I don't even *dare* to play multiplayer in this game... I know it will take too much time, no pauses... And probably if I join a game I will ruin the other players game, by quitting in the middle...



This is the problem with every single multiplayer 4X strategy game I know.



The solution I see for that is:



1) No one needs to host a game at their own computer... Instead, the game is hosted at a server-based, non-graphics version, of the game. This will make possible that a server can be rented by a player club to host multiplayer matches. And, since there is no graphical demands, the game can be hosted in relatively low end computers.



2) This game at the server will run within a schedule determined by the player owners. For example, one may decide that the game is to be played from 20:00 to 23:00 EST, seven days per week.



3) Each faction in the game can have assigned a team of players for it, or be kept open, so any player can join that faction at will. This way, games can be played in teams in a 24 x 7 schedule.



4) When assigned a team of players, or for an open game, people that have been allowed can join the game as an observer / queued participant / or concurrent participant:

--> An observer can only see the game: it can traverse the map and share the views the active player have, but will not be able to actively do anything.

--> A queued participant have the same permissions as the observer, and will be able to chat at the faction's channel. If the main player drops, he can take it's place.

--> A concurrent participant is like a second player playing the same game, with the same faction. While , say, one player take care of army movements and battles, the other player takes care of queues, science, empire plans, etc...

The idea here is that we can make a kind of "relay play"... When one player drops, other player can take in. So, only one player will be actively playing a faction, but a queue or other players will be watching the game progress, so when they actually join as an active player, they can "follow up" the game where it was stopped. Another very interesting possibility is that control could be shared between the players: say, one player control the city queues, and other control the battles and army movements... Endless Legend become a Team game.



5) When there are no players left in the game, the game is auto-saved and then stopped, so they can be resumed later by the same involved teams.

It looks like complicated in the possible settings but I guess your proposition is what we need. I am sure the modern strategic games give some good examples of what would be good to do.



The most important would be that the game don't crash when the host leave, because it's a prehistoric problem which should not exist.