Derrick01 said:
I was not aware there was such hate for Civ 5. It's like the ME2 of Civilization games!
There's a lot in Civ 5 that is really awesome. It's very much a "one step forward, one step back" sort of evolution in the series and a lot of us are wondering if Firaxis/2K will work on patches/DLC/expansions to mitigate or correct the steps backwards for the series.
Finding a longtime Civ player who hates every part of the game is hard. Finding one that can't point out a half dozen mind-boggling, fundamental problems with the game is also not hard.
I was a big fan of the city state interaction myself. Added a lot of options that weren't available in Civ4 as to how you deal with non-major nations.
Its a Civ tradition for diplomacy "ratings" to be wildly off, but at least in Civ5 you could make some pretense of it working with the city states and whatnot.
I like the City-States too. They add a neutral element to the game that you have to work with that you just can't roll over with armies, as it is usually pretty unprofitable to do so.
The diplomacy ratings in Civ4 were VERY important. Every leader had a set of actions that they could perform depending on your relation to them (pleased, annoyed, cautious, friendly, etc.). Once you knew the AI thresholds for war declarations, bribing into war, etc, meeting those thresholds for some of AIs really determined how you played the game. There was personality there-Montezuma the madman, Catherine and Suryaman the backstabbers, Shaka the "I will war anyone for the right price", Mansa Musa the ultimate tech whore/peace vassaler, etc. Civ 5 has none of that personality due to the triggered AI behaviors trumping disposition, and it hurts for it.