Does anyone else find this game to be too easy to auto-manage?
I believe that the new 'auto-magagement' features make the game nearly play itself. If you want to, the only thing (almost) a player need do is tell a settler when to build a city and hit the end turn button. The computer will suggest units, research unassisted to an assigned goal, build all city and land improvements and explore uncharted territory. What is left to do? I tell the computer to go stuff itself when it suggests most things and I try to make sound city decisions but I find that the ease of the automanagement lulls you into inactivity and inattentiveness. I was in 1920-something before I knew it in my first game (which I lost due to military dominence of the A.I. and some premature diplomacy mistakes on my part.)
I still enjoy the formula of reshaping real world history and pseudo managing an entire civilization from BC to modern times (2020? something like that?). The 'great person' feature is a great idea but does not seem impactful enough as the 'great people' leave no real mark in history like building the pyramids does.
I find the subtleties of the game's apeal to disapear like dust brushed under the rug by a robot vaccum cleaner. Got that? what am I doing in the game? How are my decisions making any impact on how my civilization is turning out? Could I really just keep hitting the end of turn button and win on time?
I think that the old micro-management allowed you to look 'under the hood' of your civilization and see the subtle changes that your decisions made. It forced me to look at each city and figure out why it wasn't growing or producing or why everyone was upset. I felt more involved. I find Civ 4 to be impersonal and hard to approach because of its sleek, 'hands-off' controls. And for thaat reason it is more difficult because your incentive to learn how the game works is gone. End Turn.