I will start off by saying that I have been a die hard civ fan since civ 3, I loved civ 4 before and even played civ rev. I pose a simple question to you is civ 5 a step in the right direction or the wrong direction? I want to base this on the latest patched version. Please keep the conversation on topic and be civil. Here are the things I think were a step in the right direction. 1. I may be in the minority but I like the idea of 1upt, I think it would have been better to allow the formation of amrys but I like the idea behind 1upt even though its a mess some times I think with a few teeks it could work. I would allow for amrys to be made that way multiple units could fill a tile but not just huge stacks of doom. 2. I like the social policys, I like that they add some to the game. 3. For the most part I like the ua of the civs that came with the game. 4. citys are hard to take untill you get to gunpowder I like this as it should be hard to take citys in anchent times. Here are the things I think were a step in the wrong direction 1. I dont like the addition of city states as it relates to diplo victory it still just feels like you can just hold on to your money and bribe the cs before the vote and win. I miss how diplo felt in civ 4 it was a hard fought victory not just a bribe. 2. I dont like that you are punished so much for expanding it fine that you get punished for it but it should not be so sever if you pupet nothing, no one is mad but if you anex they are this makes no sense puppets would be just as mad. 3. poor combat ai while I can live with it as it is its still not up to civ 4 standereds. 4. The ai is broken and needs to be fixed I hope they fix it but in general RAs, declorations of freindship, and denouncements are broken. I feel the ai is really in a bad spot. 5.the general sense of the game being dumbed down. I feel it is the wrong direction but still a decent game.