As another of the long time civ players who is disappointed in how V turned out particularly after all the hype, I'm grateful for games like this that show i'm not alone in my opinion. I wonder if part of the problem is that when they realised it wasn't working back in testing that there was an assumption the community would fix the game? A few thoughts on other peoples thoughts: This might work as an idea, I think you'd perhaps have to throw in some 'free' buildings with the new city though. So you pay more for the settler upfront but get a city with a few of the basic buildings, kind of like an IKEA flatpack city. Whilst rushing training of your own troops with cash didn't really happen, many empires made use of mercenarys which in gameplay terms would probably work out as about the same so you could make an argument for early or at least medieval rush buys. Though I agree that in CiV rush buying definitely needs to be altered. @Chaunceymo: the seperated production queues could work really well but it would lose some of the trade off from other civ games of whether to build an army or infrastructure. Which in 4 particularly could be a very delicate balance of exactly how much to allocate either way. The other problem with some changes will be how well the AI can handle them.