Ok, by picking the definition that involved the word 'efficient' I probably harmed my point a bit. The point I was getting at is that streamlining is about making something simpler by cutting out the non essential stuff. In the definition I quoted, it's mainly spoken of in context of business, where the goal of streamlining a process would be to save on unnecessary costs. The efficiency bit is not really what I was trying to get at with civ5. I still would argue the buildings in civ5 have their functions streamlined. There is no question about what each of them is for. There might be wonderfully complex decisions involved in picking which one to use, but their individual functions are obvious. Some provide happiness. Some provide science. Some provide gold. Not really any of them have a mixture of benefits where in some situations one benefit would go unused. There are exceptions to this of course, and most of them seem to be from the UBs, and also the ones that provide specialist slots. Anyway, my point is that you're arguing a different point to what I was trying to make, and there isn't anything I'm trying to claim that disagrees with you. All of what you've said can happen if the function of buildings is relatively straight forward. Unlike in civ4, there's no longer any reason to build a market to increase happiness, or a library to increase culture, or a castle to increase trade. These are the sorts of things I am talking about. I don't think there's any problem with it - it's just an observation, which obviously many people are also making (and some dislike it more than I do ).