I'm pretty addicted to G&K right now, but it just came out. Before I could only handle Civ5 in small doses too. Maybe 1 or 2 games a month. But I'm playing games back to back (still in the middle of my second game now- large map marathon). This is how I feel Civ5 should have been released as. The game seems fun which it wasn't when it was released. I hated Civ5 upon release. It's no Civ4. And a poster above mentions 1upt as an improvement. I know we'll always disagree with this. But I feel 1 upt has ruined Civ5. It's why Civ5 will never be as good as Civ4. But the developers have done a good job of minimizing how bad 1 upt sucks, and putting other fun things in the game. The reason why the AI sucks (also mentioned in an above post) is because of 1 upt. I'm sorry, but playing a tactical warfare game on a strategic scale map is plain stupid. It ruins the immersion. I will always hate 1 upt, and feel it's the wrong direction for Civ. Not that unlimited units per tile was a good thing, but I feel there's a happy medium. I'd rather they have it so you combine individual units into an army (Civ3 had this, but the ai sucked at it). Civ3 was the way to go, they just needed more army units (they should have been easier to make). With better improvements, I feel they should have went that way. Religion is better than Civ4, but could use some more tweaking. This is the only feature of Civ5 I like over Civ4. Espionage is alright, but could use more tweaking (more stuff to do) as well. The game is enjoyable right now, where as upon release it was unplayable (due to it being unfun).