Thanks
EDIT: I remember looking at this in the XML files but I could not find anything myself that looked suspicious.
I have been looking through this thread and figured I could give some feedback on some of the issues discussed:
One thing that i've done was to increase the treadmill crane a 20% production bonus (up from 15%), construction firm 30% (up from 20%) and particularly give church / free church extra production bonsus (I upped them by 5% each). Those two civics as well as the treadmill crane become available at a particular point in the game (middle ages) where there are simply too many buildings to build in too short a time (I play on epic).
Getting Hammers in the early game is hard. That was one of the means Afforess and os79 used to restrict growth and adjust build times. I don't really like it. Too restrictive imho.
Well part of the problem is with +
buildings in AND is that they have maintenance costs attributed to them. Minus a few initial buildings I usually put a lot of my cities on autobuild and the AI governor avoids producing
buildings like the plague. Questionably, the AI governor does not even produce healers hut or doctors office even though they have not maintenance costs attributed them. What I have done a few months back was to partially remove the maintenance costs for the
buildings but increase their production costs by up to 50%. Don't know how others would feel about this alternative?
I'll be taking a look before I give feedback.
On a different note, I have thought about the issue behind early unhappiness in the game; I am not sure how the early civics in AND 2.0 are, but I had to remove the exceeding unhappyness penalties for non captial cities as well as the no unhappiness in the capital city that had recently been introduced for early government civics.
I recently reduced the Unhappiness from War Weariness on 3 of the Gov't Civics. But there is a lot of unhappy tacked onto many others.
I may have increased the maintenance costs number of cities and distance from capital to compensate but i dont remember. Either way under my configuration the maintenance costs by themselves restrict early expansion to max 3-4 cities until one has monarchy.
Not sure if this is needed.
One thing I do not want is for Expansionist leaders and Players to be forced into holding back on City Building, even early game. I've fought both Afforess and the C2C Team over this issue before. It takes away from the choices the player and AI should have the option to do, Turtle down or Expand or somewhere in the middle.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One word of Warning; Barb World Option does have a Bug. If the Barb AI attacks an AI Player that has a newly built city, conquers that city and then razes it, it will give a CTD. You can get past it but it takes a bit of work in that you have to clear the Log files replay the turn and get the CTD to reproduce. Then check the Python error logs and find the last line that reads like this example:
PY
layer 50 Civilization Barbarian State Unit Axeman was killed by Player 11
PY
layer 11 Civilization Kingdom of Rome Unit Explorer was killed by Player 50
PY
layer 4 Civilization Kingdom of Germany Unit Settler was killed by Player 50
PY:City Acquired Event: Duisburg
PY:City Razed Event: Duisburg
Especially the last 2 lines.
You will need to go into World Builder, Find that City and Delete the attacking barb units. Return to the game and you should be able to continue.
Looking for a Python expert to help fix this.
JosEPh
.
for the gold, silver and gem bonuses granting a total possible of +6 
and 25% trade route yield. This does not only make the building OP but also makes the ability to have a strong early economy heavily dependent on having either gold, silver or gems. My suggestion would be to have the trade route yield for the jewelry reduced to 15% (down from 25%) and have the +10 % 
