There is an interesting article in The Economist about the resurgence of board games and more specifically what makes a good board game. One of the most popular board games is Monopoly despite badly constructed game mechanics (about halfway through the article). I think there are some things Civ could learn from the observations: https://www.economist.com/1843/2017/12/13/table-top-generals "One of Monopoly’s big mistakes is positive feedback, designer-speak for a mechanism by which a small advantage early on snowballs into a big, insurmountable one later in the game, which makes things boring for the other players. Modern designers tend to prefer negative feedback, in which life gets harder for those doing well. Sometimes that is enforced by explicit penalties. Sometimes it emerges by itself, or through political dealing by other players. Conquering too many planets in a game of Twilight Imperium may make it hard to defend existing territory, for instance, especially if other players decide to gang up on the leader. That helps to keep things interesting for everyone." To me this is clearly where the biggest flaw in Civ lies. Once your "Civ capital" becomes large enough the snowballing effect causes the AI to never catch up. The game can be decided in the Renaissance and becomes a click for next turn experience. "Another problem is that Monopoly has a large element of luck (movement is controlled by rolling dice) and limited strategic depth. Some properties simply offer a better return on investment than others: buying them is always a good idea. Better to offer players less obvious, more thought-provoking choices: advantages that come with significant trade-offs, for instance, or whose usefulness varies depending on what is happening in the rest of the game. Hidden information opens up the potential for bluffing and misdirection. " Civ doesn´t rely too much on luck, which is good. However, advantages seldom comes with significant trade-offs. Not government wise and not civ selection wise (I find Mali one of the most interesting civs to play in this regard). There are no hidden motives either (that really matter). The few ways of winning are obvious all the time. Much discussion on this board concerns the AI:s ability to wage war. By some, hopefully, simple mechanic adjustments the AI:s performance would matter less. Emergencies is one such try. Two steps in right direction is congress where many civs wield considerable power compared to one civs in the form of increasing voting cost. The other step is the slightly harder to get Golden Age if you just had one. These penalties are however small and usually don´t matter if you have surpassed the AI already. And lastly, some people are negative towards any rubberbanding effects. I usually see some connection there with people who struggle to win the game and fail to capitalise on the snowballing effect.