Quoting Heavenfall, reply 36Honestly, separate queues in my opinion is one of those things that look good and feel good but make the game bad. Why just 2 queues? Why not 10? With one queue, that means you are focusing every effort in that city to produce something. That just plain makes sense. If you have two queues, and you're not training something - what are the teachers doing?
This is the general feeling on it imo. As Jon said, choice is the defining strategy in a game and honestly when you have multiple queues you are diluting the importance of that choice, in addition to devaluing core 'resources' such as time and production. Everything you put in the queue should be a weighted choice, with things you are going to have give up or wait on to prioritize others.
Beyond that it can be a lot for players to manage when you have two queues per city, especially as the game advances. It will cause a lot of micro or queues sitting empty, again devaluing your production and time.
Quoting Lycanthropos, reply 46I totally agree that one queue could improve gameplay through decissions to make IF:
the choice between building military units vs. buildings is a plausible path to victory (I mean that it is a viable strategy)
you have a large array of building to choose to build AND in what order do it
I 100% agree with this, both have to be plausible avenues of play and there need to be a lot of options for the player with how to use their resources. Know that we feel the same way, you will not just be spamming workshops in FE
I agree with most of that. I totally agree with the idea of just one production queue. However.. I don't mean to get off on a rant here, but that last bit there, about both avenues of production (either units or buildings) being a viable path to victory.. I don't agree with that. One of my biggest gripes with games like this one and with Galciv2, and even SoaSE is.. Military might perception. The damn computer always thinks it is a great idea to make demands or threats against you just because you have a "seemingly" weaker military presence. They do not take into account the production power that you have, nor your technological/magical might. I always found it so damned annoying when I'd get threatened by someone who has been at peace with me for dozens, if not hundreds of turns just because my military rating has dropped below theirs.
Here is what always happens to the computer when they make these threats... they annoy me by artificially creating tension where there wasn't any before. Even going so far as to break treaties just because they've got a one-track mind of "hes weaker than me, I should take his lunch money". Next is I tell them no thanks bro, I'd like to keep my monies for making my cities more pretty and my people happy. Even though I do often give the AI money so that they can fund their war effort against *other* empires, not mine.. So of course, the next thing the computer does is get salty and decides it is time to attack me. Well, at this point it is too late. They've woke daddy. I stop being nice and building up my city and using my diplomatic skills to keep the game going, so I just crush them with either magic in Elemental or I switch to heavy production in Galciv2/SoaSE and produce a massive fleet within a few turns, utterly destroying everything they've ever known and loved. When it all could have been avoided by letting me get by with just diplomacy.
It really annoyed me when the "nice" races of Galciv2 would make demands of me, out of the blue because they were "stronger". Sigh.. I blew up their home stars. Just because of their hubris. Perhaps it is just my playstyle, but I like to have my own little corner somewhere and watch the AI change the landscape of the game. At which point I keep the peace with diplomacy, or force the AI to distrust one another. Good times..
I think the AI should have a way of knowing what has happened to other AI that have attacked you in the past, and take into account their single most important stat of "military might" and see that it didn't help them in the end. Which I assure you, was quick and dreadfully painful. Whats worse, is sometimes they've even used ships that I designed for them, sold to them (cheap, very cheap) just so they could stand a chance against a larger empire's ships. The nerve! I do not know if it is a technological limit on the design of the AI, or if it is a design decision that they should be always hyper aggressive towards those that are perceived to be weaker(militarily) then they are.. but I'd like it if the AI would at least look at the player as if they had just had their best friend Krillin killed in front of their eyes. That damn monkey of a player at any moment will bend the AI over its knee and make a hand puppet of them. But anyway, I digress..
Speaking of Galciv.. It has been a while, I think I'll go play some.
*Edit* I forgot to add my point.. The sadness of my past experiences being sullied by a bully AI overtook me. I would very much like it if the path to building could lead to victory, but I just don't see that happening with overly aggressive AIs. The moment they encounter you and see that you have a far inferior fighting force, they will simply take you for a chump and force you to play their way. Now if using a build path that wasn't strictly offensive, perhaps a defensive building strategy to protect your cities and have a way to win the game without the need of large armies.. That'd be cool. Just need the AI to have a way of knowing that you wouldn't be an easy meal.