" I can’t go into much detail regarding it other than to say it that it is much more similar to a Civilization/Master of Magic style strategy game versus a Galactic Civilizations/HOMM style strategy game (i.e. every tile of terrain matters i.e. building near rivers or forests or hills and that kind of thing will matter and there are things like unrest and tax rates and that kind of thing)."

Gooood. Derek should be even more comfortable with this kind of game, which means a good game is even more likely. And I don't see why some city-booster/crippler spell could not be slipped in... if you could poison water with spies in civ iv, I think it'd make sense to poison water with a spell  This said, given the little we know so far about the game, I fully trust devs' decisions until the beta hits!

Three things:

1.  Will there be LAN? 

That is required for me to be interested in the game.  It's a deal breaker, for me, as I know too many games are going away from it and relying on crap like Steam.  You want the game to be a classic?  Don't deny what made PC multiplayer gaming great to begin with.

2.  Will there be a simultaneous turns option (ala CIV)?

Unless turns really fly by, this will help broaden the appeal to more people in multiplayer.  I would think it's very possible due to the people on staff that have Civ experience (even moreso that this is essentially a new game).

3.  Mod support?

An almost required component for me.  See reasons cited in 1 and 2 for why.

Anyway, I still thank you for essentially remaking the whole game after the let down of the original last year.  I'll keep on the supporting the company as long as the customer service/support remains this epic (much like I have been for almost 10 years now). 

Even with shit on their faces, they still find some way to make good out of the situation.

Yeah, I'll second (or third) these things. The first 2 are the most important to me, and if we can get a dev to comment on this it would be really great. LAN support was coming for the first game, but I guess it took a back seat to the other problems. But seriously, 1 and 2 are very important to me as well.

About mod support: I assume you mean at the level that Civ4 had (released source code or something). For myself though, I could take it or leave it. I have respect for the modders on here and other sites, but to be honest, I want the game to be good out of the box, not after 10 mods are applied. If I find a really cool mod, I'll mess around with it, but I need the game itself to have enough enjoyment in it without mods.

It seems bizarre that '1.1 changelog' is still stickied.

...

That is all.  Carry on.

Upon playing other popular TBS games such as Heroes_3/4/5, AgeofWonders:SM, Civilization_I_thru_V, I feel other statistics should also be taken into consideration such as:

  A} What percentage of custom/modding content is created by singleplayers as compared to multiplayers? 
            My years of experience indicates more content is created and continues to evolve from the multiplayer community, thus the singleplayers continue to benefit years after the final version release of a game.

  B} What percentage of singleplayer gamers remain active on the forums for a game as compared to multiplayer?
            My years of experience indicates the multiplayer community keeps the fires of activity burning on the forums.

  C} What percentage of bugs are discovered(and reported) by multiplayer gamers as compared to singleplayer gamers?

           I don't have any information on such statistics, but this should also be an important variable. One of the required traits of being a multiplayer gamer is communication since diplomacy and trading with other humans are critical in multiplayer games.

On a side note: I'm both a singleplayer and a multiplayer gamer. Over the years if it's one thing I've noticed it's how much the multiplayer community contributes to the community and the game. I see many posts where singleplayers want the developers to remove the multiplayer option which removes the vast majority of multiplayer gamers yet they don't recognize how much the multiplayer gamers have contributed to the evolution of their favorite TBS games such as the 3 I've mentioned.  It's like someone saying I wish all the bees in the world were dead.... and it's clear they don't understand what is lost.

I bought Elemental during its beta, since I hoped for a modern Master of Magic. The beta was unplayable, which is ok, but v1 still was no fun at all.

After reading opinions of others I felt strongly affirmed in my view. I simply gave up with this game.

Yesterday I had the idea to look for updates, not really expecting anything substantial. I got 1.39, started playing and enjoyed the game for the first time. Then I read this post. And another post, also from the Stardock CEO, admitting failure with the early launch.

Wow! This kind of CEO doesn't fit into my view of the world. Stardock will not profit financially from finishing the game. People won't buy it, even if it turns out to be a gem. Producing a sequel means, Stardock is willing to risk a lot of money to show that they can produce a great game out of this. Also, giving it for free to the early-buyers of the first game, is trading profits for reconciliation with fans. Most unexpected.

Congratulations for some very unusual decisions! I hope you succeed with the sequel and profit in the long run.

I have not written on these forums for a VERY long time, but I have to reply to this thread.  Age of Wonders made a turn based game; simultanious turns; tactical battles, and a decade later Stardock can't?  Seriously?  Seriously???

I've been playing games for 35 years; computer games since pong.  I know many gamers, and none buy/play TBS games to "hurry"through them.  You name the TBS game, I and my friends have played them, all MP and SP.  The classics for us let you play against or with friends MP.  There's a reason they call them "Beer & Preztles" games, cause that's what you eat/drink when you play with your friends.

Lets be honest, do we all really spend hours and hours of playing to look at our cities?  To stare at the stats on on military units?  To watch pop-up windows give us results?  No, we want battles; big exciting battles with swords swinging and spells blasting while we watch the units/spells we spent so long chosing and creating slug it out with the enemy.  The only thing better is to experience this with (or against) a friend.  And to not include this aspect in MP is just going to be jaw-droppingly disapointing, not to mention a reason for my friends to pass on this game when it comes out.

I have 7 that would buy for MP. They also like SP as well. And they all like to create maps so we can all battle each other on in these games. But none want a watered down "quick'" game. If we wanted that we would play RTS games.

A man who chases two rabbits will end up with none.

I say make sure the SP experience is awesome. I don't care about MP,  I believe it should be an afterthought - a nice to have feature but not necessary.  These games are just too complicated to get right that I would rather they spent their time and resources getting the single player game working as intended.