For me the UI is all about how intuitive actions are and finding information where I expect to find it. The speed of operation is entirely different, and I agree that it could do with some improvement - I feel that they have been using an updated graphics engine which they have not quite tuned just yet. As with many new games you need a PC well above recommended specs to get acceptable performance (I'm looking at you Oblivion some years ago).
Graphics engine is not what holds either civ IV or V back (your assertion that it is so is cookie-cutter typical of civ V apologists though!). They are the rare titles that are processor-limited, excepting of course cases where someone's graphics card is miserably terrible. It's not the graphics that are causing 5 second delays after moving a unit (with animations turned off, possibly in strategic mode). It's coding. Civ IV and V each spam almost unbelievable amounts of unnecessary checks and calculations every single turn. I admit that other games can be bad with their engines too, but that does not excuse firaxis; there are also games that DON'T do this! Compare how civ V runs to starcraft II, a contemporary title. Design choices and different genre aside, you can find literally none of the menu item slowdown, delays, or issues with giving units orders in SC II. Does that mean SC II is a better-designed game? Not necessarily. Does that mean SC II's engine and UI (customizable hotkeys! are miles ahead of civ V and more appropriate for a modern title? Absolutely!
So - on the UI - I come from many years of board and table gaming and have never felt that multiple units in a space works particularly well on a PC. On top of that - board games with squares have crazy movement (the diagonals issue) - so:
I'm talking about UI and engine here. Hexes are a design choice and strictly a gameplay element. I'm not going to argue with you about hexes, because I actually believe hexes are a better choice (and hence I'd just be agreeing with that preference).
It's the same thing with 1UPT. The only reason I brought it up is that you'd have to restrict civ IV to that to compare movement between the two games. I'm not sure I prefer 1UPT, but that's irrelevant. The issue here is how long it takes after moving one unit until the game physically lets you attempt to move the next.
Please don't bring design differences into a discussion about why the UI and Engine are bad. It's not like the presence of hexes inherently makes a game run slower and trashier, or that 1UPT precludes the use of hotkeys.
Next, production. OK - let's click on the city to check it out (I have NEVER had to click twice on a city to do this). OK - there's the production queue, let's look at it - hmm, I think I click production - then click what I want to add - done (where are the 5-10 clicks?).
In order to queue up multiple things, you have to click into a city...but you're not totally in the city yet! Actually, you have to press escape, and then and only then can you enable your queue (why do you have to enable this to queue multiple things?!) and then you MUST use a small button to add things to the queue; not hotkeys for it.
In civ IV, you could click on a city once, which had a menu along the bottom. Holding shift and clicking 1 more time added and additional item to the queue. It is literally impossible to accomplish this same thing as quickly in civ V...barring mod work of course!
All of this is VERY intuitive, and I suspect carefully tested with new players
New players don't use hotkeys or take full advantage of modern UI conventions. That only comes with experience.
That aside, I probably have a better idea of what was "carefully tested" in terms of UI than you might initially believe, but I won't comment further on that.
I could rabbit on forever about elements of the interface which I feel are much better organised and accessible than in IV - but hopefully this will at least let you see where I am coming from, and that I was not being frivolous with my comments.
I'm not asking about your feelings. The only thing bringing our feelings into the discussion does here is add bias. I'm not going to take you out to dinner or even the movies either. I just want examples in civ V where you can accomplish the same thing with fewer clicks/higher speed. That can be objectively measured. You seem pretty confident that a multitude of such things exist, yet still haven't presented one.
They ARE universal truths, but Civ 5 players can't see that because they are less intelligent individuals than Civ 4 players!
There ARE some preference differences, but the coding/UI/engine are universal truths and their failings can be objectively quantified. Notice his tendency to go into design features in an effort to wriggle away from the explicitly defined failures of civ V (and IV, honestly).
The reasons have been listed countless times and range from bad design and poor feature implementation, over change of the genre into a wargame, to lack of historical immersion and "gameyness".
I'm equal opportunity, which means I'm going to roast you too even though you like civ IV:
1. Every iteration of civ has, by design, been a "war game". When you look at it from a cost-return optimized approach, military has been priority numero uno since the dawn of the civ series. This is not a valid argument against civ V! It'd be different if you didn't like, for example, that civ V forces more vertical gameplay to be optimal (almost heresy in a 4x game, but still valid if that's their vision). At least THERE, something is actually different from previous titles, unlike the fact that this is a war game
.
2. Historical immersion is subjective. I don't get much out of either game because the AI is frankly ridiculous and incompetent in both iterations...but from an objective perspective the games do not play like "real life" at the fundamental level, so what is the source of this immersion argument? Pretty much just how an individual feels. That is not an interesting or viable debate point when comparing titles.
3. Poor feature implementation: Well, unlike UI/engine they're at least trying. I'll give them that. It's worth noting that both civ IV and civ V have absolutely glaring strategic balance issues (IE some things are just so much better than alternatives that were supposed to be viable on a consistent basis that they become a de-facto, memorized + spammed tactic). The "build orders" in civ V (with some SPolicy options consistently inferior regardless of game/difficulty/map) and the "tech to renaissance and abuse no counter units" in civ IV are each examples of this.
They tried in civ IV too, but I don't think Firaxis understand balance (IE they nerfed the redcoat but left war chariots and praets untouched). Not that understanding balance is easy, but they definitely don't.
Once the shine wears off, you will find that the actual game is a hollow remainder of what Civ used to be.
I think you're forgetting how "deep" pre-civ IV games were. The answer is "not very". Roads/farms/mines? "Settler pumps"? "ICS forever and it's the only true answer ever"? How soon we forget...sad as it is, civ V is easily the 2nd most deep title in the main-line series. I would argue that's true even if you era-adjust, although that might not be fair since civ 1-3 had actual TBS competition.
Well, I am as much tired of folks here who like Civ V trying to peddle personal preferences as universal truths. And I am even more tired of folks who try to shoot down justified and reasonable criticism (they don't share for whatever reason) with generalizations, exaggerations and commonplace like yours.
+1. Pretty amusing to have the accuser doing what he's accusing
Do not feel ofended please. Also I do not like to put my units in zombie-city situation to grind around those filthy never ending hordes of AI , it is just tiresome and pointless , Sun-Tzu is turning in his grave is all I have to say 
Sometimes I might just be staring at the screen, but not impatiently. I usually play games to zone out. I mean, staring at the screen in between turns is no more a waste of time than playing the game in the first place! But I often play games to waste time.
