And it was broken in some situations. Resource balance in civ IV was egregious (didn't play much 3). The AI didn't abuse it, but a player with significantly faster resource hookup could pillage you to death uncontested with relatively little resource investment, instant game over. Was civ V worse off for lacking an RNG instant game over in 1v1 type scenarios? You are right to point out that previous entries in the series had examples of what I'm saying, which is why I'm concerned in the first place. Early game potential for luck-screws in IV was its worst balanced aspect (same goes for disparate combat RNG there vs any other period in the game). Wonders vs resources in IV changed their cost equation a lot (sometimes it was worth building with resource but not without), so you had a decision on your hands there, more depth than V in that regard, but not huge regardless. If they're implementing mechanics that mirror the design flaws of previous games, the question becomes "why go backwards?". I'm hoping they avoid that pitfall. That's not been the case in the past two civs already.