Out of like a hundred games of Civ IV, only a handful would probably have been conquest-style ones. And I only remember finishing a couple of those.
In Civ V though, the whole building thing is so incredibly boring and the warfare so much better to manage, I play every game as a warmonger.
This.
With the WB release, I do what I've always done -- created myself a few custom maps tailor-made to a nesting style of play... Limited egress via small passes through mountains, chokepoints I can defend, and lush, resource filled terrain to support a smaller, building and development focused empire. I toss some additional bonuses and units at the AI and give it a whirl.
There's just a lot less to do.
I loaded up one of my similar maps in IV to run through a quick comparison (played through about 150 turns in each) -- and the ratio of 'Next Turns with nothing to do' was almost 3 times higher in V. I can certainly accept that some of the things that 'filled' turns in IV others found boring, but I guess for me, they were the essence of my playstyle:
1) cottages were a biggie, as were the additional resources (though, this isn't entirely fair as my IV map pulled in even more resources from AND)
2) Religion, obviously - as per usual, two spiritual civs popped Hinduism and Buddhism... each of which spread to single cities -- and I then popped Judaism... which made for some interesting turns as I tried to figure out which to spread... Ultimately, I selected Buddhism because it was in my prime wonder city AND Izzy was the founder and I wanted to stay on her good side for the time being...
3) My building count in IV vs. V was out of control -- even with 3 wonders built in IV (vs. 2 in V -- I lost 2 others to the AI) -- I had 18 buildings (over 5 cities) in IV vs. just 3 buildings (also over 5 cities) in V. A big part of this was, of course, wonder chasing -- but chopping hammers (lower in V) and production costs was another biggie.
4) Scientific pathing in IV vs. V -- even though I've played 1000s of hours in IV, I found I didn't really have a set path... I initially started towards Hinduism to try to pop an early religion (random AI opponents - didn't know at the beginning I had a spiritual opponent in the game), but then deviated. In V - beelined calendar and writing.
5) worker stacking - something few have mentioned, but it's a big difference. Had marble near a city in V, stone and marble near cities in the IV game... I very much like more the fact that in IV, I sent all my workers to hurry the quarries in IV (to get the wonder bonuses), while in V -- all I could do is wait for the one worker to finish. This dominoes exponentially -- it's a big reason I had so many more buildings in IV.
6) One thing I'll give to V -- I'm perhaps the only person in the Civ world who virtually NEVER adopts slavery in IV.... it's not a moral thing -- it's just that a) I hate wasting turns on anarchy, and b) due to a, by the time I get my first GA or my civ is up and arms DEMANDING a more efficient government, I have other options available. I prefer chopping to whipping --- in V, I bought 2 of my 4 post-capital cities (i.e., settler buys). Had to chop/build 'em in IV.
7) I like GPs more in IV -- got one in each -- in V, it was pretty much a no brainer to pop a tech (great scientist)... I had designs on later building Chichen Itza and didn't want to burn another GA until I got the 50% bonus. In IV - I actually got a Great Spy -- who was settled in the city with the Great Wall (my capital). This almost immediately gave me good intelligence on what the AI was researching.
8) I did get a GA in V -- and the one nice thing I'll say about global happiness is getting more GAs is probably worth keeping... I'd still like to see happiness returned to the city level, but wouldn't mind keeping a "global bar", where excess per city still fed a global progress bar. In IV -- I was pretty much waiting for a GP I could spend.
