I trend to agree "some what" with this, and this is my constant worry, that
fun is sacrificed for the sake of
balance no matter what. I think it's the right mind set though, to try to balance whatever can be balanced, but one has to be really careful not going to the extreme. An example of this is the current discussion of
"Without A River" thread in the general balance forum. That would be to remove another intresting aspect of the game
.
I mean if some people had their way we would all be playing the "doughnut" map (and that's not even a joke

). I'm all for change and balance, but not if the objective is to eliminate whatever small edge there might still be left to polish.
I'm a player that don't care about playing stratgical balanced games (in some aspects):
I love the chase for
Iron, coal, oil etc. Maybe plan an out right war due jealousy of my neighbour and all his juicy land. I love the landgrab chase after
luxuries to be able to deal with internal struggles within my own empire and perhaps making some more money from
trading (another aspect that feels more "dull"). I no longer have to bother about that and can just settle where ever there is food and production (and maybe a monopoly) - due to the new happiness system (it isn't tweaked and blanced yet, so I keep my fingers crossed that resources won't stay worthless).
I want to have a reason to expand and that reason alone can't be the dull objective "because I just want to grow tall & wide so I can beat the game". If every "roleplaying" aspect of the game is rooted out I will lose my interest.
In general though I'm very happy about where we are at, even though I for the first time in VP history reinstalled the old patch. I'll wait until some issues are sorted out before I'll give this new system another go.