Its kinda funny, the thing that really finally ruined Civ4 for me was the whacky time/space scaling: 1000 years to build a "library" or 200 years to build a "Spearman." Is that one spearman, 100 spearmen, or 1000 spearmen? It must actually be like 10,000 because he can control an entire province (tile) that is about as big as three or four in EU3 . . . yet "he" dies in one battles *poof*
The overall concept of the Civ series was inspiring. Heck Paradox probably wouldn't even exist but for Sid's paving the way, right?
Yet at the end of the day, sticking with the same basic game design (tiles, settlements that occupy whole tiles, graduated time scale, etc.) and focusing on greater elaboration of the strategically "frill" stuff has made the game seem less satisfying to me than a game like EU3 or Matrix'es style of games.
I hope Sid and crew might be listening and take my recommendations into account when doing Civ 5, but I won't hold my breath. I'll buy it, but I fear I'll enjoy it even less time than I enjoyed Civ4 . . . which seems like a long time, but in fact that was paying for Civ4, then Warlords, then BTS, then trying lots of mods, all in the span of what? 2 or 3 years? Seems fast compared to how long I played Civ3. Maybe at the age of 41 I'm finally starting to grow out of gaming? Naahh!!