From what I have seen and read, Civ 5 needs a lot of improvement particularly diplomacy, lagging, turn times too long on larger maps, long build times, lack of depth - to name just some. Not to bothered about lack of religion or spies, tech trading; but to leave out the useful power graph and each Civs relationship with one another is a mega mistake. I can only see my points score with each city state but not with the main civs. A relavant point that Sulla makes on his website is how the AI is able to maintain large armies on higher levels without going bankrupt as the human player would suffer this. If the A1 does not indeed suffer this penalty then the game is not worth playing. Why the reviewers think this is a great game I dont know, it has potential to be one, but not for another few more months have gone by for some serious patching. I like the way the game forces you to give orders to units as in CIV 4 I often forgot, probably why I lost mostly. Civ 5 is certainly more accessible but not enough detail/options as in CIV 4. Play on Prince-still cant win though! CIV 5 feels like a console game. I have a fairly high spec 2 year old system and by around 1850 it locks up my system and crashed. Therefore do players think it would be better for me to go back to ROM and wait for CIV 5 patches, or persist with CIV 5? Maybe play with diplomacy turned off? Not sure what to do for the best.