So I'm pretty much just thinking out loud here, sharing some of my thoughts on Civ 5, all comments are welcome. It's pretty obvious to anyone familiar with Rise of Nations that Civ 5 has borrowed heavily from it's features, examples including : Embarkation, Capital City being only target needed to eliminate a civ, 2D diplomacy, Simple tech tree, Social Policy/Goverment system which is permanent once selected. Unique power for Nations, (Egypt even has the exact same power) These features work superbly in Rise of Nations because it is at it's core a war game, I don't play Rise of Nations in order to build a vast empire which will last the ages, I play to crush my enemies and every choice I make be it building and city placement or technology researched is done with a purely military agenda in mind. When I play Civ however military is usually a secondary agenda to me. It is always necessary to have an army, but not to use it. I enjoy setting up a government to best run my empire and making sure that my cities have resources they need in order to thrive, and managing my relations with neighbors. It is both difficult and time consuming to properly manage a large empire which holds millions of citizens and has interests all over the globe, and it is that challenge which I most enjoy about Civ games. I have always viewed Rise of Nations as adding a lot of Civ features to the core of Age of Empires. What this results in is an RTS which has a lot more depth and variety then before. I see Civ 5 as a sort of reverse of this, adding a lot of Age of Empires esc features to the basic core of Civ and I don't belive that it works well this way. I see Rise of Nations and Civ 5 as being essentially an RTS and a TBS format of the same game. When I want to play a Civ style war game, I play Rise of Nations. When I want to play an epic empire building game I play Civ 4. Civ 5 tries to be both of these things at once, and in my opinion doesn't achieve either.