There aren't enough buildings, and the early-mid game economy is so weak that I have a hard time seeing why you would even NEED a second build queue until late game.

I was a HUGE proponent of removing the second build queue because when even one of them sits empty it represents a waste of volatile resource (production) for which we get no benefit. Splitting production 50/50 between the two queues when they are both producing would be a functional compromise, but as Tasunke said, in 4x games it is the mutually exclusive choices which really drive these games. I am choosing to build military instead of a granary right now, and that will forever impact the productivity of my kingdom. However, my opponent has to make that same choice.

I've yet to have an empty build cue under the new build.  In E:WOM, I always was able to keep both build cues busy, but as you pointed out the number of structures has been pared down a bit.  I don't think that is necessarily a good thing.  I thought the goal was more city differentiation, not less...

Larger armies/army groups helps mitigate random results in combat a bit, so I'm a proponent for letting players build units to their hearts content, as long as manpower is available and they can afford the build and maintenance costs.  But cities shouldn't be neglected in the process.  Sure, progress on construction projects should slow up, but I don't think it should stop completely, especially if other victory conditions (economic/diplomatic/knowledge) will be coming into play at some point.

I haven't played on the upper difficulty levels, which may be a factor.  I do a lot of exploration in the early game, and I focus exclusively on gildar production with settlement upgrades and such.  Plus selling used gear helps.  Also, units tend to die a lot, so unit maintenance is less of a factor than it otherwise might be...

I'm a fan of games with lots of action, not games that proceed at a snail's pace, and my initial scenario settings reflect that.

I agree with this statement. Choice it's always about choice.

That is a good point. Production is totally lost if you stop building or training. This needs some elaboration. 

Yea ... It'd be nice to be able to have a more flexible build que.

Like for instance I'm building a library, then half way through I want to switch to a unit ... and then continue the library again.

What I have asked for in other threads is to be able to reorganize your queue using a drag-and-drop method with the mouse for ease of switching production. I'd be totally content with an "if it's still in queue, production isn't lost" model.

Totally cancel it and it goes away, but so long as you are still "planning" to have that Library, it can wait until after we sharpen up a few sticks and teach people not to stab themselves with them.

@Jtakeman I agree, but its still something that needs addressed because buildings and units are fundamentally different types of production.

I like the idea of the dual Building/Training queue. Some things I don't like though.

Whatever happens, I would like to see that things half-built, remain half-built until such time as they are resumed. I wouldn't mind for there to be some time to be lost if a project is on hold overlong. I would just like to pause a build, then come back to finishing it later. 

With current build 2 seperate queus is unnecessary. If a lot more buildings added than maybe but not as things stand

Good idea

I like the single production queue.

I also like having a 'lose all accumulated production' penalty when changing production.

It means you have to think about what you are building/training and take into account the opportunity cost.  Choices...

Sure it's simpler if you can reorder the queue at will but it is not as if the game is too difficult at the moment.  Build queue time should be looked at as a limited resource and chopping and changing should have its costs.

Just a couple of observations on some of the above comments. 

A 50/50 split in production doesn't really accomplish anything.  Essentially both items take twice as long to build, so you might as well build one, then build the other, so you get at least one of them halfway through the process.  Hence, there needs to be some mechanic that reduces the production time of both slightly to make doing both simultaneously worthwhile.

As for the comments of shuffling the production cue, while retaining progress on builds, this definitely should be implemented.  This way you can pick up where you left off if you feel the need to shift from buildings to units.

Finally, I think that the production times for the more expensive units may need to be reduced a bit.  My reasoning on this is that having more troops in battle helps reduce luck a bit in combat, and maneuvering six units around for position in combat is more interesting than two, and allows for more strategy to develop in said combats.  Of couse, I had no issues with the twelve unit cap in E:WOM in the first place...

Discontent might be a better word.  Just because your not happy with the current government doesn't necessarily mean you will be going out and resisting.  Unrest kind of implies civil disorder... and Discontent can always turn into Unrest later if the rating goes too high...