I agree to the analysis in general. I see someone saying removed features were redundant, like health, corporations. Can't agree that they were redundant but even if they were, they had to be in civ, in any form. Why? Because they were all around human history and played great roles. Disease was a major pain throughout any civilization history and it will continue to be. Corporations? Do we need any explanation? We are debating over a corporate-made computer game series. I personally expected a lot for civ 5 to have greatly reformed corporation feature. In Civ 5, many things that made us feel the reality are gone. Civ designers must have put their effort to increase the reality, and not cut them down. If they were to follow the trend of simplifying everything, why didn't they just make ciV RTS? Let's face it. Do you think civ would be so successful if you weren't playing with real civilizations like Rome, Greece? What if you were playing empire A, B, C ? What if your city isn't New York but some_numbers_only_inside_your_computer? There were many civ-like board games, and I think what makes us we love civ and what makes civ different from those board-games is complexity. Complexity something human player cannot or wouldn't be happy to handle, like calculating trade routes, how many gold you get each turn, etc. If civ designers keep this approach, that would be simply playing a board game with fancy graphics and (dumb) AI.