Bibor said:
1) Make your next game even more complex, further reducing chances of attracting new players.
2) Make your game even more complex and add even more complexity through expansions.
3) Create a simpler game that is going to attract new players; make it more complex through expansions.
4) Create a simpler game. You'll add more complexity in your future games.
Fail poll is fail. Bibor you're supposed to make polls as neutral as possible. This one on the other hand was skewed deliberately to return the values you want to see, i.e. your own.
As regards making a new game, I would try for the principle "easy to learn, hard to master" which is clearly what the devs
did not do for this game. So many of their trumpeted features either were already known as exploits (diplomacy, gpt for resource trades, ranged bombards) or ended up being exploits through horrible coding (the return of the Civ 3 patented AI trickle of suicide). It was clearly set up for the casual players to get a quick buzz by winning against incompetant roadblocks, without giving them any reason to stay with the game for a length of time, the Film industry "look after the first weekend, anything else will take care of itself" syndrome.
And how does increased complexity scare away customers exactly? Bad design and an unbalanced game (either too easy or too hard) will do that far more sucessfully. What is needed with complexity is the right lead-in, whether through a proper set of tutorials explaining the complex mechanics, or by an easy early learning curve (thinking Settler>Warlord>Chieftain thing here).
As regards 1UPT there are three realistic choices:
1) scrap them and go back to stacking (whether limited or not is a different question)
2) give up the ghost and admit that what you wanted was a tactical game build around discrete scenarios, or
3) seperate the strategic from the tactical in the main game, i.e. allow stacking on the main map, but have a seperate tactical battle map where 1UPT is the king.
Of the 3 I would like to see the last being tried, as it would both incorporate some innovation into the series while also retaining the strategic feel to the game.
As regards things removed, bring back religion (an atheist saying this!), make the religions more unique (through combined boni and penalties, preferably 2:1 ratio), and maybe have a stage where to close an adherence could impede development. Bring in a proper espionage system (not sure what to do myself, but espionage is only a half job in 4, and should have been warning about Shafer too), incorporating a more involving way of using spies than accumulate points>steal>wait for AI to tech up again>steal system we have (being both overpowered and massively boring).
I'd take out the "play to win" madness which affects the AI civs in all games, which is not a system for allowing the AI to properly play to win a game, just a system to allow them to gang up on you solely to stop you winning. I'd bring back proper diplomacy, where you can build up good relations with your rivals with effort (and it takes effort in 4), which wont be destroyed because of random dice-rolls (as is currently).
After fixing the problems then I'd look around to see what kind of innovation I could bring to the game, whether in the form of alternative government systems. I actually like the idea of social policies, would just prefer more flexibility in their use. Maybe a combination of having the SP boni unlock over time (using a score keeping mechanism while in a policy) and by teching, but keeping the situational flexibility of the civics in 4. It would allow a system where you can go for the powerful boni by working vertically up the policy tree, or allow you to be more flexible in response to outside events.