I'll just say I really have little confidence in this game. When I heard this announcement, I was ready to buy Civilization V the day it was released; however, reading the way they are stripping down the game, I'll just wait and see.
I don't understand why they are aiming for an "average gamer." What individual without some passion for history/geography is going to pick up this game just to play it? Unless Firaxis is strapped for cash and the publisher is pushing for this direction, I just don't see any reason in abandoning your core audience. Yes, abandoning. Less civilizations? Less technology? Less units and gameplay features? No, I will not buy this game. I want complexity. I want authenticity. I don't want Cleopatra with big jugs. I don't care about graphics and battle engagements. I want to build a civilization, my civilization, and I want it as complex and difficult as it would and should be. So if Firaxis is satisfied catering to the "average gamer," they can shove it. I'll stick with Europa Universalis or any other game that promises me an experience beyond the load Firaxis is feeding its fans.
I don't understand what you're talking about at all. Based on what we do know about techs, there appear to be a similar amount (the tech tree extends further). Also, the previous benefits provided by cultural techs have been rolled into the policy tree (which makes culture far more important, and offers a much greater set of decisions than civics). On less civs, there are 18 civs in the game, which is about what Civ 4 offered at launch. This isn't even counting the greater variation between civs, now that each leader has a unique bonus instead of a combination of traits, as well as having 2 unique units/buildings. On units, we know of only three units that were in civ 4 that aren't in civ 5 (Longbowman, which have been rolled into the previously underused crossbowman under the new combat system, macemen, which have been replaced by longswordmen, and axemen, which have been rolled into spearmen). As to gameplay features, again I'd like to point out that very few have been 'removed', most of them have been reworked. Tech trading had major issues, and has been reworked into 'research agreements', which offer similar benefits (research multiplication), but with more costs (gold to start it, and it is broken if either party declares war/whenever they choose). As to the general complexity, take a look at the basic resource system. In Civ 4, you had 3 resources that were generally relevant, food, production, and commerce. In civ 5, you'll have to manage food (which now also partially feeds into science), production, gold (which now has more uses including city-state diplomacy, rush-buying at any point, rush-buying territory, and signing research treaties), culture (which is now many times more relevant with staggered expansion, potentially wider city radii, and the entire social policy tree with all of its powerful benefits. I'd agree that there hasn't been a lot of clear information released yet, but I urge you to look at Arioch's excellent site over at
http://well-of-souls.com/civ/index.html
And I really don't get the civ rev reference, this game doesn't share its design at all.
I just suggested that it could be like that. We heard that capturing capitals is enough to achieve victory by combat. Most assume this means it's "game over" for a civ without capital, but that's not necessarily the only way it could be.
