Thanks for pointing this out,  was going to play a sessions with some friends tomorrow and it would have been annoying to find that we couldn't save our progress.  I'll put the autosave frequency at every turn.

I don't know, right now there's a nice balance between units. Range units are very strong but vulnerable to cavalry charges that run around the front line and take them out. If you could just stack your ranged units on top of melee units the entire game would need to be rebalanced.

I have a 5 year old computer (dual core AMD - so basically minimum specs).  I have everything set to medium graphics level.  Game looks and plays great.  Do not miss this game for some unreasonable hatred of Steam or loyalty to Elemental.  You are not hurting Stardock by playing Civ 5 provided you have more than $50 in disposable income.  CIV 5 definitely subscribes to the KISS method.  I love when complexity manifests itself as opportunity costs without unnecessary encumbrance.  CIV 5 is the best game I've purchased so far this year.

Before I get flamed, Elemental doesn't count I bought it in 2009

Yes. If you compare Civ 5 at launch to Elemental at launch, it goes something like this:

- Civ 5 is having crash issues for some people in DX11 mode. Dropping to DX9 and/or updating drivers seems to fix it. Elemental had similar problems, but they were more widespread (30% of users according to a post from Brad). To date no reviewers have delayed reviews of Civ 5 because of alt+tab crashes or general unplayableness.

- Civ 5 has ugly rivers. Elemental didn't have rivers, or fully random maps (and Civ 5 has quite a number of map scripts).

- Civ 5 has a very strange design choice where you can't manually save in MP. Elemental had no MP at launch.

- Civ 5 has no animations in MP. Elemental has no AI players in MP (today, obviously it had no MP AI at launch since it had no MP).

- Civ 5 is tied to Steam. Elemental is tied to Impulse. This is a minus against Civ 5 if you care about that, but the overwhelming majority of users don't (especially since DD just passed retail in sales in the US, and Steam is by far #1).

If Civ 5 was being compared to the version of Elemental we have today? Elemental's scores would go up 10 or 15 points now that the technical issues are largely resolved and it's a better question. But the release version of Elemental was lousy, to put it kindly. Against that standard, Civ 5 is a straight up better game.

Lot's of negative posts over at CivFantics.  Mostly gameplay stuff and the "dumbing down" of the game.  Plenty of crashes too though.

Not a smooth launch at all. 

I am a Steam skeptic. I use Steam regularly and I understand the appeal of the platform. However, I consider the platform flawed and I am disturbed by the disproportionate praise it receives from gamers.

Refusing to buy Civ V, based on its use of Steamworks, is a valid reaction. I am a principled individual who acts on his concerns. More offensive to me is the person who dislikes Steamworks but buys Civ V because he hasn't the willpower to deny himself a major release.

The reviews don't confuse me. I've learned the following:

• New players will enjoy Civ 5 (assuming an interest in strategy games)
• Existing Civ fans will find Civ 5 shallow (compared to Civ 4), but enjoyable
• Civ fans who expect a game that has evolved in depth since Civ 4 (as Civ 4 did compared to its predecessor) will be disappointed
• TBS fans looking for rich diplomacy options will find their options limited

TBS players are a demanding crowd. They are some of the most "hardcore" people in the PC gaming universe. Critics have noted that Civ 5 attempts to appeal to a wider demographic at the expense of pleasing these TBS fanatics.

I haven't really felt that playing Civ was any less complex then playing Civ 4. The combat is much more complicated compared to the very simple stack of doom combat of the previous game, and the new culture and city state rules add extra complexity to the game as well. So far it seems like a genuinely deeper game, although obviously I haven't had it for very long. It's unclear to me what complexity people consider to be removed. I'm doing all the same things I did in Civ 4, only now I have more details to pay attention to and strategies for gameplay.

I guess you don't have to manage happiness for each individual city any more, but I'm not sure that this was any more complicated then managing empire wide happinesss. Civ 4's happiness rules were fairly simple and user friendly as well, compared to previous versions where you had to check every city every turn to make sure it was not about to rebel. I guess the loss of religion marginally reduces complexity, but it is more then made up for by any number of other things.

I honestly haven't even noticed that much of a reduction of micromanagement, at least compared to civ 4. I'm doing about the same level of economic micromanagement as before, and now I'm doing much more military micromanagement (but it's fun so I don't mind).

Quite a few formerly loyal Civ fans don't like being forced to use 3rd party software to play.

Probably one of the fairer comparisons I have seen so far between the two. I mean we are talking about launches here. Is it possible Elemental will be the better game in a year or two, maybe. The Stardock fans say it is so. I don't know. I didn't get GC2 until after the first expansion, and I wasn't impressed with how the current launch was handled. I'm still playing the demo, and cant' decide if I care for it. Something feels "off" to me, but my sister is all but throwing me out the door to go get it to play with her. WTH is up with no manual saves on MP!?

I do dislike steam its works much like Vista... hates dial up or anything as slow could work much smother.. but thats just Steam, I dislike steam but that hasn't stopped me from Buying it.

The DLC seems more of a money grab then anything else. at least this game has LAN shame elemental hasn't.... oh well gonna get back to elemental when its first Xpack comes out.

Been playing and largely enjoying Civ 5.

High points:

Great level of polish.

The Civ's bonuses have been tweeked, but so far seem pretty balanced. They are also more interesting by far than the bonuses in Civ 3 and 4.

New hex maps and tactical combat are awesome.

The mechanics in general seem more refined. Culture, boarder growth, etc work well.

Game feels a little more dynamic with city-states and all they entail.

Low points:

I have a fairly high-end computer (GeForce 260, i7 2.7GHz chip, 12 gigs RAM....), and on almost highest settings I find the game chugs. Talking heads/Diplomacy screens with freeze the game for 10-15 seconds, and stutter for another 10-15 before they're working. If I reduce the video settings to minimum, I get a smooth experience, but when my computer exceeds the reccomended requirements by an order of magnitude or two, and still has issues with the game at medium settings....

Too few Civs

No scenarios. I suppose these will have to fall under "mods," but they could have easily shipped the game with a few set-pieces, like they have done in previous versions.

A real pain in the ass to alt-tab out of. I like to switch between games and other applications, but Civ V hates handing the reins to any other program while it's running.