[sugestion] Seperate unit production and city production again

I disagree. I think this was one of their better decisions and I agree with their reasoning.

I prefer the guns or butter type of approach better than the dual build approach.

After a while I tend to run out of buildings to build in my developed cities.  So then I can crank out as many units as I want.

I really like the current build structure - I like being forced to make difficult decisions, because that's when I have to think.  And games that me think are better than games that don't, in my opinion.

For me, both ways work fine. I wouldn't mind building two things at once (maybe at a higher cost or longer production) but the "one-at-a-time" building works fine too.

Personally, I think I'd prefer multiple production...

Disagreed. The option to go military versus empire construction is a -strategy- and should thus be kept in tact.

Big, fat, hairy "No!"

If you're gonna have more than one, might as well have 75.

I'm not a fan of two production ques - it just adds much more management to the game for to little gain and even takes some strategy out of the game. In fact my biggest complaint with gal civ 2 (and the reason i stopped playing) is that its optimal to build a shipyard in almost every planet and have them pump out ships to build starports everywhere - managing this on large maps is just horrible.

I agree to having two queues.  I continually need to remove and readd all my buildings just because I lost a unit and need to build a new one and move it to the top of the queue.

I like the single production queue as it forces you to make choices.

I like the single production queue, but there should be a rearrange queue possibility and something (not only one (?) building) that benefits from an empty queue...like a little more money or research based on production strength.

There are at least two buildings that benefit from an empty queue - one that boosts research and one that boosts gildar that I know of.  I agree that it should be based on production strength for each city that has it, if it isn't already.

I like the single queue better.

You still need to make choices with multiple queues.  I know i never had all my cities producing troops at once, nor did I have them all producing buildings at once in WOM.  You couldn't afford to do both, since you only had so many resources.  The lack of the option miffs me, and to say that it takes away from the strategy is dumb in my opinion.  It is a different type of strategy, but it is a derived game mechanic that doesn't make sense.  I HATE game mechanics that are built purely around making something easier/more difficult, or any other thing they are trying to change when it makes no sense in the context of the game.  This is one of those, and like all others it removes immersion. 

There is a reason I played GC and GC2 over the Civ games most of the time, even though I enjoyed both.  It is because the Civ games have all sorts of game mechanics that just dumb down what you are doing, where as the Stardock games usually tried to make the processes make sense in a real world sense.

Hmm, good arguments on both sides.  The whole "realism" says; why not have some people building buildings, while others produce troops, all in the same town, but some people feel "game play" is better when you're forced to make hard decisions between one or the other.

I can think of a compromise or two; 

A) Make it an option at the start of the game (one building queue or two).  This is by far the hardest I would think, because the AI would be required to play intelligently both ways, so there would be a lot of effort involved with this decision)

  Bring back the two separate production lines, but make there be a production penalty if both are running at once (like James009D mentioned).  If you really, really needed a building or some troops fast, you could hit a "pause" button on the other type of production, to get what you needed produced at full speed again.  It still makes for interesting choices, and to be honest it really does feel a lot more realistic. 

C)  Keep one queue, but somehow keep track of what a city has been producing, either buildings or troops, and give a small but accumulating bonus to the OTHER type of production, that will go away once something of the other sort has been built.  The bonus shouldn't appear after creating either one building or one unit, but rather after perhaps 3 either bildings or units in a row.

Say for example that city A has produced 4 different buildings in a row without building any troops.  It could now have a + 20 % to production for the next troops it produces.  If the player build another building instead, the bonus could grow up to 30 %. 

This would represent the fact that even though you haven't REALLY been building any troops, the city has been "training" some guys in the background.  If it was done the other way (producing a lot of troops, and now you have a bonus to make a building), it could represent that there was some work being done on the building "in the background" while the city was focused on producing troops. 

Anyway, these are just some of my ideas.  I really like C, but i don't think it would work well in this game, it would probably work a lot better in a much more complex game that really focuses on economics (like some of the WWII games I have played, can't remember the names right now).

Yes, I realize that all of these ideas would make programming the AI to play intelligently even harder, because the AI would have to be taught how to intelligently take advantage of the system.

Also, I definitely second the idea of being able to reorganize the queue.  It's a very important function, for lots of reasons.  It's one of those polish things;  if that ability isn't present, I know somebody somewhere was being lazy.

<edit:  Whoops, idea "B" is a chillin dude.>

Again, if your going to have two production queues, why not have 75 or 1000...is that not even more realistic?

In fact, adding more queues is "dumbing the game down" because it removes choice and strategy from the game.  If you need something built fast, you can always hurry it's production.  Sometimes you just need to bite the bullet, and shift gear in your production.  That's part of the fun - adjusting to the situation.

Multiple queues is a bad feature, and I doubt they will bring it back.

What you call fun, some people call frustrating.  It seems kinda silly to me that, because my town was building a watermill, NOBODY in that town was practicing how to fight with a spear and wear armor and move as part of a formation?  EVERY single person in that town that wasn't "off gathering grain and materials" was either building that watermill or sitting on their butts?  In a land where monsters roam up out of the woods and attack and destroy towns?

Also, having more queues to manage is dumbing the game down?  It changes the strategy, but I think a lot of people would feel it makes the game more complex, because it is one more thing to manage.  Yes, it takes away the choice "defenses OR city progression", but that's just one choice out of a lot in this game (though it is, admittedly, a big one).

Both approaches have their strong points and weak points.  It's a matter of preference.

I have to strongly take the point of wanting my two queues back.

It was one of the things I loved the most about E:WOM.

1. It is much more realistic. Obviously any town can build buildings at the same time as training units (or people in general). In principle, training troups should mainly take time, while buildings should require large amounts of materials. Each might also call for completely different resources (stone & wood for buildings, gold & iron for troups or so), but I don't care too much about that.

2. 2 queues is not the same as 50+ queues. It does not dumb down the game. 2 queues for two completely different things make sense. 50 queues doesn't. Sure, a "real" city produces more than one building at a time, but regarding major projects even "real" cities have only one or two. And again: training units is completely different from building stuff. To me the single queue is one of Civ's biggest drawbacks.

3. It does not limit the strategy choices. You have neither infinite ressources nor infinite gold per turn. Thus you cannot support permanently building both troops and buildings. Note, that you also need to build a small fortune to hire heroes and buy equipment for them, so you can't spend all your gold on upkeep for buildings & units. It is still an important decision, whether you want to have a reasonably small army with a quickly growing population & production or whether you wish to have your cities grow slowly with a large standing army to protect them and conquer others.

4. Last but not least: please do make a feature to rearrange things in the queue. It is really annoying to have to redo the whole queue of buildings, if you find a new building or unit you would rather build right away...

I prefer one queue.

I could go either way. Having played both systems, having just one queue seems to work good for FE. I could see a late-game building or tech though that could unlock or grant a separate unit production queue. That might be a good way to add some city specialization. The player could only have one city that would specialize in unit production. If that doesn't happen though I think I'm ok with the current system.

I'd rather see more city specialization than have two queues but that's just me.

I don't have any problem with having a seperate queue for each barracks you build in town, since each one could be training new troops.  Just like you could have multiple building queues if you had multiple construction groups in the town, although that is a bit less likely.  It doesn't make much sense for the trainers to sit on their thumbs while building construction is going on, just like it doesn't make sense for the construction workers to sit on their thumbs while the troops are being trained.  The two have nothing to do with each other, so why are they linked in a single queue.  It makes no sense!

Still being able to build more at the same time doesn't dumb anything down.  You can buy all you want at the store, and yet you don't go out there and buy thousands of dollars worth of stuff everytime you go out.  You aren't likely to be able to afford all that stuff, and you probably couldn't fit thousands of dollars worth of groceries in your trunk, plus you probably couldn't go through it all before some of it went bad.  The ability to do so, doesn't change the fact that you really have to plan out what you do, and when you do it.  I feel the single queue is a cop-out, and it makes the game easier for both the player and the AI.  But it is the AI that I feel will keep them from changing it even if most people supported it.

The other positive aspect of the one queue + hurry system currently in place is that is gives another economic outlet for gold in the game.  With two queues, you would very rarely need to hurry build anything.

I don't understand this argument, because this entire game is an abstraction of some barely plausible alternate-dimension-style existence. 

My point is, anything >1 is at least 100% >1, so why not just be able to build anything anytime you have the resources to do so?  Two queues is not quite one too many, perhaps, but in WoM I often had cities sitting idle for long periods of time because I could build everything I needed quickly then was done with it, leaving no strategic choices to make for a while.  Boring.

Read my response above.  If you can only build one thing at a time, then you almost always have a choice to make.

This I totally agree with.

I think the single queue is better, because the player has to make a choice.