for tactical battles in multiplayer is to curtail the amount of "flaming" they would receive for giving players said option (Frogboy's Essay on Multiplayer).  Similarly, he said that the reason for disabling quests in multiplayer was due to balance concerns.

I'm not asking for Stardock to stop what they are doing with single player and focus on multiplayer, or even for them to change the allocation of resources between the two game modes.  I just want Stardock to make MP like SP, if the only reason for the development fork between the two is due to balance / gameplay concerns. If multiplayer as "SP with Humans" is being left out due to lack of resources, then I understand and I certainly wouldn't ask for them to give a disproportionate amount of time to try to implement it.

About MP in TB games, I personally enjoy a lot playing Civ IV with my friends. An important feature, especially in games where a SP match can easily last one full day or more, is to have simultaneous turns. First, it allows to end a MP match in one day, and second, it makes most of your playing time actually what it should be - I mean, playing. On the contrary, I remember playing Heroes V with friends playing alternate turns - we have rarely ended a game, and after a couple of hours it was not fun anymore watching them take their turns... imagine playing with 3 friends, you play 25% of the time (even less if some of your friends are notoriously slow) and the game seems so slow  if one is used to playing SP. Actually, simultaneous turns has highly improved my willingness to play MP with friends: more fun, more matches... it's highly enjoyable.

I think developing FE (also) in the direction of a "competitive MP" with rankings and so on is just wrong; it's like trying to make a 19" laptop portable - it's not what it's meant to be. Imo Competitive MP is for games where a match lasts at most a few hours, in some cases often less than 1, with characteristics very different from a MoM-style game (balance for instance is crucial). But if Stardock is going down the path of a "SP-like MPgame with >1 humans", which I would literally adore, I would highly appreciate the implementation of simultaneous turns.

Only if they designed the game in a way that makes it hard, which if they were planning to have MP and SP from the start (or even early in development) is a crappy idea.

I would never play multiplayer. I like my TBS games to take a very long time. My favourite AOW/AOW2 games have gone on for perhaps 10 hours or so, and I don't think that fits well with multiplayer. I would just use RTS type games for multiplayer. (and FPS's etc.)

Well it fits if you want to break that 10 hours into 40+ sessions...

I have played Dom3 quite a bit, so I do get the PBEM one turn a day play style, but, sometimes you have an evening and you just want to play the game for a solid block of time.  PBEM does not support this, and for many,  neither does online play.  For many reasons unique to each individual.

For what it's worth, I played the AoW series as well, but could not imagine playing it PBEM because I don't think it lends itself well to that format.  Others disagree, and more power to them if that's what they want.  The issue of course, is how you handle the tactical battles.  You can't do those PBEM, so you autoresolve, which is ok, but meh, when I play a game like AoW or what I want EWoM to be, I want to do the tactical battles.  Or you design the system ala Dom3 where you assign standing orders to your forces, and then the battles autoresolve, but at least you had the input into formation, basic orders, spell scripting, ...

Keep in mind the multiplayer crowd is not around to answer this poll as they have already given up on Elemental being that kind of platform.

But considering that I had to buy a second copy to find out that the multiplayer does not work. Its really not fair.

The honest thing would have to allow for multiplayer feature on one copy if they were not serious about implementing the feature.

They should uphold what they advertise. In reality, I was conned into buying the second copy for me and my daughter to play.

It would have been a lot more easier to implement a hotseat feature instead of this shabby multiplayer feature.

So my vote is yes.

I am also voting for all the people who have moved on from this game after buying this for the purpose of MP.......Thousands I am sure.

No, I won't use it.

No.

Yes. I bought the original game for multiplayer (as a replacement for Fall From Heaven 2 really).

I have about 8 friends who were all going to buy it too. (2 of them did, but the rest aren't going to bother now)

I haven't even bothered getting my free copy of FE because to me it is now pretty much worthless. (Playing the single player game would just annoy me as I'd just wish it was multiplayer)

no

No

<- no interest in multiplayer