Simple = less choices to make. Are there few choices to make in GO or a lot? In fact, there are an extremely large number of them. For instance, Chess could be construed as a 'dumbed down' go. It is a much easier game since it is considerably easier to consider all future game states.
There are less decisions, and the decisions have less magnitude.
Sorry, but I think the choices are there. What civ should I be, which policies will I pursue, what wonders to invest in, where to place cities, should I buy a good tile and enjoy the bonus now or wait, should I invest in these city states, is it worth the money, specialist numbers, build a settler or go for a worker, etc. The choices are there, my contention is that they've only made it easier to figure out what your choices are. Therefore it is simpler, not dumber.
This is true, I don't think we are denying this. In fact, comments on the simplicity of the game aren't really talking about the combat mechanics. Few here would say that combat is simpler than in 4. It's everything else we have problems with.
Since the argument was the game was dumbed down, I gave an example of things I didn't think were dumbed down at all, this of course was the first example that's why it is included.
Oh *really*? And what exactly do you think they do instead? The very basics of AI programming are:
1) Dictating possible actions to be taken
2) Weighing the likelihood of those actions
3) Determining scenarios that change the weightings.
Whether or not we see a "+10" modifier from a ruler or not, I can just about guarantee the system is still working the same.
Sorry, but it's a completely different system. In Civ 4 I could cultivate good relations with my neighbor and they would not attack me, even if it would have been to their advantage to do so. Meanwhile, all the good things they'd done for me meant NOTHING if I needed their land, boom i attacked. And if we shared religion, I knew I could make it up easy to them. If someone attacked me and left me with 5 junk cities on islands I would hate them, but because we were both Hindu he's still pleased and willing to trade with me. The AI in Civ V is supposed to be like us, in that I could have coexisted peacefully with Augustus for 1000 years but if I'm getting a tech lead he's going to stop me, good relations or not. Again, if the AI was smart about this it would be a LOT more fun than civ IV. The Idea is good, but the execution is flawed.
So you are saying it takes more work on the part of the AI in civ 5 to get a space race victory, than it does for the AI in civ 4 to get a conquest victory? That's such a bizarre comparison. It really isn't that hard to get an AI to go after space race, and they don't even need to be doing it from the get go. I mean, unless the AI should be playing for space race from the classic era, and not choose as opportunity allows...
Actually, I'm comparing social policies to civics, and showing how one is easy for a computer to figure out and the other takes long term planning to be used effectively. It's easier to pick out the most helpful civic for the moment knowing you can just switch in a few turns to another than to thoughtfully pursue policies that further victory. It's a more difficult decision to refrain from investing in Piety now so you can enjoy Rationalism than simply switch to Representation to speed up your research for a while.
Once again, problems with AI have nothing to do with dumbed down game play. I'm not sure why you keep saying this. If the AI plays better, it won't suddenly make the choice of what buildings to build any more interesting.
Actually, it will. If the AI is better at combat, you'd be neglecting defensive structures/improvements at your own peril. If the AI was aggressively pursuing wonders to get more culture you'd have to choose to build wonders as well and risk occasionally missing out or to build units/buildings you're certain would be helpful. The choices would be much more interesting if you feared the consequences more.