Civ5 has been dumbed down - 8 examples

[Olleus]

There are an awful lot of people on this forum scream heresy about how much CiV has been dumbed down for the console market and how it is a much simpler shallower game, or that it is merely a war game. I'll look into 5 key examples to see how this is the case.

Economy
Civ4 was the first civ game where you had to worry about how much commerce you were generating - before all it involved was plonking down roads everywhere. In Civ4 you have to build cottages/have specialists and worry somewhat about trade routes - especially international ones in the mid-late game. However, in 99% of cases the use for gold was easy, to allow you to run the science slider as high possible. There was no other real use for it. In 5 the choice for the economy is very different. For a start you have to chose between science or gold (or culture) from the very start. For science you run your population as high as possible, so you build farms; for gold simply build trade posts. But its more complicated than that, because high populations lead to more gold from trade routes, and more gold leads to more research agreements.
In short, there is more variety in 4 from how you generate commerce; but in 5 there are far more uses for it which require careful thought.

Culture
Culture in Civ4 was rather dull. Once a city had expanded its big fat cross, there was little importance for it in most circumstance. Sometimes you'd want to start a culture battle with another civ to win or lose a handful of tiles or to get a resource 3 tiles away, but that was the exception not the rule. In Civ5 with the addition of Social Policies, its completely different. While early SPs are very good, the late game ones are incredibly powerful. Culture is now genuinely useful at every stage. Even later on in the game I care about the cultural output of my core cities. This was never the case in Civ4 (bar cultural victory of course). This is clearly not one area which has been dumbed down.

Warfare
Tensions run high around here about 1UPT, but the bottom line is, whether you like it or not, that removing SOD make the game more complex (not saying anything about its realism). Having to chose which units go where as well as having ranged bombardment adds depth to the game. This is obviously one area where it hasn't been 'dumbed down'.

Diplomacy
With all its figures on show and Religion in the game, civ4 diplomacy was almost perfectly transparent and quite easy to understand and manipulate. Civ5 (post patch) feels like the leaders are following the rules of real politik and although alliances can be made; don't expect anyone to act directly against their own best interests. I'm not sure you can say if either system is simpler than the other, it just depends on how Machiavellian you want your game to be.

Corporations/City States
I've put these in the same category because they're both about using gold for other stuff. Corporations in Civ4 never seemed to be widely appreciated and using them was often banal and repetetive - they could be used as both a weapon and a tool for growth but weren't all that important in either respect. City states on the other hand are also a bit tedious requiring constant gifts of gold but there interplay in diplomacy and quests liven the game up a lot. In this case, the sheer number of interactions with other game systems means that City States are a more complex system than Corporations.

Social Policies vs Civics
Social policies allow a much greater diversification and specialisation that Civics, but aren't refundable and don't allow you to change your mind. Some say that forcing you to plan ahead is more strategic, others that it removes player choice - on the whole its fairly balanced. However, another difference is that Civics were given as freebies as you went along the tech tree, while social policies require an active investment in culture growth. A system that requires you to invest (and hence sacrifice something else) for a later gain must be considered one that increases complexity.

Empire growth
In civ4 the only combatant of ICS and REX was maintenance cost. However, an even slightly matured city would always pay that back easily. Hence, the best tactic in Civ4, usually, was constant slow expansion. In Civ5 the cost of expansion is happiness, and cities generally do not ever provide more happiness that they provide. Hence, there is a real cost to large empires - both in Happiness and increased SP cost. This means that there is a real grand-level strategic decision to be taken about, not just how fast you want to expand, but the total size you want to be. An example of an additional non-repetitive interesting decision - the hallmark of complexity in a strategy game.

Espionage
Little to say here, clearly the Civ4BtS system was far from perfect and wasn't that great; but the total removal of a game mechanic with no replacement what so ever can only really be called dumbing down.


Conclusion or tl;dr
Read the last line from each paragraph and make your mind up

 

[TheMeInTeam]

don't expect anyone to act directly against their own best interests.

They do this constantly and w/o logic.

In both games. In both games AI exhibit behavior that amounts to "losing on purpose", that essentially props up another civ, be it human or AI.

I've put these in the same category because they're both about using gold for other stuff. Corporations in Civ4 never seemed to be widely appreciated and using them was often banal and repetetive - they could be used as both a weapon and a tool for growth but weren't all that important in either respect.

You're making a pretty good case that you don't understand corporations and their tradeoffs in civ IV. I'm not going to say they're more or less complex than city states, but seriously. If you're going to comment on the mechanic, know the mechanic. Corps are absolutely critical to HoF space games and the decision on whether or not to even use them (and which one/how/what cities) is an important consideration in general high level games.

In civ4 the only combatant of ICS and REX was maintenance cost. However, an even slightly matured city would always pay that back easily. Hence, the best tactic in Civ4, usually, was constant slow expansion. In Civ5 the cost of expansion is happiness, and cities generally do not ever provide more happiness that they provide. Hence, there is a real cost to large empires - both in Happiness and increased SP cost. This means that there is a real grand-level strategic decision to be taken about, not just how fast you want to expand, but the total size you want to be. An example of an additional non-repetitive interesting decision - the hallmark of complexity in a strategy game.

Again...not so accurate. For either game. Rather than constant slow expansion, you could get away with city SPAM in IV below deity and have like 12 cities by 1 AD, w/o crashing. If they were good sites, doing that would be worth it, too. Civ V relies very heavily on resources for expansion, and resource trading/RA replace tech trades as critical. Post patch makes it arguably slightly harder in V to city spam, but you can still do it (or simply spam conquest) effectively.

Anyway, I'm not going to make the case that it's dumbed down. That is not, and never has been the game's problem. The game's problem is that it carries over bad issues from civ IV (crappy controls/broken non-existent hotkeys, parasitic self-destructive AI tagteams, bugs with unit movement/interruption, hugely inefficient and joke-tastic UI that even lies on occasion, very slow-running games while above specs, complete imbalance of victory conditions) and adds a few of its own.

In some respects, one or the other is better. For example, in civ IV you didn't have an issue where a trebuchet given a command that clearly reads "ranged attack" instead moves sideways. However, civ V doesn't have completely broken/laughable vassal state mechanics/rules or the "we didn't playtest this but put it in anyway and decided never to patch it" apostolic palace.

In a lot of ways, I miss IV, but especially the community of IV, with long-running play-along series and way more discussion about how to be good about the game rather than threads arguing points like this. General frustration w/ the series is mounting though, and not just for me, and that's making it harder. I'll try over on strategy and tips, but not on GD.

 

[JohnnyW]

I disagree with several points in your post. I think the main point you are forgetting is that the inability of the AI to properly manage any aspects of the game. This makes each point you've made irrelevant as Civ5 is dumbed down in its entirety because of this.

edited for run-on sentence.

 

[ikillu64]

I agree on everything you said. Everything! I would have said the same exact things as you... Are you stalking me?

 

[Ahriman]

I think the main point you are forgetting is that the inability of the AI to properly manage any aspects of the game. This makes each point you've made irrelevant as Civ5 is dumbed down in its entirety because of this.

This is an amazing form of cognitive dissonance.
"Civ5 is dumbed down because its so complex that the AI doesn't play it very well."

Huh?

Its totally fair to complain about the weakness of Civ5, but its a problem kinda because the game *hasn't* been dumbed down.
There are a few things that I think have been overly streamlined, like the tech tree and terrain improvements (largely done because the Civ4 AI was really bad at choosing tile improvements, its easier to work with a simpler system).
And I still find the Civ5 diplomacy system very non-transparent and frustrating.

But endless claims that the whole game is dumbed down really miss the point.

 

[Olleus]

They do this constantly and w/o logic.

In both games. In both games AI exhibit behavior that amounts to "losing on purpose", that essentially props up another civ, be it human or AI.



You're making a pretty good case that you don't understand corporations and their tradeoffs in civ IV. I'm not going to say they're more or less complex than city states, but seriously. If you're going to comment on the mechanic, know the mechanic. Corps are absolutely critical to HoF space games and the decision on whether or not to even use them (and which one/how/what cities) is an important consideration in general high level games.



Again...not so accurate. For either game. Rather than constant slow expansion, you could get away with city SPAM in IV below deity and have like 12 cities by 1 AD, w/o crashing. If they were good sites, doing that would be worth it, too. Civ V relies very heavily on resources for expansion, and resource trading/RA replace tech trades as critical. Post patch makes it arguably slightly harder in V to city spam, but you can still do it (or simply spam conquest) effectively.

Anyway, I'm not going to make the case that it's dumbed down. That is not, and never has been the game's problem. The game's problem is that it carries over bad issues from civ IV (crappy controls/broken non-existent hotkeys, parasitic self-destructive AI tagteams, bugs with unit movement/interruption, hugely inefficient and joke-tastic UI that even lies on occasion, very slow-running games while above specs, complete imbalance of victory conditions) and adds a few of its own.

In some respects, one or the other is better. For example, in civ IV you didn't have an issue where a trebuchet given a command that clearly reads "ranged attack" instead moves sideways. However, civ V doesn't have completely broken/laughable vassal state mechanics/rules or the "we didn't playtest this but put it in anyway and decided never to patch it" apostolic palace.

In a lot of ways, I miss IV, but especially the community of IV, with long-running play-along series and way more discussion about how to be good about the game rather than threads arguing points like this. General frustration w/ the series is mounting though, and not just for me, and that's making it harder. I'll try over on strategy and tips, but not on GD.

You are right in virtually every point you make, but it is slightly off topic. Perhaps some mechanics were vitally important in HoF games, but I was trying to make a comment about the 'average' player (someone who plays on Prince-King levels; which is actually far higher than the real average). I agree that the UI has its faults and that some mechanics are broken, but that doesn't really have anything to do with complexity. I'm not trying to argue if a game is better than another; only that Civ5 has not been simplified and made shallower.

The points about that AI are very well made and its sheer stupidity in Civ5 is by far the most frustrating thing about it but again, thats not a sign that the game has been dumbed down.

 

[basta]

A thoughtful, thorough, mature and well-argued post: major kudos right there--it's worth responding to.

I discovered Civ IV about a year ago and played only vanilla until the time CiV came out, when I bought it and the BTS and Warlords expansion packs for IV at the same time.

I enjoyed the vanilla IV game, and tried out a few BTS games after having been exposed to CiV and I must say I simply cannot go back to IV, whatever flavor, it has the feel of an outdated game and--heresy!--there are a lot of elements that really annoy me with it. CiV, for all it's birth-pangs and problems, is indeed a worthy successor to IV. Graphically it is stunning and CLEAR, hexes and 1upt are vast improvements that most people pooh-pooh, especially when I think of SODs in IV, and I do not find it "dumbed down"; I find it different.

Late game is problematic in V, as it was in IV, but for different reasons. There is a real problem with diplomacy right now, and I think ICS, tech pacing vs build costs, and the whole question of tile yields need a major revision, but its pretty clear that either through patches or mods these problems will be addressed.

Anyway, I can't go back to IV, and am happy enough with V all things considered. It is certainly not a console game, as many embittered IV-lifers would have it.

 

[fed1943]

TMIT:
Do you miss the Civ 4 community?
Then do you want to start a BTS? You shall not be alone.

 

[ImperialGuard]

Good OP.

....just so I am not confused ....

Your title "Civ5 has been dumbed down - 8 examples" is actually the reverse of what you are advocating......

You are presenting examples of how Civ V is actually more involved than Civ IV.

(just want to make sure I am got it right)

 

[basta]

^@ImperialGuard

This is called irony.

 

[CornPlanter]

However, in 99% of cases the use for gold was easy, to allow you to run the science slider as high possible. There was no other real use for it.

What about, emm... supporting cities and units? You are not saying that only 1% of the games have cities and units, are you?

I'm not trying to argue if a game is better than another; only that Civ5 has not been simplified and made shallower.

Well, it has. It many ways. But I am not going to argue over that because thats not the main problem.

 

[Zyxpsilon]

9th example...
The number of CFC threads mentioning the same all over again for us all to contradict when we feel like it or to approve of if we have a similar agenda.

Economy = Superbly manageable
Culture = A most welcomed twist to old principles
Warfare = Design decision
Diplomacy = Intelligence needs IQ, CPU lacks a few Terabytes worth of human brain cells
Corps/CS = Somehow weird but still design driven
SP/Civics = A clear thesaurus boxing match, 10th round, technical KO, nobody wins
Empire Growth = My control, your failure & vice-versa
Espionage = Tricky and yet, entirely possible to find an appropriate implementation.

Thus -- as a result. I'm outa here also, once more.

 

[JLoZeppeli]

There are an awful lot of people on this forum scream heresy about how much CiV has been dumbed down for the console market and how it is a much simpler shallower game, or that it is merely a war game. I'll look into 5 key examples to see how this is the case.

Economy
Civ4 was the first civ game where you had to worry about how much commerce you were generating - before all it involved was plonking down roads everywhere. In Civ4 you have to build cottages/have specialists and worry somewhat about trade routes - especially international ones in the mid-late game. However, in 99% of cases the use for gold was easy, to allow you to run the science slider as high possible. There was no other real use for it. In 5 the choice for the economy is very different. For a start you have to chose between science or gold (or culture) from the very start. For science you run your population as high as possible, so you build farms; for gold simply build trade posts. But its more complicated than that, because high populations lead to more gold from trade routes, and more gold leads to more research agreements.
In short, there is more variety in 4 from how you generate commerce; but in 5 there are far more uses for it which require careful thought.

Culture
Culture in Civ4 was rather dull. Once a city had expanded its big fat cross, there was little importance for it in most circumstance. Sometimes you'd want to start a culture battle with another civ to win or lose a handful of tiles or to get a resource 3 tiles away, but that was the exception not the rule. In Civ5 with the addition of Social Policies, its completely different. While early SPs are very good, the late game ones are incredibly powerful. Culture is now genuinely useful at every stage. Even later on in the game I care about the cultural output of my core cities. This was never the case in Civ4 (bar cultural victory of course). This is clearly not one area which has been dumbed down.

Warfare
Tensions run high around here about 1UPT, but the bottom line is, whether you like it or not, that removing SOD make the game more complex (not saying anything about its realism). Having to chose which units go where as well as having ranged bombardment adds depth to the game. This is obviously one area where it hasn't been 'dumbed down'.

Diplomacy
With all its figures on show and Religion in the game, civ4 diplomacy was almost perfectly transparent and quite easy to understand and manipulate. Civ5 (post patch) feels like the leaders are following the rules of real politik and although alliances can be made; don't expect anyone to act directly against their own best interests. I'm not sure you can say if either system is simpler than the other, it just depends on how Machiavellian you want your game to be.

Corporations/City States
I've put these in the same category because they're both about using gold for other stuff. Corporations in Civ4 never seemed to be widely appreciated and using them was often banal and repetetive - they could be used as both a weapon and a tool for growth but weren't all that important in either respect. City states on the other hand are also a bit tedious requiring constant gifts of gold but there interplay in diplomacy and quests liven the game up a lot. In this case, the sheer number of interactions with other game systems means that City States are a more complex system than Corporations.

Social Policies vs Civics
Social policies allow a much greater diversification and specialisation that Civics, but aren't refundable and don't allow you to change your mind. Some say that forcing you to plan ahead is more strategic, others that it removes player choice - on the whole its fairly balanced. However, another difference is that Civics were given as freebies as you went along the tech tree, while social policies require an active investment in culture growth. A system that requires you to invest (and hence sacrifice something else) for a later gain must be considered one that increases complexity.

Empire growth
In civ4 the only combatant of ICS and REX was maintenance cost. However, an even slightly matured city would always pay that back easily. Hence, the best tactic in Civ4, usually, was constant slow expansion. In Civ5 the cost of expansion is happiness, and cities generally do not ever provide more happiness that they provide. Hence, there is a real cost to large empires - both in Happiness and increased SP cost. This means that there is a real grand-level strategic decision to be taken about, not just how fast you want to expand, but the total size you want to be. An example of an additional non-repetitive interesting decision - the hallmark of complexity in a strategy game.

Espionage
Little to say here, clearly the Civ4BtS system was far from perfect and wasn't that great; but the total removal of a game mechanic with no replacement what so ever can only really be called dumbing down.


Conclusion or tl;dr
Read the last line from each paragraph and make your mind up

Excuse me but if we have to repeat again why are you wrong on many arguments....

Just as en example, SP are only a bonus boost, not a governament with drawbacks or strategy choice, they are always useful. And they are so linear, like the tech tree, that you can unlock some with the right tech advancement even in early eras, as was proven by far...

So they involve very little strategic decision, also they are very linear...

To the other matters, i don't have time to repeat the well known arguments, as i say...

 

[seasnake]

Well-reasoned. Different =/= dumbed down. But I disagree with your take on diplomacy and corporations.

Diplomacy in Civ IV is, in my opinion, a simper but much more elegant experience. Meaning that there were trade offs that felt more real: If I was beating the tar out of someone they could run and get a master and become a vassal state, then I could pick between keeping up my war but fighting a much stronger civ or backing off. If I wanted to rush Code of Laws and found Confucianism, I knew I would do so at the risk of alienating my Buddhist friends, so I had to pick my own little faith or joining the crowd. If I wanted to send spies in to steal technology, I could do that but I ran the risk of a being discovered and having a penalty. If i wanted to trade with the Aztecs I knew that Mali, their worst enemy, was going to hate my guts so I had pick who I wanted to be BFF's with.

The loss of corporations is sad, they were powerful if you tailored them to your needs and spread them actively. They also made Civics much more interesting, Free Market could finally compete with State Property for usefulness. The right use of Mining Inc., Sid's Sushi or Cereal Mills could mean all the difference in a culture victory or a space race, just as a rush to Standard Ethanol could be a lifesaver if you didn't have oil (one time when I was going for a diplo victory I didn't have Oil in my land and I didn't want to start a war with my two neighbors to get it, rushing and founding Standard Ethanol was a life saver as I could keep my army respectable without conquering). Finally, you had to spend a GP in the late game to get one, when GP are getting rarer and rarer, so it was another important choice.

Agree Espionage needs to come back as well. Next Expansion: Corporations, Religion, Espionage and improved diplomacy ramifications like Causus Belli and Vassal States. Throw in Random Events and I think we have a terrific game.

 

[TheHarshax]

^@ImperialGuard

This is called irony.

Or sarcasm, or both.

 

[No_such_reality]

I disagree with several points in your post. I think the main point you are forgetting is that the inability of the AI to properly manage any aspects of the game. This makes each point you've made irrelevant as Civ5 is dumbed down in its entirety because of this.

edited for run-on sentence.

Previously, the AI was incompetent. Haven't played enough to know how continued the incompetence is post patch. But an ineffective AI isn't dumbing down, it's broken.

If you were playing a human, or at least an effective AI that could evaluate the changes like a human, do you have more or more interesting choices or do you have less or less interesting choices?

I think less. In all aspects, more is better, particularly on maps standard or smaller. Yes, even culture, puppet those conquests! Bigger cities equals more science/gold. Bigger empires equal more gold, hammers and science. Bigger empires also mean more luxuries, which enable bigger empires. Which means more gold.

And then the ultimate weakness. With enough gold, you can just throw money at it. The game, IMHO, has a serious disconnect between it's three core resources: science is way too fast and only requires uneducated bodies, gold is too powerful with no drains and production too slow and outside of units, largely meaningless.

 

[Mathew]

I agree with the OP. With regards to diplomacy in Civ 5, however, I wouldn't say it's been dumbed down, I think it's just poorly implemented/broken. This is one of my biggest issues with Civ 5.

 

[Xwarq]

The main problems I have with Civ V

1) Waaaaaaaaay slower than Civ IV. No, I'm not talking about framerate, nor turn calculation speed. It's just slower-paced and less eventful. It also seems more repetitive.
2) City-States should help you more than just send resources or units. They should send small armies of 1-3 units, under their command.
3) There is no Rise of Mankind Mod .
4) This one is very minor, but--roads are all twisty and odd-looking, I think the previous road system where they were really easy to build and were in every tile was actually better. You might say it ain't realistic, but really most major empires had tons and tons of roads, not just the Romans. And they did not twist around like octopuses.

I would definitely not call Civ V dumbed down though. I'd call Civ IV and Civ V dumbed down,... that is, when you're not playing Rise of Mankind .

 

[lschnarch]

tl;dr: I couldn't disagree more.

Economy
Civ4 was the first civ game where you had to worry about how much commerce you were generating - before all it involved was plonking down roads everywhere. In Civ4 you have to build cottages/have specialists and worry somewhat about trade routes - especially international ones in the mid-late game. However, in 99% of cases the use for gold was easy, to allow you to run the science slider as high possible. There was no other real use for it. In 5 the choice for the economy is very different. For a start you have to chose between science or gold (or culture) from the very start. For science you run your population as high as possible, so you build farms; for gold simply build trade posts. But its more complicated than that, because high populations lead to more gold from trade routes, and more gold leads to more research agreements.
In short, there is more variety in 4 from how you generate commerce; but in 5 there are far more uses for it which require careful thought.

Inaccurate description.
First, you needed gold in Civ4 for maintenance of cities, units upkeep, international trading and rushbuying.
Second, in Civ5 gold is the most valuable single item you can get. You lack food? You bribe a maritime city state. With gold.
You are going for culture? You have to maintain your cultural buildings and bribe a cultural city state. With gold.
You are attacked? You rush-buy units. With gold.
You want to be prepared in terms of military and have to less production? You bribe a military city state. With gold.

Except for culture, which has to be more or less slowly to be acquired, I am having problems of recalling anything which you cannot plainly buy. With gold.
Gold is the each and everything in Shafer_5.

Culture
Culture in Civ4 was rather dull. Once a city had expanded its big fat cross, there was little importance for it in most circumstance. Sometimes you'd want to start a culture battle with another civ to win or lose a handful of tiles or to get a resource 3 tiles away, but that was the exception not the rule. In Civ5 with the addition of Social Policies, its completely different. While early SPs are very good, the late game ones are incredibly powerful. Culture is now genuinely useful at every stage. Even later on in the game I care about the cultural output of my core cities. This was never the case in Civ4 (bar cultural victory of course). This is clearly not one area which has been dumbed down.

In Civ4, I've fought fierce cultural battles about that city, that resource.
Anecdotal evidence, right. As yours about you caring for culture even in the late game.

A counter-example would be that pure fact that the cultural extension of city borders avoids production related hexes as long as ever possible. So, you have to buy them.
Which brings us back to the point above.

Warfare
Tensions run high around here about 1UPT, but the bottom line is, whether you like it or not, that removing SOD make the game more complex (not saying anything about its realism). Having to chose which units go where as well as having ranged bombardment adds depth to the game. This is obviously one area where it hasn't been 'dumbed down'.

From your description I have to deduct that you never fought wars with SoD's.
Gaining an optimal victory requires quite some tactics in Civ4, too; especially when being on the attack.

Actually, the required amount of thinking is much more in Civ4, as you're confronted with much bigger numbers of enemy units.
At first glance it may look "deeper" to have to place your melee unit in front of the ranged weapon, but actually that is a concept which even a 6-year-old gets in a second.
Managing the needed 6 to 8 units to conquer a city only imposed a task to the AI, but in the implemented way is not really stressful for the human.

Diplomacy
With all its figures on show and Religion in the game, civ4 diplomacy was almost perfectly transparent and quite easy to understand and manipulate. Civ5 (post patch) feels like the leaders are following the rules of real politik and although alliances can be made; don't expect anyone to act directly against their own best interests. I'm not sure you can say if either system is simpler than the other, it just depends on how Machiavellian you want your game to be.

What determines your relationships in Shafer_5?
We know that constant war against city states will cause eternal wars. This is a no-brainer.
We know that settling next to the AI makes them unhappy. This is a no-brainer.
We know that denouncing them makes them unhappy. This is a no-brainer.
We know that constant success in war makes them unhappy. This is a no-brainer, but completely illogical. The more, if they have asked us to assist them in a war. The more, if we have liberated them. The more if we are beating their enemy.

Corporations/City States
I've put these in the same category because they're both about using gold for other stuff. Corporations in Civ4 never seemed to be widely appreciated and using them was often banal and repetetive - they could be used as both a weapon and a tool for growth but weren't all that important in either respect. City states on the other hand are also a bit tedious requiring constant gifts of gold but there interplay in diplomacy and quests liven the game up a lot. In this case, the sheer number of interactions with other game systems means that City States are a more complex system than Corporations.

City states being more complex than the resource dependant corporations?
Being more complex than corporations allowing for an economical warfare?
Being more complex when all you have to do is to bribe them?

This was a joke, right?

Social Policies vs Civics
Social policies allow a much greater diversification and specialisation that Civics, but aren't refundable and don't allow you to change your mind. Some say that forcing you to plan ahead is more strategic, others that it removes player choice - on the whole its fairly balanced. However, another difference is that Civics were given as freebies as you went along the tech tree, while social policies require an active investment in culture growth. A system that requires you to invest (and hence sacrifice something else) for a later gain must be considered one that increases complexity.

What you call "increased complexity" can only be the cost of opportunity. Since 1.135 we have to check a certain "advanced setting" to even be allowed to avoid gaining social policies.

Well, for any chosen civic in Civ4 I find costs of opportunity, too.
Even more, as I have to consider anarchy. Even more, as chosen civics may or may not impact my relationships with other nations. Which, by the way, social policies do not.

Empire growth
In civ4 the only combatant of ICS and REX was maintenance cost. However, an even slightly matured city would always pay that back easily. Hence, the best tactic in Civ4, usually, was constant slow expansion. In Civ5 the cost of expansion is happiness, and cities generally do not ever provide more happiness that they provide. Hence, there is a real cost to large empires - both in Happiness and increased SP cost. This means that there is a real grand-level strategic decision to be taken about, not just how fast you want to expand, but the total size you want to be. An example of an additional non-repetitive interesting decision - the hallmark of complexity in a strategy game.

There are many people claiming that there isn't much difficulty in growing big empires in Civ5, either. Even at the highest difficulty levels.
So, there are actually just two choices to be made:
a) do I want to go for a cultural victory?
b) do I want to go for puppeting?

Anything else can be afforded by throwing in some money. See the first point again.

Espionage
Little to say here, clearly the Civ4BtS system was far from perfect and wasn't that great; but the total removal of a game mechanic with no replacement what so ever can only really be called dumbing down.

Correct.

What about religions?
Did I miss something?

Conclusion or tl;dr
Read the last line from each paragraph and make your mind up

I did. I assume you've been sarcastic.

 

[elthrasher]

2) City-States should help you more than just send resources or units. They should send small armies of 1-3 units, under their command.

They do this currently and always have. They won't run across a continent to get at the enemy, but they certainly will invade nearby enemy territory. City-states can even take cities. They will even attack one another (but aren't very successful at this).