fursav: Has anyone here played Civ 5? There is a decent deal on it at amazon but I know the initial user reviews were horrible. So has the game improved at all since the release?
Psyringe: For me (and many others, check the forums at CivFanatics aound release time) the game is so spectacularly bad that it almost hurts to play it. The problems (atrocious AI, less choices for the player, removal of many game elements, crude UI that hides many values from the player and requires tons of clicks to get those that aren't hidden, etc.) are so severe, and so deeply ingrained in the design, that no amount of patching or modding is going to totally fix them. On top of it, it requires Steam. Personally, I wouldn't even buy it for 5$. There also is little chance that more non-superficial ficing will be done, because the lead designer was fired (or left voluntarily, details are unknown) in the meantime.
However, I belong to the (rather large) group of people who liked Civ4 very much. Civ5 seems to appeal more to people who didn't. In essence, the game now plays like a wargame with some additional elements tacked on. This appeals to the people who always played that way (which was tho only strategy in Civ2, a very successful strategy in Civ3, and relatively difficult in Civ4). For people who like Civ games for the atmosphere, for the feeling of being immersed in the creation of a complex alternative history while being a part of it, Civ5 has very little to offer.
I don't think you're being very objective here.
I preferred Civ 4 too, though my favourite Civ game is still 2, but Civ 5 is still a good game in its own right despite problems.
It achieves exactly what it wanted to do, that is provide a good, easily accessible, turn-based strategy game. Of course such an approach is bound to annoy hardcore fans of previous Civ games, but let's face it; you weren't the target audience for Civ 5 anyway.
And saying the the people on the Civfanatics forums represent a large number of the people who played Civ 5 is like saying the people at NMA are a large part of the Fallout 3 fanbase.
People who post on fansites' forums are mostly hardcore fans, and hardore fans, like it or not, are always a small part of the audience of any mainstream media. Most of the people I know who played Civ 5 liked it, although many, like me, feel it's a bit too simple.
You're also being dishonest about what the game is. It's not just a wargame, and war is defiinitely not the only way to win, although it's the easiest because as usual with Civ games the war A.I. is bad.
War has always been the easiest way to win in Civ games, even in Civ 4. It's more true in Civ 5 than most, but I've still won games without ever being at war. It's NEVER been the only strategy available to players, whether in Civ 2 or in Civ 5.
And neither has Civilization ever been about alternate history. Thinking it is mean you don't know what alternate history is. You should go play Europa Universalis or other Paradox games and see what I mean.