I mean, really, the only reason people seem to be arguing about whether one game is more complex than the other is to devalue the opinions of people who support the game they dislike. Have we forgotten that Civilization is, you know, a game? And that a game's purpose isn't to be complex, but instead fun? If the addition of reduction of complexity positively or negatively affects your view of Civ V, then that's fine. But arguing about how complex the game actually just for the sake of trying to prove the haters on either side of the argument wrong is pointless. It's not going to change anyone's views and just serves to feed the flames. Personally, I prefer Civ V. I don't care if it's less or more complex than Civ IV, since I prefer Civ V's mechanics to Civ IV. I like the heavier emphasis on macro-management in Civ V than in previous iterations and I like the war-game feel. I'm not new to the series, as I've been playing Civ games since Civ II (and countless other 4x games), and I'm not an RTS fan, so, any of the common "negative" arguments as to why I like Civ V go out the window. It simply boils down to me having different preferences in my strategy games. I like what I like and you like what you like. Civ V fans aren't going to persuade people who dislike Civ V that it's a good game and people who dislike Civ V aren't going to persuade Civ V fans that Civ V is a bad game. So, seriously, just stop it.