I think there was a lot of very insightful thoughts and information in that article, and I thank you for being extremely honest and straightforward about why "traditional multiplayer" isn't an option for this game, but also willing to make a compromise for your players in the form of the "alone together" mechanic.
Specifically, the part of your journal where you explain that multiplayer RTS games already are "alone together" to some extent. I began to think about what you said. I play co-op RTS games with my friends frequently, and I hadn't even thought about it this way! When you brought this concept up, I began to realize that you were right. Most of the enjoyment of playing the RTS together is not the level of interaction we have (because with 2 separate opponents, we tend to be quite individually busy), but the mutual FEELING of co-operation, and the imagined goal of working together to achieve victory. Perhaps simply the idea of "if I succeed we succeed, if I fail, you fail" is what makes multiplayer co-op so fun. Though you may not be DIRECTLY influencing how your opponent does, if you begin to fall behind, he or she will certainly be paying the price in the long run. On the contrary, if you are defeating your opponent to a greater degree, then you can transfer some of your resources to your partner's battlefield and help them out as well.
As I was thinking about this concept, I began to question whether simply giving your friends "resources" every so often was really conducive to this same kind of feeling that we seem to be shooting for. For one thing, it's only positive. If this is really the system we choose to implement, you're only sharing the rewards between allies, not the risks, which is literally half the fun! Another important aspect that you mentioned is having to create or manage an arbitrary resources that could be sent "between galaxies" which would fit into this category. I'm never a big fan of "forced design", and honestly I think there are even better options than what has been discussed.
Have you ever played a multiplayer arcade puzzle game? Think Tidalis. One of the most enjoyable aspects of those games that we can probably all remember from our earliest gaming days is sending your opponent "difficult blocks" or "beneficial packages". True, each player was playing their own side of the puzzle, but their actions and success or failures had a very real effect on the other player.
What if we attempted to add a mechanic like this into TLF? True, each player will be playing alone, but every big event, victory or defeat, will send waves of prizes or enemies to their allies doorstep. In this way, the well-being and success of each player is, in large part affected by their allies. When one ally begins falling behind, all the allies pay the price. However when one ally begins to succeed, all the allies see the benefits. These "parallel universes" are connected in a fundamental way, and the ripple effects can be felt by all players involved.
This just seemed a lot cooler, more functional, and more unique than the suggestion that was originally proposed. Mixing popular elements of a puzzle game into a single-player RTS/TBS hybrid would be pretty groundbreaking from everything I know, and would probably be a lot more appealing to multiplayer lovers in the end, because it creates the same sense of dependency and group success of the traditional multiplayer model.
