So, I had an idea. The devs are clearly making strong changes to the core mechanics of the game based upon a vision of how the game ought to play out by turn X. There's absolutely nothing wrong with this as a design philosophy, because it's really easy to think back to the games that played out in the most exciting fashion and try to strive for every game to be that way. The problem comes when actually balancing the changes that are made -- feedback is necessarily subjective, we don't really know every motivating intention the devs have and we don't really know what they have accounted for, or failed to account for, in terms of the consequences of changing core mechanics (witness: the health changes). While a lot of the proposed tweaks to the new health system are good, let's face it, with eleventy-billion civs and leaders to balance, anecdotal evidence just isn't going to cut it. So, I propose that in *this* thread, we post our save files right before the game is done, or at least at the point where we pretty much know the game is over. *In addition* we post the save file from Turn 1 of that same game. Accompany those files with a general description of how the game played out for you -- details should not be necessary because the end effect of all the micromanaging is going to be represented by the end state of the game, in comparison to the beginning state. Just flesh out any key strategic decisions you made -- especially whether you did something because it fit your leader's alignment or because it put you one step closer to your chosen victory conditions. If you got an Assassin from a lair on turn 50 and changed your winning strategy from an Altar victory to a Conquest victory, mention this. The devs can then look at the world on turn 1, look at it again on the final turn, and actually use the expansion vid on game completion as well as the graphs to get a sense of which civs are underperforming and why. Key here is the fact that they can see the resource layout, city placement and city management of the AI to understand how the AI adapted to its circumstances. This is about as close to empirical evidence I think we can get, given the nature of the development process of a project like this. Devs, sticky this if it's a good idea... let it get buried if it isn't. Remember that you don't have to look at *every* game to get value out of the process.