I would rate CIV as mediocre i think what they are trying to do with the series is good, but losing religion (now in a DLC) and stacking makes I would rate CIV as mediocre i think what they are trying to do with the series is good, but losing religion (now in a DLC) and stacking makes the game tedious towards the end - so many units not enough space. But for the people who are good at the TBS genre and Civ in particular, there won't be much to hold your attention over Civ 4. The game isn't bad, and if you're not a Civ fanatic you will probably find a lot to like. The shallower nature of the game means there's less fun without a challenging AI to push you. The AI is bad and it makes the game really easy once you know how to play it. Once you know how to use rivers, hills, great generals, and ranged attacks strategically, you will dismantle armies significantly larger without difficulty. Combat is awesome, except that the AI is REALLY BAD at it. You notice that only a few Wonders are really worth their cost, let alone the difficulty in building them when the AI gets building speed boosts on higher difficulty. You can buy most of your food from city states if you want to, and come out ahead by just spamming trading posts. There's incentive for building a lot of cities but not letting them grow.

The empire building aspect is shallower then it was in Civ 4. The graphics are great, the new combat mechanics are cool, and there's lots of neat things to explore.

Game civilization 5