- I found it to be a really good game, better than the Sid Meier one in most ways.
- the design is cleaner and more logical than the other Civ. for these reasons, learning it is easier despite the fact that there are probably more rules in this one.
- there is a certain amount of randomness introduced through events that some might have a problem with. In the game we played it seemed like a nice addition because it forced players to react to threats that were not necessarily coming from other players (in this game, the neutral barbarians civilizations take an unusually active role)
- the tech tree, and the forms of government, work really well.
- there is a way of gaining victory points through cultural influence which is really cool. Essentially, if your city gets big enough the surrounding cities can become converted to your color and give you points in the endgame (they still belong to the original player for all other purposes)
- combat is very interesting because there are cards that can be used to give specific abilities (ambush, flanking, etc)
- objective cards and wonders provide short term/ alternative goals to players which give other reasons to players to pursue goals that are not driven by the other players.
- Shemp is a jerk for having taken over my biggest city on the last turn, giving him the win.
Downsides:
- It's slightly longer than the Sid Meier game I think, probably a full 60 min per player
- scope is reduced, as the game never goes beyond antiquity. That said, the Sid Meier one does a pretty poor job of modeling the growth of civilizations after antiquity anyway.
- there is a bit more of a generic feeling due to the lack of starting civ differentiation and the goal being VP driven instead of objective driven. Luckily, it felt to me that the technology tree and the way the world develops will allow for many different paths to victory.
