"In Civ 4, it's time consuming and at Noble, one always loses if you don't have a 10:1 ratio in terms of army size"
Glad I came to the thread late, so I didn't have to guess. So essentially, you're happy that you can buy stuff with gold now: it's a more useful system. One thing you didn't consider is that the AI in CiV is quite a bit worse than CivIV, so that is why you were able to do well with such a weak force: the AI honestly don't know tactics from a nail in their butt. Once that is retooled, I think you'll find it'll take more than gold to succeed.Only Lakart comes very close to the answer.
I declared war on the Arabs and Copenhagen. They responded with invasions, details skipped.
I managed to fight and kill enemies. To get an Archer, pay for it. Money builds up fast. Bought tiles is another great one. By the time I was posting this, I was about to invade Copenhagen.
All in all, many kills I have had. A game is for entertainment, not for being abated. In Civ 4, it's time consuming and at Noble, one always loses if you don't have a 10:1 ratio in terms of army size. Well...I prefer Civ 5 the way it is.
Definitely the designer takes on the idea of making it simpler has won the heart of many players this time round.
This became obvious days ago.
The people who like it tend to like it because it is a simplified war game.
The people that don't like it were hoping for, and expecting, a Civ game.