Multiplayer is the future

[L'Impresario]

Sorry to barge in, but comparing an online RPG with a strategy game like RTW or any other RTS won't bear many fruitful results. In such rpgs the individual player controls a single/limited amount of character(s)that actually don't have any major impact on the game itself, with almost no exceptions.Now, I can't imagine how any player that controls an army in the hypothetical mp-campaign won't impact the big picture.That's why the constant attention and participation of one player isn't needed. Civilisation-style games on the other hand do require that certain qualities, and the lack thereof isn't the only reason for their limited appeal to the mp crowds.
Continuity isn't the fortè of other RTS games as well. I don't see the "meaning" behind a Warcraft 3 mp game, and in essence the TW series isn't offering anything less (or more) to that experience. Strategy is the only way to provide continuity in such games, and while the TW game engine can truly deliver a combination of startegy and tactics, trying to implement this would reduce certainly the sources and effort that is to be allocated to the game's selling point, the tactical battles.

No more complaints for stupid AI by the SPers and NO more sterilised flat non/benefiting encounters for the MPers...The split of the community would be healed...

I can say that I have played many encounters that don't fit that description and I really can't comprehend why a battle has to create some kind of "repercussions" in a grand scale in order to be tagged as "useful" or whatever. The scope of tactics in the current game so far is impressive indeed and in a 4v4, the usage of tactics and maneuvres in battles between skilled clans can be mind-boggling and highly entertaining, without this being a battle for the destruction of Carthago (sorry for the 4v4 referance in a rtw lobby ).

Now for LAN games, that would be something else, but still...

edit: cbr can type pretty fast