Historical immersion is very important to me and I felt cIV did that in spades. (...) I want to feel like I'm playing in a historically plausible world.
This.
Emphasis put on "plausible".
I don't want to mimic the history of the world as we have in the history books. That would be re-playing.
I want to create and have my part in a historically plausible world.
Granted, if you take a lense, each Civ game lacked in that aspect. Yet, Civ0.V lacks even more.
and the people who want to play or improve Civ 5 will be able to do so more easily without your half dozen posts explaining about how it isn't up to your standards...
Just being curious: in which way does somebody else's different opinion harm your joy to play the game?
I think historical immersion is somewhat important. I also think that Civ V is more historically immersive than the Civs before it, including Civ IV. Why?
1. Religion. Religion has traditionally played a backdrop role in history. The French and the English sharing the same religion did not stop them from merrily butchering each other. For that matter, it didn't stop the Sunni and the Shiites from doing the same. When the Mongols came over Central Asia to crush everything in their path, it wasn't because they were pissed that everyone had a different religion.
In Civ IV, religion played a central part of diplomacy and to determine which allied blocs were allied with each other. This is as much as modern political statement as it is anything else. It certainly isn't historically immersive.
First of all, from the western point of view, the Crusades would have been one example why religion did have much influence in former times.
Canossa comes to mind.
The Order of Teutonic Knights establishing their rule in what later was called Prussia would be another example.
The 30-Years-War (about the different interpretation of key aspects of the christian tradition) would be the next.
Religion having a backdrop role in history? Sorry, but you failed completely.
2. Civics. Many Westerners have this strange notion that European civilization and culture is the only thing that exists on the planet. Certainly, Civ has always been extremely Euro-centric and that's always hurt its historical perspective, IMO. Chinese history doesn't have a Medieval Period, and they've had Crossbows since, like, forever.
That's the reason, as I assume that Patronage is a Medevial Social Policy?
Thus, the Social Policy model makes more sense to me than the Civics model. It may seem strange to some that you can be Monarchial and Democratic at the same time, but England seems to be pulling it off in some senses.
So it makes more sense to you to have England have a +50% bonus on creating Great People (Democracy) and having to spend -50% for acquiring new hexes (Monarchy)?
3. BFC. It has always seemed strange to me that cities could only benefit from and work the areas that are closest to them, especially in the modern eras.
In which way would that have changed with Civ0.V (not to mention the flawed way of picking new hexes)?
Thus, a new city that is near enough can still benefit from the bread baskets of your empire that usually supply the core cities.
Beg your pardon? What are you talking about?
4. Normal tiles. In this Civ V was more like Civs 1-3. There are no megatiles.(...)
In Civ IV, Super Tiles meant that a city was founded mainly on the special resources it could harvest, and this advantage carried forward into modern eras.
Seems to me that most cities in ancient areas have been placed near to easy to harvest food resources of whatever way.
There have been (and still are) fertile areas, and areas which didn't allow so much for a good harvest. This is reflected by what you call mega- or super tiles.
5. 1UPT Again, this might surprise some, but I consider 1UPT to be more reminiscent of historical events than SoDs. It comes down to Thermopylae, really. Small armies can hold off larger ones if the terrain is right. Thermopylae can never happen in Civ IV or Civ III, because you can stack an infinite number of units on one tile.
And now please tell us, how often Thermopylae has happened in human history?
Why do we still remember that battle after 2000 years? You are right, because it was such an exception that it stayed in the mind of people.
If you could name me a premodern religious war where the participants had to embark on a long intercontinental water route to reach their enemies, I would be much obliged.
Ever read about the logistic problems during the Crusades, finally leading to the Crusaders losing grasp on the Holy Land?
