Civilization 5 Rants Thread

[H4run]

I get what you mean, but in real warfare a highly train unit with a good general can defeat 1:10 troops, and it happen. You name names, Khalid Ibn Walid, Napoleon, Alexander, Amr Ibn Ash, and many other historical figure.

We always hear the mongol as a large horde that rule the world by over-numbering their opponent, raging into villages like bugs and keep coming out like bunch of orcs. While there is a proverb that say in mongol the horse population even larger than the peoples. Instead of over-numbering their opponent they usually facing the war while they were the one who been outnumber, it is because their skill in horse archery that been train for hundreds years of tribal war between themselves who make them a kind like medieval nightmare. They go to north Europe and most of the city surrender themselves to mongol without a fight because they think they are Gog and Magog because they indomitable combat skill, so they just open the city wall and surrender hope by that the mongol don't genoside the population like they do in Persia and Baghdad. (until they being defeated by Mamluks in the battle of Ain Jaloot).

We can name many battle to make an example how faith, discipline, high moral and skill that get from training and experience, can make troops that defeat huge number of troops. For me it still make sense. But lets say, if it make the game unbalance, and the AI cannot keep the unit long enough to keep lots of promotion so it will be kind like we exploiting the AI with promotion. But still it can be settle by limiting the promotion bonus, so its not highly over-power.

As you say and I totally agree with you, civ 4 is not perfect but it is a very good game compare to civ 5 even compare to previous civ, just see the mods forum in civ 4 got more view than civ 5 mods forum, peoples still hoping on civ 4 to be develop into better game even we can say they give more hope to civ 4 than civ 5.

For me the things that make me bit down at civ 4, is the combat base on chances, also how the siege unit operate. But again we have different taste in game, also difference perception, this is just my view, and I can be wrong also. And if there is something that we see lack, then it mean there still hope to improve it, if we don't see any lack on it, then we can't improve it, it already perfect, it over. But for me civ 4 potential is not yet over if it want to be explore and the idea of civ 5 battle system it is also derive from one of the mod in bts. If im not mistaken.

 

[Socratatus]

Whie I understand the stacking issue, i actually am tempted by the new Civ5 way, simply because it seems more logical. I always found it somewhat annoying when one catapult came to my city then turned into 20 that pummelled it to dust!

However, if the AI is worse then that`s not good. hmmm...

 

[Brian Shanahan]

I get what you mean, but in real warfare a highly train unit with a good general can defeat 1:10 troops, and it happen. You name names, Khalid Ibn Walid, Napoleon, Alexander, Amr Ibn Ash, and many other historical figure.

[citation needed]

Napoleon's skill was mainly in bringing a superior force to bear against his opponents in the local theatre. He may have faced opponents who had larger armies than him, but it was very rare in a Napolenic battle that on the field he faced a larger or stronger force than his (bearing in mind that larger is not always the same as stronger).

Alexander faced armies from about equal to his in numbers to about twice his numbers. But here there is a big problem with Persian forces, namely that outside the Immortals and mercenary Greek hoplites their forces were essentially junk. And even the Immortals were not as well trained or equipped as the Macedonian forces, who were trained for war as a permanent standing force, with the best armour and arms, and new innovative tactics developed for their increased training and better equipment. A comparison of Macedonian forces and Persian forces would be like the difference between an Holy Roman army during the 30 years' war and a US army corps from the Civil War. There may be similarities between the two, but the training equipment and leadership of the US corps would wipe the floor with the the German army.

The other two, not being that familiar with Muslim history, I cannot talk about. But my two examples do show that when you've either equivalent or broadly similar equipment training and leadership, numbers will nearly always show through. And frankly numbers are most often the most decisive condition on the battlefield.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

Whie I understand the stacking issue, i actually am tempted by the new Civ5 way, simply because it seems more logical. I always found it somewhat annoying when one catapult came to my city then turned into 20 that pummelled it to dust!

However, if the AI is worse then that`s not good. hmmm...

The problem is not the AI, it is in fact pretty weak in Civ 4 combat as well, being slow to respond to emergencies, to prone to turtling, and easy to distract with diversions, but the fact that the combat system needed for 1UPT is incompatible with an empire building game.

1UPT is perfect for tactical battle sims like PG or Advance Wars, but take it out of it's natural habitat and you find that it is almost impossible to fit in. Even if the game had the best development team ever, I don't think 1UPT could have worked in Civ 5.

 

[H4run]

Alexander faced armies from about equal to his in numbers to about twice his numbers.

The number of the Macedonian army in the battle of Gaugamela is around 47.000 (9000 horseman) troops facing around 250.000 persian troops, its around 1:5.

But here there is a big problem with Persian forces, namely that outside the Immortals and mercenary Greek hoplites their forces were essentially junk. And even the Immortals were not as well trained or equipped as the Macedonian forces, who were trained for war as a permanent standing force, with the best armour and arms, and new innovative tactics developed for their increased training and better equipment.

Yes I agree with you, and that is why I said battle experiences, training and discipline also factor that can increase the troops quality, and number not the main factor of quality, but only one of many factor of quality, include troops faith, moral, leadership, and many others factor, but you also must note that technology also can't cover all of these factor, it again only one of many factor that reflect the troops quality. And in civ 5 this are reflect with promotion (experiences, combat specialty, etc) while leadership reflect on leader or GG that give combat bonus. I really not againts you in this I build my argument base on the very same idea with you. Am I right?

The other two, not being that familiar with Muslim history, I cannot talk about. But my two examples do show that when you've either equivalent or broadly similar equipment training and leadership, numbers will nearly always show through. And frankly numbers are most often the most decisive condition on the battlefield.

Well, now my activity have something to do with history I work to help a university one of my subject is Islamic history in the future it will be Balkan which I don't know much about and Ottoman, that will be interesting.

About Khalid Ibn Walid is a muslim general that confront byzantium army in the time of Heraclius one of the world super power at that time, the muslim also open got a front from Persia or the Sassanid which is another world super power, that days was tough.

Khalid Ibn Walid lead an army of 40.000 to fight with 150.000 Byzantium army, and he lost 4000 men and the Byzantium lost around more then 50.000 (around 70.000 almost half) men, in 6 days battle, base on the primary source by Tabari. In equipment the muslim were poorer comparing with the byzantium army at that time, but their discipline and solidarity also great tactic is one of the factor of their victory.

In christian sources it said Heraclius devastated and enraged because of the result of the battle, he retreated to the cathedral of Antioch and summon a meeting of his advisers at the cathedral and scrutinized the situation. He was told almost unanimously and accepted the fact the defeat was God's decision and a result of the sins of the people of the land including him (Regan, 2003). But it correlated with muslim source, it said before the battle Heraclius send his men to monitoring muslim troops, and they make a report :

"They are people who monks during the night (it mean they are praying like monk in monasteries), and fast during the day, and if the son of their leader would steal, they would cut their hand, and if anyone of them, high or low, would commit a crime, they would be punished."

and after the battle, he summon his close adviser and peoples, and anger because the lost his brother Theodore in that Battle he say :

Heraclius said: "Woe to you! Aren't these men like you?"
They said: "Yes"
Heraclius said: "Are you more, or are they more?"
They said: "We are more."
Heraclius said: "How come you are losing, and how come they are winning?"

One of the elders said:

"The reason why they are winning and we are losing is because they pray at night, and they fast during the day, and they fulfill their covenants, and they enjoin good and they prevent evil, and they are just among themselves, and because we drink alcohol, and we commit adultery and fornication, and we commit every sin, and we betray our promise, and we oppress, and we commit wrong and transgression, and because we encourage evil, and we prevent people from doing what pleases God, and because we corrupt in the land"

Heraclius said: "You are telling the truth"

after this he say his famous quote which is :

"Farewell, a long farewell to Syria" (Runciman, 1987)

So it is a discipline, good general, a leader that can give example, a great tactician, are some of many factor that results on winning or losing the battle. Civilization society policy, GG, unit promotion, can be a bit like a miniatur of it. I want to tell you more about these men, but maybe it will bit out of topic and interest, but I hope we can get fruitful knowledge from each other

 

[qemist]

The number of the Macedonian army in the battle of Gaugamela is around 47.000 (9000 horseman) troops facing around 250.000 persian troops, its around 1:5.

Modern historians estimate the Persian army as between 50k and 100k. See wikipedia. Ancient accounts always greatly exaggerated the size of the opponent's army to big themselves up. Similarly at the Battle of Alesia ancient Roman sources gave the size of the Gallic army as over 300k but the modern estimate is 100k.

 

[Camikaze]

Moderator Action: This isn't the History forum. We have one of those, so please take any history-related discussion there. You're allowed to discuss history here as it directly relates to Civ5, but that connection only seems to exist very loosely here.

 

[lollibast]

<snip>

insta heal drives me crazy, even though nerfed to 50hp, if the AI does it every single turn. i shoot him 3 times and he instaheals, again, how can that happen? ranged combat gives 2xp only (3 with honor, equals 9) should'nt the cost go up every level anyways? if not it's a joke. attack, get attacked=10xp=instaheal, rinse repeat

Moderator Action: Don't ignore a moderator warning. Offending portion removed.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[H4run]

insta heal drives me crazy, even though nerfed to 50hp, if the AI does it every single turn. i shoot him 3 times and he instaheals, again, how can that happen? ranged combat gives 2xp only (3 with honor, equals 9) should'nt the cost go up every level anyways? if not it's a joke. attack, get attacked=10xp=instaheal, rinse repeat

this one I must agree with you totally, they are like lizard or amoeba who can reproduce themselves by splitting their bodies. I think the healing should divide between the wounded and the death, the death soldier can't be heal, it will forever like that until they go back to their city border and heal (recruit). While the wounded can be heal, its better for civ 5 without instant healing, its make it more like tricks than strategy.

 

[bitula]

Hi All,
was long since I wrote anything and played civ5. I really "hated" it, huge disappointment, still do not have the will to try it out again. Dll source still missing, Civ4 mods somehow begin to revive and actively developed which is good news. But I've heard that there has been an expansion pack released, so I would like to ask "haters", active ranters etc.: was it a significant change? Are there any who now made up their mind and now begin to like the game? Have they managed to ease up 1UPT somehow, I mean to make some sense out of it finally?

 

[lollibast]

it adds some content, although i havent yet properly figured the religion system out, i think you can completely ignore it. espionage will either have your spy stay in your capital if youre tech leading, or trying to catch up on others if youre not although it will take ridiculous times to steal a tech in the late game.
AI is not that unpredictable any more, you can actually forge lasting relations.
Some other additions were introduced, nothing game changeing, in the lower difficulties you will be bored, and in the higher ones you'll rely on random chance, depending on the games grogress, and/or exploitation to win.
you can still trade away luxes for flat money before declaring war, trade them when you see it will get pillaged the next turn, etc..
naval system got a complete overhaul. you can stack an embarked land unit and a ship on the same tile, making an escort system actually possible, also embarked units are a bit harder to kill

so to sum it up, some good improvements but the game breaking, mind blowing aspects are still there. it's now a love-hate relationship for me. can't immerse myself in it, it always comes down to beating the AI by using all the exploits to counter the AI bonuses

 

[Bhoy]

Hi All,
was long since I wrote anything and played civ5. I really "hated" it, huge disappointment, still do not have the will to try it out again. Dll source still missing, Civ4 mods somehow begin to revive and actively developed which is good news. But I've heard that there has been an expansion pack released, so I would like to ask "haters", active ranters etc.: was it a significant change? Are there any who now made up their mind and now begin to like the game? Have they managed to ease up 1UPT somehow, I mean to make some sense out of it finally?

I'm quite interested if there are any people who have changed their mind also - I haven't played again properly in nearly 2 years. I tried to play after one of the major patches but as soon as I started a game and waited 20 secs for a turn to process all the memories of 1 minute late game turns came flooding back and I just didn't have the will to go on. I've probably done another 1,000 hours on BTS since then - so I am quite desperate for them to fix this game.

So have there been any original haters who now think this game + expansion is better than BTS?

I feel extremely reluctant to give them any more of my money after what I received in return for the vanilla game.

 

[Funky]

I haven't tried the expansion personally, but I read tons of threads in various forums about it. Judging by this information, it adds some content, mainly religion and espionage, although apparently their implementation is questionable. It also does some balancing and tweaking here and there, like changing diplomacy so it is not completely arbitrary. Even the AI was supposed to have been improved slightly, though many players claim not to have noticed any differences.

What the expansion did not do however, is change/fix the basic game. It still feels like a wargame, you still get punished for building stuff, the AI is still terrible, diplomacy now may deserve to be called diplomacy but is very shallow, the console-like interface hasn't changed, neither have the many exploits. Other shortcomings like the civilopedia haven't been reworked, and you still have to watch your airplanes go on their bombing tour 20 seconds each. Naval combat is now theoretically possible, but fails to AI stupidity.

And let's face it, even if every one of the points I mentioned had been improved/fixed, thanks to the travesty of the 1UPT decision, this game will always remain more a tactical wargame than a civ game, where mastering the strategy has become insignificant because we can compensate for whatever strategic mistakes we make by the use of tactics (read: put melee units in front, archers behind, and slaughter the endless swarms of braindead AI units).

 

[Brian Shanahan]

Hi All,
was long since I wrote anything and played civ5. I really "hated" it, huge disappointment, still do not have the will to try it out again. Dll source still missing, Civ4 mods somehow begin to revive and actively developed which is good news. But I've heard that there has been an expansion pack released, so I would like to ask "haters", active ranters etc.: was it a significant change? Are there any who now made up their mind and now begin to like the game? Have they managed to ease up 1UPT somehow, I mean to make some sense out of it finally?

From what I've read of reports, not being willing to waste money on buying the game, religion looks to be more of a win more mechanic than a proper integral part of the game.

As has been said the main functionality of the game has been patched up base, which while somewhat balanced, is still a complete mess which the devs tried to rescue by the simple expedient of nerfing every single strong strategy.

 

[Jayman1000]

Just want to give you all a heads up on the up coming game XCOM: Enemy Unknown(http://www.xcom.com/enemyunknown/). Maybe some of you have fond memories from playing it's old counterpart named UFO: Enemy Unknown to death on your Amiga (or X-COM: Enemy Unknown on Playstation). I know I did. Would be nice if it is grand and high-quality remaking of the old great game... Alarm bells begin to ring yet?

And here comes the warning part: XCOM: Enemy Unknown is developed by Firaxis and published by 2K Games. Having had not so good experiences with those two and what they did to my beloved Civ series, I just want to warn anyone reading this thread to seriously consider whether you want to risk 50 euros / 70 dollars on something that may be.. well.. a crappy shiny shell with the name "XCOM: Enemy Unknown" written on it. However, who knows may they'll redeem themselves, its not impossible is it? My advice would be to wait until its available at bargain bin for 10 dollars or so, or wait for a steam special 75% off offer. I all to well remember my 50 euros spend on the "digital deluxe edition" of CiV. What a lie. What a waste.

Unless of course, scores of well written and thorough reviews by users on Metacritics show high quality, and at the same time there is a lack of well written and thorough negative user reviews. That could make me change my mind and pay more.

 

[lollibast]

Just want to give you all a heads up on the up coming game XCOM: Enemy Unknown(http://www.xcom.com/enemyunknown/). Maybe some of you have fond memories from playing it's old counterpart named UFO: Enemy Unknown to death on your Amiga (or X-COM: Enemy Unknown on Playstation). I know I did. Would be nice if it is grand and high-quality remaking of the old great game... Alarm bells begin to ring yet?

And here comes the warning part: XCOM: Enemy Unknown is developed by Firaxis and published by 2K Games. Having had not so good experiences with those two and what they did to my beloved Civ series, I just want to warn anyone reading this thread to seriously consider whether you want to risk 50 euros / 70 dollars on something that may be.. well.. a crappy shiny shell with the name "XCOM: Enemy Unknown" written on it. However, who knows may they'll redeem themselves, its not impossible is it? My advice would be to wait until its available at bargain bin for 10 dollars or so, or wait for a steam special 75% off offer. I all to well remember my 50 euros spend on the "digital deluxe edition" of CiV. What a lie. What a waste.

Unless of course, scores of well written and thorough reviews by users on Metacritics show high quality, and at the same time there is a lack of well written and thorough negative user reviews. That could make me change my mind and pay more.

I have lost faith in sequels. Recent violations of well established titles have been too hard on my sensitive soul. Exempla grata? CIV 5, Diablo 3, Jagged Alliance: Back in Action, The Settler series (i liked the remaking of settler 2, which was an exact clone only with graphics improved), Master of Orion 3 (not so recent, I know, still kills me), Hearts of Iron 3

 

[Wodan]

I'm quite interested if there are any people who have changed their mind also - I haven't played again properly in nearly 2 years. So have there been any original haters who now think this game + expansion is better than BTS?

I feel extremely reluctant to give them any more of my money after what I received in return for the vanilla game.

I wouldn't call myself a "hater," but I didn't buy 5 until last month. For me, it was more like I was still proceeding with my 4 experience (some concerns aside, more below), saw all the reviews of 5 pointing out some very legitimate issues, and didn't bother. Given how much I was (am) into Civ, those who have known me for years would know that's a big deal.

Anyway, my thoughts after a month of playing? (Note: I went straight to G&K so I don't have any holdover bias from the initial release or old bugs.)

The 1upt is different; I won't say it's an outright negative / flaw in the game design as some do. Full disclosure: I used to be a wargamer so it wasn't all that foreign to me. The AI seems to do pretty well but doesn't quite have a handle on how to properly move its units in battle (but heck, neither do I... I'm still learning the best tactics).

I've noticed some outright bugs. Went to report them and was astonished to see what looks like a thousand or more bug reports in the thread here on civfanatics. I'd think firaxis would have assigned a developer to knock them out.

Religion definitely adds another strategic layer.

I haven't tried the expansion personally, but I read tons of threads in various forums about it.

I'll offer some thoughts on your third-hand, anecdotal reviews.

Judging by this information, it adds some content, mainly religion and espionage, although apparently their implementation is questionable.

Not sure what "questionable" means, other than some people are playing armchair quarterback? Any details available?

you still get punished for building stuff

Punished, how?

the AI is still terrible

Like I said, the AI seems pretty good to me. In what way is it terrible?

diplomacy now may deserve to be called diplomacy but is very shallow

What, specifically, should be added to give it more depth? Wihle I agree there's not a huge amount of things you can do on the dip screen, I'm not sure I know what should be added.

the console-like interface hasn't changed, neither have the many exploits.

What's wrong with the interface and what are the many exploits?

Other shortcomings like the civilopedia haven't been reworked, and you still have to watch your airplanes go on their bombing tour 20 seconds each.

What's wrong with the civilopedia?

Actually, no, you don't have to watch any unit animations. You're free to scroll about the screen or do other stuff while the turn is being processed.

Naval combat is now theoretically possible, but fails to AI stupidity.

Don't know why it wasn't possible before or why the AI is stupid about it now... my combats have been interesting.

And let's face it, even if every one of the points I mentioned had been improved/fixed, thanks to the travesty of the 1UPT decision, this game will always remain more a tactical wargame than a civ game, where mastering the strategy has become insignificant because we can compensate for whatever strategic mistakes we make by the use of tactics (read: put melee units in front, archers behind, and slaughter the endless swarms of braindead AI units).

That's just nonsense.

Just talking in general, it's true that good tactics can oversome strategic shortcomings of the player. And, vice versa. So what?

In 5, it seems like you're saying that the AI fails miserably at 1upt tactics, and thus this overwhelms everything else. In my experience, (and you admit you haven't tried the game), the AI in 5/G&K does pretty well. Certainly it isn't a total failure.

========

I mentioned my concerns with 4. Mostly the past couple of years I've been playing mods such as FFH (Fall Further and variations), Planetfall, Wolfrevolutions, etc. In a nutshell, what I observed happening was the dev teams (volunteers, so it's hard to criticize) of those projects kept adding more and more features without sufficient testing and support (civiliopedia etc) of what they had already done. (Translation: they enjoyed the fun aspects of design and programming but not the drudgery.) As a result, there were increasingly more and more bugs, frequent crashes, lack of integration of features with each other from a game mechanic design standpoint, big obstacles to gameplay because many mechanics weren't documented, and all in all it made playing the game more of a hit-or-miss experience than anything like enjoyment.

Also, the AI was pretty moronic. There has been some excellent work on the AI by the BetterAI folks and others, and even basic improvements didn't find their way to many mods, let alone the AI being taught to use the new features of each mod. Basically, the modders themselves ruined the game. It just feels like the community led ourselves down a path that was a fun ride but ultimately led to self-destruction.

Of all the mods, I'd have to say Planetfall was the best by far. Maniac did an excellent job, didn't bite off more than he could chew, kept the mod scope well defined (rather than an endless "let's keep adding more!!!") and completed it.

For 5, I hope Firaxis establishes a "certification" program for modders. That would allow modding to occur but to be certified would give some game design guidance and quality control.

 

[Brian Shanahan]

That's just nonsense.

Just talking in general, it's true that good tactics can oversome strategic shortcomings of the player. And, vice versa. So what?

In 5, it seems like you're saying that the AI fails miserably at 1upt tactics, and thus this overwhelms everything else. In my experience, (and you admit you haven't tried the game), the AI in 5/G&K does pretty well. Certainly it isn't a total failure.

The problem is not that the AI is bad at 1UPT (that is fixable, even with the cruddy level of resources thrown at Civ 5 after release), but that for a strategic level empire building game you have to pretty much break every other definable mechanic of the type of game you're making. And you've still got a mechanic which does not fit the game (1UPT is way too cluttered on a map with c.1,250 tiles).

No matter how many resources are thrown at the game with 1UPT in Civ 5 it will never be better than a bad wargame. And wargaming is not what Civ has ever been about.

 

[Wodan]

The problem is not that the AI is bad at 1UPT (that is fixable, even with the cruddy level of resources thrown at Civ 5 after release), but that for a strategic level empire building game you have to pretty much break every other definable mechanic of the type of game you're making.

What does that mean? "break every other mechanic"?

And you've still got a mechanic which does not fit the game (1UPT is way too cluttered on a map with c.1,250 tiles).

1upt is only cluttered at points of conflict or artificially contrived situations, seems to me. I've played probably 15 games so far, and while not a statistically relevant sample (but it's getting there), I have not seen anything close to the map being full of units.

And wargaming is not what Civ has ever been about.

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Civ has always had units, and units have always been the mechanic to ensure that your civ pays sufficient attention to tactics and warfare (and doesn't simply focus on strategy and building infrastructure).

 

[Funky]

@Wodan:

As the majority of your post seems to be directed at me, I will glady respond. Feel free to disagree if your impressions of the game differ from mine. I DID however, most definitely, play the game, just not the expansion. I wouldn't make such definite statements otherwise. I was lucky enough not to buy the game (I played it over the course of a free-to-play weekend offered by Steam and, like so many others, was (and still am a bit) in total shock over what Firaxis had done with my beloved Civ.

Not sure what "questionable" means, other than some people are playing armchair quarterback? Any details available?

I rely here on what I heard and read. For example that religion is just like yet another tech tree (in addition to the actual tech tree and the social policy trees). This enhances the feeling of gathering bonuses instead of building an empire. Espionage, on the other hand, apparently seriously lacks usefulness. Again, I don't have any personal experience with these specific issues, but it is what I have read.

Punished, how?

You get punished for building buildings, up to a point where apart from a few buildings you don't want to build anything at all. This was for me terribly unrealitic and anti-immersive, as large cities should require certain buildings to function properly. E.g. every large city in our world has a hospital, most have a university, all have a water system (Sewers, aqueduct etc). You could leave these things out in Civ 4 (and sometimes had to, if other matters were more pressing), but it would decrease the city's funtionality. In Civ 5 there is no point in building most stuff, because the building time is insanely long compared to the effect you get, not to mention you have to pay maintenace as well.
You get punished for building cities, which would be an acceptable mechanic if it actually worked to limit ICS, which it doesn't. You get punished for being successful in wars and capturing cities, which imo is simply ridiculous. You even get punished for building roads, which is especially annoying with 1UPT, as you need the roads to compensate for the horrible path-finding when moving units (e.g. when a unit is blocked it will complete it's movement by hopping off the road into a jungle or whatever).

Like I said, the AI seems pretty good to me. In what way is it terrible?

With all due respect, I find it hard to take this seriously. The very first game I played was on emperor, as I had heard Civ 5 had become easier. I was doing fine and was about the same level as the other nations for most of the game, which was already surprising to me, as I didn't really have a clue of what I was doing. But after a big war broke out was when I became a total run-away, and quickly had more than double the points than the best AI. The reason being that war was so ridiculously easy. It's hard to even call it war, when all the AI did is throw single units, including siege weapons, and even unguarded workers, settlers and great generals at me. And I don't mean on occasion, I mean literally almost every round. Despite the AI's production bonuses it was totally annihilated, and I am by no means a tactical genious. At no time in the game did I ever fear even losing a unit, let alone a city. Of all reasons, this is what totally broke my desire to play the game, as it was simply boring as hell to know that all you have to do to win is go to war. Compare this to Civ 4, where you were in awe when starting near Monty or Katharina, where a large army would enter your lands and pose a significant threat to your entire nation, and where in order to go to war yourself, you had to be sure as hell that your forces were powerful enough to prevail, as otherwise they would be slaughtered.

What, specifically, should be added to give it more depth? Wihle I agree there's not a huge amount of things you can do on the dip screen, I'm not sure I know what should be added.

I can think of many things, like establishing embassies and having restricted open borders (only peaceful units can enter territory), as the RAND mod added. It's not the amount of options though that bugs me, it's that I never felt like dealing with other nations. They all felt like the same schizophrenic warmongerers, whose only goal was to make life as difficult as possible for you for no apparent reason. I have heard this has got better in G&K, yet only by a margin.

What's wrong with the interface and what are the many exploits?

Maybe it's subjective, but an interface with big glowing circles popping up the whole time and a huge glowing END TURN block instead of a small modest circle seem childish and console-like to me. In addition, I was never able to figure out the cityscreen interface, and its mere appearance doused my motivation to try. Everything seems flashy and colorful, but it's hard and counter-intuitive to get to actual information. When you try you usually need more clicks than would have been necessary. A simple example is the map grid, which you need two clicks to activate instead of one. This may seem trivial, but it all adds up.

I'm sure there are better places than the rants thread to get an overview of the different exploits. Among the most notable is the trading exploit, where you ask for a huge gold sum and give gold per round in return, only to declare war right after.

What's wrong with the civilopedia?

What's wrong with it? It contains basically no information at all! Whenever I wanted to look up what something did in the game I NEVER found an explanation in the civilopedia. Just some fluff about when certain units were used in real life and the such, which is useless gamewise. It doesn't even use hyperlinks, which were included in Civ 1 in pre-Internet times!

Don't know why it wasn't possible before or why the AI is stupid about it now... my combats have been interesting.

Even hardcore Civ 5 fans will say that naval combat pre-G&K was basically non-existant. The AI apparently had no clue at all what it even was (e.g. it treated embarked units as land units which their actual strength). This seems to have got better, but still suffers under the incapability of the AI which I described above.

That's just nonsense.

Brian already responded to this, and I agree with him. Low tile yields, for example, are a result of the game not being designed for many units, which would result in a Carpet of Doom situation. This on the other hand, makes city placement - decisions I could spend 20 minutes or more on in Civ 4 - close to meaningless. It also means that resources are sometimes bad, as the tiny bonus they offer is smaller than what you could get with a resourceless tile. Of course the scale of the game is ruined too.
But the point I was making was actually another, namely that the game has invariably been shifted from strategy towards tactics. Strategic decisions don't matter much anymore, because no matter what we do the game will at some point result in a war, which we will win due to our far superior use of tactics compared to the AI. If we can obliterate the enemy armies so easily, what difference does it make wether we built our city a tile further north or not? As I mentioned above, in my first game on emperor I was more or less just building random stuff, e.g. I was planting farms everywhere. This is apparently a very bad strategy, as I found out later. Did it matter? Not in the slightest, as the AI found out several turns after DoWing me.

The general consensus among Civ 5 players seems to be that, yes, the AI has improved with G&K, but only by a very small degree, which some admit not to have noticed at all. So I cannot imagine that my experience of the game would differ much from my previous one, and definitely not nearly enough to make the game enjoyable for me.

I hope this answers your questions. As I said at the beginning, if your experience differs from mine and you are having fun with the game, all the better for you! For me however, my once favorite series, which I started to play at the age of ten or so with Civ 1, has been ruined with Civ 5.