Training and Building simultaneously

Depends on how much the economics of the game are changed. Normally I just build (the vital) non-maintenance buildings when possible, and units when not. (until I can't pay for new units anymore).

However, I feel the decision between Bread and Butter is an important one, and allowing simul builds would deprive that choice from this game, which I am not certain would be a positive.

There aren't enough buildings, and the early-mid game economy is so weak that I have a hard time seeing why you would even NEED a second build queue until late game.

I was a HUGE proponent of removing the second build queue because when even one of them sits empty it represents a waste of volatile resource (production) for which we get no benefit. Splitting production 50/50 between the two queues when they are both producing would be a functional compromise, but as Tasunke said, in 4x games it is the mutually exclusive choices which really drive these games. I am choosing to build military instead of a granary right now, and that will forever impact the productivity of my kingdom. However, my opponent has to make that same choice.

Id agree with this, once you start taking cities you'll soon fine build queues drop to zero where really you don't have anything left to do with them. It is obviously a balance issue on trying to slow down this process at the early game stage.

Again it's a issue faced across multiple paths in the game you gotta give up on something else in order to do a certain task eg research tree.

I've yet to have an empty build cue under the new build.  In E:WOM, I always was able to keep both build cues busy, but as you pointed out the number of structures has been pared down a bit.  I don't think that is necessarily a good thing.  I thought the goal was more city differentiation, not less...

Larger armies/army groups helps mitigate random results in combat a bit, so I'm a proponent for letting players build units to their hearts content, as long as manpower is available and they can afford the build and maintenance costs.  But cities shouldn't be neglected in the process.  Sure, progress on construction projects should slow up, but I don't think it should stop completely, especially if other victory conditions (economic/diplomatic/knowledge) will be coming into play at some point.

I am very curious how you manage this. My army generally sucks up every last drop of gold intake until the third city gets built, and considering that there are only 2 early buildings without maintenance costs....

I haven't played on the upper difficulty levels, which may be a factor.  I do a lot of exploration in the early game, and I focus exclusively on gildar production with settlement upgrades and such.  Plus selling used gear helps.  Also, units tend to die a lot, so unit maintenance is less of a factor than it otherwise might be...

I'm a fan of games with lots of action, not games that proceed at a snail's pace, and my initial scenario settings reflect that.

I am 99% sure this will not happen, so I will only comment that I agree with the current design.

I agree with this statement. Choice it's always about choice.

Not to 1-up Sean, but I'm 99.9% sure this will not happen.  However, I think they should allow us to re-prioritize the queue without penalty.  That way you could take a break from making your 50 turn building, rush out an army troop, then go back to making your 50 turn building.

That is a good point. Production is totally lost if you stop building or training. This needs some elaboration. 

Well, the function to retain spent resource already exists in the Tech tree. Should be relatively easy to retain production spent on buildings. Not sure how that would translate to units, though.

Yea ... It'd be nice to be able to have a more flexible build que.

Like for instance I'm building a library, then half way through I want to switch to a unit ... and then continue the library again.

Quoting Trojasmic, reply 9

However, I think they should allow us to re-prioritize the queue without penalty.  That way you could take a break from making your 50 turn building, rush out an army troop, then go back to making your 50 turn building.

End of Trojasmic's quote

Yes! I was going to make a thread requesting this.

Quoting Malsqueek, reply 11

Well, the function to retain spent resource already exists in the Tech tree. Should be relatively easy to retain production spent on buildings. Not sure how that would translate to units, though.

End of Malsqueek's quote

It doesn't make logical sense to retain production on units in my opinion, but buildings...

What I have asked for in other threads is to be able to reorganize your queue using a drag-and-drop method with the mouse for ease of switching production. I'd be totally content with an "if it's still in queue, production isn't lost" model.

Totally cancel it and it goes away, but so long as you are still "planning" to have that Library, it can wait until after we sharpen up a few sticks and teach people not to stab themselves with them.

@Jtakeman I agree, but its still something that needs addressed because buildings and units are fundamentally different types of production.

What makes choices interesting is having a shortage of resources, and being forced to make a decision about how to spend what you have available. I think that being able to split production to both buildings and troops at the same time is bad simply because it takes away a way to force important choices.

I like the idea of the dual Building/Training queue. Some things I don't like though.

Whatever happens, I would like to see that things half-built, remain half-built until such time as they are resumed. I wouldn't mind for there to be some time to be lost if a project is on hold overlong. I would just like to pause a build, then come back to finishing it later. 

I started a post saying the same time awhile ago.  It was mostly because I hated losing production on a building if I needed to swap production.  Being able to change the build queue order is the way to go in my opinion.

With current build 2 seperate queus is unnecessary. If a lot more buildings added than maybe but not as things stand

Good idea

More flexibility in the current build queue?  Yes.

Two or more build queues?  Absolutely not.

I like the single production queue.

I also like having a 'lose all accumulated production' penalty when changing production.

It means you have to think about what you are building/training and take into account the opportunity cost.  Choices...

Sure it's simpler if you can reorder the queue at will but it is not as if the game is too difficult at the moment.  Build queue time should be looked at as a limited resource and chopping and changing should have its costs.

I don't think penalties for switching the que around really add much to the game. It just falls under the pitfall of noob traps.

It doesn't fall into the 'easy to learn, hard to master' category but rather the 'hard to learn' category.

I think Bread vs Butter is an interesting choice but please make the build ques more flexible.

Just a couple of observations on some of the above comments. 

A 50/50 split in production doesn't really accomplish anything.  Essentially both items take twice as long to build, so you might as well build one, then build the other, so you get at least one of them halfway through the process.  Hence, there needs to be some mechanic that reduces the production time of both slightly to make doing both simultaneously worthwhile.

As for the comments of shuffling the production cue, while retaining progress on builds, this definitely should be implemented.  This way you can pick up where you left off if you feel the need to shift from buildings to units.

Finally, I think that the production times for the more expensive units may need to be reduced a bit.  My reasoning on this is that having more troops in battle helps reduce luck a bit in combat, and maneuvering six units around for position in combat is more interesting than two, and allows for more strategy to develop in said combats.  Of couse, I had no issues with the twelve unit cap in E:WOM in the first place...

I would like to see overall unit production and maintenance costs reduced dramatically, building production costs and times increased dramatically, and building maintenance and the overall economy reworked significantly and balanced. More, better, and more significant choices.

As a related aside, "Unrest" either needs renamed or renumbered, because right now it looks like 40% of my populace is revolting at a normal tax rate, and not that my production is experiencing a 40% reduction due to unrest, and when you have 40% unrest in countries you get places like Libya and Syria.

Discontent might be a better word.  Just because your not happy with the current government doesn't necessarily mean you will be going out and resisting.  Unrest kind of implies civil disorder... and Discontent can always turn into Unrest later if the rating goes too high...

If we were to allow reshuffling of the build cue, I think that there needs to be a penalty for doing so. Something like losing a percentage of the resources invested into building something 'pushed back' per turn, so that if I end up building a Garden and end up repeatedly shuffling it back in the queue to make a whole bunch of units, I should lose all progress on it, and when I do eventually get around to letting my city work on the Garden again, they have to essentially start over. Conversely, if I only end up building one unit which 'shuffles' the Garden back, not much production is lost.

Call the mechanism 'neglect.' The same thing happens in the real world. Start to build a house then when it's half-finished, stop and start working on it again 5 years later and you'll have to rebuild all the stuff that got damaged by weather or vandalism over those 5 years while it was unfinished and unoccupied, if any of it is left standing at all.