You know, Took, overall it really is a subjective thing when it comes to CIV 5. Being sarcastic isn't going to make someone enjoy CIV5. It is what is -
I have no problem with valid objections. Diversity in Civ 4 over Civ 5 isn't one of them, though. I'm not out to make people like one game over another. As with all other things, I prefer accurate analysis to sloppy hyperbole.
and well there is a tremendous amount of civvers who are not liking 5 at the moment - there has to be something to the madness.
Obviously, there's something -- but until a person can be more specific, what's the use in saying it.
For example, Madscientist has now pointed out that you can conquer three Civs with Jaguars in Civ V because the military AI is dumb. That's fair (though I would point out that a persistent comment in Civ IV was that military action was the AI's weakest spot, as well).
It's the diversity comment that mainly struck me as totally unfounded, and that's the one I responded to as far as Madscientist's comments go.
As Kid R's comment on Social Policies was completely wrong, I felt inclined to call that one out, too.
If we must go point by point:
1) Diplomacy is boring and one dimensional. 95% of the time it's staying away from close borders, at which time the best of friends will attack.
This is valid. Diplomacy is bonkers in Civ V.
2) Leader are basically the same with little difference. Might as well have fictional leaders, me against the red team, blue team etc...
This is completely invalid. Napoleon's early Social Policy jumps feel nothing like Washington's +1 sight for units or al'Rashid's focus on Trade Routes. If anything, this is a complaint to be leveled at Civ 4, where any ten leaders share the exact same trait.
3) The Ai stinks at offensive and defensive warfare. Building anything that helps military like a barracks is a waste.
This is valid.
4) The tech tree is mind-numbing boring.
This is valid for him. I'm not seeing much difference between the two unless bigger numbers mean you're having more fun, but you can't argue opinion.
5) City States at first were interesting but ended up dull and irrelevant (except they fought better than the AI).
I thought the consensus was that Maritime City-states are currently one of the most broken things in the game? Dull, maybe, but irrelevant?
6) Happiness is the most stupidly simplified thing in the game. Each Happy resource (and there a lot) give 5 happy faces spread empire wise. Why these cannot be split into something more like military resources (3 here, 2 there, etc) and alter the happiness aspect is beyond me. Why building do not work this also is beyond me (the Monestary and Mint are the only interesting buildings).
This is invalid. You may feel that happiness in Civ 5 is stupid, but it can hardly be considered simplified when Civ 4 has Hereditary rule.
7) Golden Ages are good and bad. I like the numerous ways to get them and the advantages, but frankly it's way too easy to abuse them and keep the game in a continual Golden Age later in the game.
Valid as far as it goes, but it sounds a bit like "it's way too easy to abuse cottages and get huge tile yields later in the game."
8) Great People are less "Impressive" meaning they do less, and I miss my zealotish Prophets. While it may appear nice to seperate the GP pathes, playing the percentages in Civ IV is missed. On the positive side here, GPS are just as valuable later in the game in V than in IV.
I can't speak for all Great People, but Great Scientists do more in Civ V. Choose any tech available?
9) I miss the choices and late game changing aspects of Espionage and Corporations.
Invalid. These were added in the third expansion for Civ IV, Corporations were badly implemented out of the box, and were introduced mainly to break the stranglehold State Property had on that Civic group.
10) Worker improvements are limited to farms (on rivers), Mines (less efficient), Trading Posts (every land NOT on a river), and Lumbermills (eliminating chopping). With the exception of FArms (Civil Service and later Fertilizer) no improvements are changed over time or tech. THe strategy and flexibility of cottages are greatly missed as well are watermills, windmill, workshops, and railroading.
Valid. This is especially the case with low production yields.
11) World Wonder seam soso and NAtional Wonders stink. NAtural Wonders seamed like a great idea but fell flat.
This is also valid for him. Again, you can't really argue opinion.
At any rate, the main problems are Diplomacy and the Military AI, with Maritime city-states taking a very close third. Diversity isn't on the list, and it's laughable to bring it up.
points instead of 
points, and get occasional empire upgrades in the same way as with techs. They are total gameplay padding, a second game mechanic exactly the same as an existing one. The devs added "detail", but failed to turn it into complexity or depth. Civics on the other hand give you choices every turn to reconfigure your empire in really big ways, and are wonderfully tied in with and balanced with other game mechanics. Surely 4 wins that round without question.
