Note: the screenshot was made for demonstration purposes, and the reason why i only did 1v1 was because it is somewhat balanced compared to 1v1v1v1, since we both have a chance to cap half the map.
In 1v1v1v1, each player tends to conquer about 25% of the map before the front lines are settled, instead of being able to grab half a continent before serious fighting happens.
Also ive never said that things like diplomacy or politics have to be complicated, please dont add words in my mouth ?jedi?
And please take a look at the raven phase in single player, when you make POLITICAL DECISIONS which, by your words, were never in single player.
I did not say that the single player has no political decisions. I quite explicitly said that the single player has no trade and there are no alliances (with enemy factions). That has not been taken out of multiplayer because it was never in.
I did go on to
completely agree with you when I said that the existing single-player custom campaign looks like it could possibly be adopted for multiplayer, giving you the political decisions that you want.
However,
This is not a 4X game, it was never marketed as a 4X game, 4X-similar features be damned. The fact that you're confusing this for a 4X game is your own problem. You've said that you want things like alliances (which would first require support for 6-8 players to be implemented) and trade (of what? There are no goods to trade.).
