Turn the V upside down; this is neither a victory nor deserving to be the fifth title and successor to a great series.
(-) INTRICATE STRATEGY: Simplification and reduction are not the same thing. I make this observation because Civ V has conflated the two by presenting gamers with streamlined and highly reduced version of its previous editions. Simply put, this game is less interesting than its predecessors.
(-) HISTORICAL INTRIGUE: The lack of substantive policy choices or governmental research confounded me. How the hell could the designers have gotten this so wrong? All of the linear and "path based" choices limit the creativity and identification of the gamer with his/her society. This was a terrible and wrong headed move.
(+) BATTLES STRATEGY: The change from squares to hexs was ingenious and long overdue. Additionally, the veteran system with units is fairly well balanced and interesting because it allows you to upgrade you units in ways that can fit the geography and aggressiveness of your game.
(-) AI WORTHY OF THE NAME: Take the 'I' out of AI in this game -because, unless you're online, you're going to be reminded of this ineluctable fact: you're utterly alone, and there's not an iota of intelligence in your competition. The AI in this game is ridiculous. Irrespective of your diplomatic bearing or history with a nation, in fact, irrespective of the size of the AI's military or political power, if it's a comp, it's going to throw a strategy at you that's aggressive and about as elegant a solution as whiskey in a Dixie cup. Fun for a while, nauseating after a few hours.