I also want a regular multiplayer option. You know a skirmish mode, a multiplayer game that can be finished in a days time.

The persistent multiplayer is fairly unintresting to me. there is never a winner in such modes, and newcomers get a huge handicap.

1. I don't usually play TBS games multiplayer, but I do occasionally and I would definitely like the option. Even more so for this game than usual!
2. I want both, but if I had to choose I would choose online over email.
3. We haven't got many details about the persistent multiplayer feature at all... I don't know what they're planning for it. Campaigner's vision of what it will be is interesting, but really we don't know what it'll be like.

That's already confirmed.

1.  I care about multiplayer because for so long I said "if only master of magic was remade with multiplayer.  You wouldn't even need to better the graphics"  and as a result, I'd be a hypocrit if I didn't 100% back the multiplayer aspects of this game.

2.   I like the options.   Play by e-mail, lan, and hotseat the most, since I perfer to play with people I know over random creepos on the net (I'm king creepo, so it sets a high expectation for other creepos to be as creepy and annoying as I probebly am, thus I avoid them).  

3.  sounds like somebody's been getting some positive feedback from Demigod, and are using the same basic concept on other IPs.

That is what I'm thinking... which is pointless.  Persistent worlds seem over-hyped to me.  Never have I seen a turn based game with a persistent world that really added to the game.  In fact, I haven't seen any wargames where a persistent world has been implemented well.  For a campaign like setting, I think it is much better to have a strategic map, set sides and finite games.  I think the main reason is that players will gravitate to the side that is winning so the developers have to put in mechanisms/incentives to play for the losing side.  I also think it is hard to create meaningful goals and a sense of accomplishment that will hook players in a persistent world.  I'm not saying it can't be done, but I've never seen it done.  If any of you have successful examples, I'd be interested to check them out.

The other purpose of an online world might be to do faction grinding like you pointed out or to get a ranking on a ladder.  What these do is get people to find a way to cheat they system to get whatever reward may be offered for success. So... I guess my take on it is to forget the persisten world and spend the time making the game as good as can be unless there is some formula for success I'm missing.  All I really want is a great core game with solid multiplayer and everything that detracts from that should be cut.

From my experience, I've seen some online games in the past have a strategic level map with multiple factions.  One was an RTS where you would go and fight battles across the strategic map and the faction that did best became owner of that region.  It was years ago, so don't ask me the game.  This might sound fun at first blush, but it results as follows:

1.  one faction dominates and players migrate to that faction so they can win too.  Game companies then have to offer incentives to play on the losing side

2. even if it is balanced, it is just a never ending gotcha game.  Take this provence here, lost this one there.... wash and repeat... and pointless

I've also seen games like Massive Assault Network that has player ratings (like chess) and statistics for battles on different maps.  The statistics are persistent and it can be fun to see yourself improve over time.  It is also good for choosing playing partners with similar skill.  It can be bad if your very good at the game because people won't want to play you and some top players may not want to play because the risk/benefit quotient is out of whack.  They did have a campaign run by players for a while where you did strategic acitons each turn and resolved the combats with the game.  It  was fun for a while but once problems crept up with the rules it sort of faded away.

A couple factors drive me to multiplayer.  Firstly, AI is not  capable against human opponents especially in very complex games.  Giving the AI the ability to cheat may create a challenge, but it is a different expereience than playing a good human.  Even if you get good AI, it may kick your arse when you are new to a game and may provide a  liittle fun once you get good, but eventually it will become predictable and boring. Plus, there is something more fulfilling/fun about outplaying a human rather than an AI.

Secondly, I love to bust out my board games with human opponents but being married with kids really limits my gaming time.  So to have a turn in my inbox when I get free at night in a play by email game is very cool.

well a tbs is different here. In an rts it is almost impossible to play 1vs3.

In  turn based games you start on different parts of the world, and you can rarely gang up on 1 single player in the game, because of distances in the early game.(late game you can, but a lot can happen by that time)

So a skilled player can still beat 3 players ganging up on 1 player.

You can do this both in master of magic, civilization series, age of wonders, etc  etc.

The reason for this is that early in the game, you are trying to get a foothold in the world, and the truly good players will get a much larger economy and military and techs by the time you meet.

As long as there are not huge penalties for beeing big, the skilled player will have a chance on 3vs1 vs less skilled players.

In  civilization series you can cut taxes to 0 once you face a enemy player and just focus hardcore on stealing techs and maintaining a huge army.(this is a cheesy move though, but with enough spies it works a bit too well)

and just how would the 3 players feel if they got beaten when playing 3vs1?

I prefer online multiplayer but that requires streamlined gameplay without the fluff and micro nightmare. After all, the more time it takes to finish an online match, the less popular it is. Unfortunately, streamlined gameplay doesn't seem to be the focus of Elemental Well, i hope there will be some game modes catered to online multiplayer.

The vast majority of any game I play, even Demigod, is in single player and for reasons very similar to Wizaerd. However, I definitely want MP in Elemental because some epic empire games with my friends and brother would be awesome

I could envision a Free-4-All starting format and allow the players to create Alliances amongst similiar faction types.

Given a 3v3 Large map, 3 Empire players vs 3 Kingdom players, each starts on a random map spot, on their half of the map, North-South, East-West whatever, then all have at it. The destruction of a player by any other player provides the victor with some level of Bonuses, be it Military or Production facility based.

The game is WON when one faction is totally wiped out so you could have a Shared victory with another Ally(s).

Persistant games with but 2 factions due tend to end up as previously noted. One Faction gets all the players and then it becomes a Joke and then Balancing elements are forced in and invariably create imbalances in direct conflict with the initial Balance scheme's. 

I agree with you 100%. I like single player because I can play at my speed with the games spec to my licking. No need to compromise.

I also like the fact that this game gives us the options of choosing the game play we like.

Well multiplayer also improves the singleplayer games in many ways.  First it increases the size of its gaming community  which means faster responses for questions/problems, larger selection of game content made by the community, and the forums stay alive with more postings significantly longer.   I'm sure other reasons of value exist as well such as a larger beta testing group.

So while you may only be interested in singleplayer games... the long term value of multiplayer is greater for everyone.