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.

They most definitely should not do this, it would be extraordinarily misleading. If they extend the beta and development process, starting now, then they are not going to have a complete, polished game by february. It will still have significant kinks to work out, features that are being toyed with, etc. They wouldn't just be adding an extra 5 months to polish a game that they already finished by February. No, it will still be the middle of the development process.

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 But 6 month more or less wont make such a difference that the game would feel outdated.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

Well then, I guess I can't blame you for not knowing Sorry about that.

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.

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

If we are including AIs in this, the more the merrier!

How sophisticated can we make dungeons in the game?

How sophisticated can we make quests in the game?

How sophisticated can we make tactical battles in the game?

How big of a scope can we give the campaign?

The rest of the questions above I assume are rhetorical.

As to the extension of the BETA phase, I'm inclined to say I think it's a great idea; however my gut reaction is how will this affect development on GalCiv3?!?

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

Chalk me down as one of the many in the YES camp for the longer beta period. I've got insanely high expectations for this game and you'll need all the time and beta tester power you can to stand a chance of meeting them

That said, as others have pointed out beforehand, it's probably not a surprise that you get an incredibly postiive repsonse to this question on these forums.. I mean the vast majority of people interseted at this stage in develompent (and thus reading the dev journals and posting) are going to be pre-ordering/planning to beta test already. Given that, we're all going to be playing the game all the way through anyway so the lack of an official release is going to make very little difference saving the potential for an even better game at the end.

PS I also love the picture of the swamp monster thingy! The only way it could look better would be if it was more super-slug shaped and had a giant medallion around its neck with the name Geoff on it... but maybe that's just me

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.

I can tell you that while Elemental will have good mutiplayer features, it is predominantly a single player game. 

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.

I would love there to be height bonuses. It would create strategic value in holding the high ground. Also, extra range for archers on high ground would be much appreciated! This would also apply to archers on walls, for example.

Morale would be wonderful as well, in my opinion. I could live without it, sure, but morale is something that can't be accurately mimicked with stat loss. For one, I really want there to be a rout mechanic in the tactical combat; it gets tiring when everyone always fights to their death in every fight. If I right an force of 500 of elite Bear Cavalry into a rabble of 1000 poorly armed militiamen, they should turn and flee. Morale, and morale-based effects, allow for lots of strategies that simply don't work otherwise.

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...

Side note: Advance Wars has plenty of hard counters. Take the missiles unit. At full strength, it can kill any air unit in one shot.

+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!