If it was all about efficiency then every single mechanic would be clear to the player so that you could plan the outcome of every battle by knowing the maths going on behind the scenes.
Yes! This would be great. In Civ4, you can do this, mostly, the mechanics are pretty clear. You're making a die-roll, but you know what the probabilities of the outcomes are.
This is a strategy game, not a historic roleplaying game.
I feel you are missing the reason why they would consider making a change like this.
Yes, I am. I fail to see why maknig it more difficult to devise an effective strategy makes the game more fun. If you hide the affects of your actions, you end up with a game like Moo3, where you're stumbling around in the dark because you can't tell whether an action you just took mattered or not.
Suppose that my neighbor asks for a gift; why would you possibly not want to know whether giving them the gift will make them like you better or dislike you more?
If his diplomatic modifiers are hidden I won't know why he thinks he is in an arms race.
Personally I don't want to know the why...
How could you possibly not want to know why?
If my neighbor is building a big army, I want to know if its more likely that they're going to invade me, or if they're going to invade my rival.
I want to know which actions I have taken are more likely to make me the target, so that I know how to avoid that, and so that I know they're worth taking (is it worth me invading that little tiny civ if it pisses off my good friend?).
And for all the people saying "realism"; in just about every major war in history, you could anticipate it beforehand; you know roughly who is likely to end up in conflict, and you know why they're going to do it. Leaders weren't stupid, and had pretty good intelligence. If a foreign power was annoyed at you, you know that, and you know why. They don't just suddenly show up at your door one day with an army.
It could be resource rivalry, or power rivalry, or religion, or expansionism, or to support an ally, but you know the reason, and you have at least some feel for which side a given country is likely to declare war on (will they invade me, or my rival?).
Yes, there are often miscalculations, but the basic system of alliances is pretty clear at the time. Its not like anyone in the 1930s thought France would invade Britain, its not like anyone in Cold War Europe thought that the UK would intervene to help the Soviets, its not like during the late 1930s Canada would be disturbed by a military buildup in the US, its not like anyone in New Zealand worries about being invaded by Australia (we'd see them off alright though - with *both* our frigates).
So...Do I reinforce my borders in case Monty attacks me? Darn right I do, unless I have extremely compelling intel that suggests otherwise.
What about: that neighbor building up an army has been your closest ally for 500 years, and you've been trading with them, giving them techs and liberating cities for them, and you have the same religion and adopted their favorite civic. You don't think you should be able to tell if that matters, and if it makes them less likely to invade you?
The absence of information makes strategic planning difficult, and strategic planning/decision-maknig is what we *do* in a strategy game. No-one seems able to explain to me why this is not the over-riding issue.
