I don't think many people play real strategy games online, period. Sure, there are plenty whole play those twitch based, build order oriented ones, but games which are strategic rather than tactical are usually to long for multiplayer. Because as everyone knows, as the length of a game increases, the chances of something catastrophic happening to the players' computer causing inability to continue approaches 1.

FPS games usually have plenty of people on multiplayer, unless the multiplayer code and the game were botched completely.

Thinking a bit more about it, if you go for the extended beta, I think you should definitly try and make modding tools (or at least tutorials) available asap.
Because the more mods there are available *at the release* the more enticing it will be for several players of the kind that build a strong community.
Maybe you could even release some...mods, I mean.

That said, only you know if it's worth it. But 6 month more or less wont make such a difference that the game would feel outdated. Besides, I gathered it's supposed to scale well

The exension of the Beta sounds like an excelent idea.

How sophisticated can we make dungeons in the game?, How sophisticated can we make quests in the game?

These seem like great extras but i would prefer focus on the empire/city building before these two.

How sophisticated can we make tactical battles in the game?

I would think pretty sphisticated. From reading some on where you are heading with this game you seem to be trying to make a realistic fantasy game (i know thats an oxymoron). To that extend real historical battle were very dependant on the tactics of the armies to decide a victory, not just we have x pikemen and they have y so we win (extrem over-simplification). Would be great to have a deep level of tactical detail and challenge.

To counter this though i would hope the diplomacy is as deep for the non-military minded.

How big of a scope can we give the campaign?

A rich backstory make the races feel more intimate when playing sandbox so the more the better. I would suggest though that the final released campaign not be the one in Beta so the beta testers have the full new story to look forward to on release, especially if we play the beta campaign mode multiple times looking for bugs. Also would be fun to have some bonus for completing the campaigns, noting major but something like a special statue for your capital in sandbox.

Looking forward to this game very much, i think it will be very unique.

Option 2 please, release in August (or later) and take all the time you need to release a truly polished gem. Like Blizzard does with its games: Elemental will be done when it's done

When you've got a chance to try something this unique you've got to take a chance. Not many developers are this free of publishers prodding you to release. Go for the longer development cycle.

The only thing I would suggest as far as the schedule is concerned is to keep the release date the same, but decrease the time between all of the initial phases. The hardest problems to fix with games aren't usually with the individual components (world map, tactical combat), but with how they relate to each other and how balanced they are. I'd rather see more unpolished components together early on to get a better picture of how things could/should work, then put the final piece on later in the cycle and then not have enough time to balance the product as a whole. We might also think something like the world map is working great and then near release we find that the whole game warrants a feature that greatly changes the world map.

How many players should/can we allow in a game? 8? 12? 32?

I can't see players playing with more than 8 in a multiplayer game, but there will be singleplayer people who will player with whatever the highest number their computer can tolerate is.

What you should do is essentially have no engine limitations that prevent having 100 players (making screens have scrollbars and such). Then set some very high number for singleplayer (32 perhaps), but then have a lot of messages warning the player if they are adding more than the map, their computer, or the game was designed to support. If they want to keep going and have a bad time, that's their choice.

The reason I advocate such a system is firstly because computers will always get more powerful and eventually the lag won't be an issue. Secondly, there will be people who will make mods that would appreciate having a huge number of players (think a deathmatch mod or something like DotA). You don't have to make it that easy to increase the player limit to 100, but it shouldn't be difficult for a modder to do.

How sophisticated can we make dungeons in the game?

Take that one as it comes.

How sophisticated can we make quests in the game?

I wrote quite the post on a system that combines small component tasks and semirandomly puts them together to create a complex and interesting quest. The post is:

*********************************

https://forums.elementalgame.com/360530

*********************************

How sophisticated can we make tactical battles in the game?

Things that you should include:

-Basic unit facings as they allow intuitive bonuses for attacking from the sides and behind.

-A simple fortify/defensive command.

-Passive special abilities for many units.

-Some extra unit buttons or an area for button popups for units with special innate abilities (i.e. dragons or units enchanted with fire breath actually using their breath attack). These buttons could also be used to expend or activate worn or carried items (caltrops, faery dust, magic amulets). This is key for allowing modders to do a lot of fun stuff.

-Lots of different weapon types with tactically different uses.

Fun, but I could go either way with

-Height bonuses.

-Morale (can easily simulate effects with stat loss instead of making it its own stat).

Things I'd rather not have at all

-Complex unit stances.

If things are to get very complicated and customizable I would rather that part be with unit equipment, training, and enchantments than having too many tactical options in battles.

If SD isn't under financial pressure, I think a longer beta and an "official" launch in August is probably better.  It's late enough in the year to hit the Christmas wishlists, but early enough to have built some momentum, so sales might even be a bit better.  Google had Gmail in "beta" for years, and it didn't seem to affect it's popularity.  I say go for it.

My one wish for tactical battles is that you at least make them more sophisticated than something like HoMM or King's Bounty, where there are no counters at ALL. If you could approach the level of sophistication in something like advance wars (large maps with terrain bonuses that affect stats AND movement) as well as (a few) soft counters that aspect of the game would be pristine. I think it's mostly those stupid, tiny maps that many WRPGs use in their tactical battles that ruin them.  

However, it seems like a bit much for the AI to handle well, especially with custom units...

+1 in SUPPORT of the later release date, take note of all the games pushed back till Q1 2010 now, Elemental might get overlooked if released in February.

Plus the longer a game is being activly worked on with community input ( via beta suggestions ) the better!

  I completely agree the longer beta is better by providing a healthier and more content rich product which will help with longterm sales.

  I recommend a supported selection of 24players which has been successfully popular for Dominions_3 (Fantasy_TBS).  If you provide the option for a 24 player multiplayer game the feature will be used the same as in Dominions_3.  I know with the 64Bit version the massive giant maps will have singleplayer and multiplayer gamers both interested in more opponents.  I would also recommend leaving the option open for even more players... perhaps not supported at first, but an open door for those interested in larger games.

   I'd advise a system as seen from the original AgeofWonders where you could explore dungeon type sites.  In the original AgeofWonders there was only one single level, but for Elemental I would advise many dungeon type sites having multiple levels... 5, 10, and even 20 levels.  It's much more intensely scary entering Level 17 of an evil dungeon as compared to Level 2.

   I'd recommend setting up a variety of different quests.  Those which are not enjoyed by the community will be voiced with a thumbs down.  The sophistication of the quest is not as important as the level of enjoyment done for actively doing the quest.  A fun quest might be planning to an assassinate another opponents hero... while a not so fun quest would be babysitting a weak of group citizens as you safely deliver them to another town.

  This is a difficult question to answer since many games have used many different methods.  I do recommend multiple players allowed on a battlefield since it's not only logical, but provides more strategic options.  I also suggest having the game include a battlefield for assassinations. 

I recommend Stardock creating a topic in the forums listing what options are being considered for tactical battles and then have the community voice decisions.

 For the campaign I would recommend providing a campaign which has replay value.  Typically a campaign is provided with a fixed set of maps, a fixed set of enemies and one big final enemy, a fixed number of heroes, and well you get picture.  As a result gamers are lucky to play the campaign once or maybe twice before knowing virtually all details and then the campaign is never played again.  

  So here's the ideas so the campaign will have replay value:

   1) Have the AI enemy opponents and the one big final enemy AI opponent be randomly generated.  One game the big final enemy could be an evil immobile eye of fire channeller and the next game it could be a demi-lich channeller.  This will provide new enemies each time the campaign is played. 

   2) Include all the side quests as being randomly generated.  Here new side quests so each time the campaign is played the gamer can investigate and be rewarded for different quests.

   3) Allow the heroes who appear during the campaign to be pulled from a random pool of heroes.  Also don't have them available always in the same locations as this will allow the campaign to be easier to second time around.

These are some ideas... and hope this provides some ideas as well.

funny you should say that.  I was just talking to someone about how much I'd like to make a rouge-like out of Elemental's system.

I actually like this idea!  I'm all for dungeon exploring but I wouldn't want a 20level dungeon in this genre.  However this suggestion is perfect for a multilevel dungeon.

Great idea. now i cant wait for beta to start.. Always good that a company thinks of its product and quality it deserves.

So what is the count now? 80 for "longer", two (2) for "current" and two (2) "maybe" posts?