Hey stethnorun,
i just read your article and i disagree on most what you wrote. First a quote which sums up my first thoughts:
The article is based on two wrong assumptions:
1. "Depth = Complexity". Chess is one good example that a game can be simple and still very deep. On the other hand if you add a lot of features to a game, that might make it more complex, but not necessarily more deep.
2. The assumption that complexity of a game is somehow the total sum of the complexity of its subsystems (warfare, economy, diplomacy, etc.) is wrong and neglects what complexity is all about: interactions between subsystems.
What makes Civ4 a much deeper game (and also more complex) is that it ties all the subsystems much better together (war weariness for example). On paper Civ5 might look deep, but in reality it quickly falls apart.
However, the longer i think about it the more i have to disagree to point 2. The complexity in civ4 comes from an incredible amount of knowlegde that is required to play the game successfully on the highest difficulty levels. This knowledge ranges from the simplest (what changes when i switch into organized religion now) to the finest (when exactly are new trade routes calculated) scale and all small subsystems in civ4 that Sephi refers to are linked to it. Some of those information is readily available in the game, some is more or less hidden (wheoorn) and some can only be extracted from the files (peaceweight, unit build prob). Strictly the interactions of those subsystems are well known aswell and (if known to the player) would not add depth but just more information that is needed to master the game. The problem is that the human brain is not able to capture all of it. In addition to the knowledge you need its the ability to plan and execute stuff on all time scales correctly which creates the depth of civ. In analogy the amount of turns a chess player can plan ahead is probably an indicator of how good he is. In civ alot of those things are pure experience values. When you watch AbsoluteZeros deity lets plays you can see that the most important decisions (who to bribe, how many units are enough to attack) are based on his experience. The fact that civ is an incomplete information game is negligible here given that you really have (or can get) all the information you need. Back to the civ4 civ5 complexity/depth discussion as civ4 has just a immense amount of gameplay elements which interact with each other i dont see how anyone could argue in favor of civ5.
Now some things where i strongly disagree with you:
Civ 5, on the other hand, in limiting units to one unit per tile, forces the player to take terrain into account, protect ranged and injured units
If you want to be effective, you have to take terrain into account in civ4, too. Hills, forests and rivers are key elements when you want to make a first strike on the enemy counter stack. In addition, you have to protect injured units too. You just talk about civ4 strategy like you have a 50 units stack that is superior to everything. As this maybe true in a later stage of a game and at lower difficulties early warmongering on imm/deity or mounted warfare is by no means pure stack vs stack.
So, combat is clearly much more complex in Civ 5
Based on what i wrote above i think with its first strike rules, difference in +str and other promotions, ignoring of walls/castles and stuff the civ4 combat rules are even more complex than the civ5 ones. No doubt that civ5 is more a tactical game though.
Here, I just don’t see much difference between the two games. You can still trade resources (which are made much more important in Civ 5 for hapiness reasons), gold and cities, make defensive pacts, join in cooperative wars, and even enter into non-formal “friendships” and denunciations. So what is missing? Civ 4 had religions, which were the main dividing lines between blocks of alliances. If I was Buddhist and you were Hindu, chances are, we weren’t going to be friends, until maybe later in the game. Does this add complexity? No, what it adds is arbitrariness.
Of course the diplomacy is more complex in civ4 because you have to be aware of a ton of things when you successfully want to manage it. Some examples:
How many trades can i make with xy to reach WFYABTA limit?
What can i do to increase relation with xy to get him to pleased so that i can bribe him into a war?
Will it piss off xy if i switch into that religion?
How will xy react if i trade with his worst enemy?
Will xy probably switch into another religion soon?
How many techs does xy want fo a bribe against the other one?
Can xy attack me when i am pleased with him?
In fact by what deity players say the handling of diplomacy is the most important thing at the highest difficulty level. You may like or dislike the system for its feature to be highly exploitable but you cant say its not more complex than in civ5.
Instead of the AI disliking or liking you based on what you do (the actions you take regarding settling cities, gathering troops worryingly close, etc), the AI was disliking or liking who you are.
First your state religion is not what you people or you "are" but something that you as a leader have decided to be. Its just like one of your other decisions. In addition the civ4 AI also likes/dislikes you based on other actions like stop trading with other ones, trading with other ones, settling near them (indireclty through shared borders) etc.
Finally, you can’t trade maps or technologies in Civ 5. Does that make it less complex?
Yes it does because another thing to be considered in civ4 is which technologies the AI already has. You want to research things that nobody else has so that you can get the maximum tradeoff.
Social policies is a point of debate. I personally like civics more because it adds new game elements (drafting, whipping, rushbuy) into the game instead of a +anything. Both have to be incorporated into your gameplay and i dont know which is more complex or deep.
One thing i like to add. I dont want to be offensive but you whole article is very subjective and every few lines it shines through that you like civ5 more. Just read the captions of your pictures and tell me they are not subjective. Its ridiculous that the page is called "Objectivist Gamer". From you postings i read that you are the kind of a player who does not like too much micromanagement. Or with other words you dont enjoy pushing the game to its limits and try to beat it on the highest difficulty level. Is this then really a good background to make complexity analysis of a game where the understanding and execution of all of its parts is absolutely necessary?
greetings Knightly