Apologies for the thread necro but I'm behind in my listening. This podcast spurred me to sign up in the forum so - well done!
As I write this, Civ 6 has been announced. Details are sparse but I noticed Jon Shafer commented in a thread about Civ 6 over at Civ Fanatics, so the podcast speakers have at least heard the news.
I will echo the comment here that Colonization should have been mentioned. It did have a brilliant end game mechanic with the war for independence.
My purpose for writing today is to urge 3MA to do another podcast on Civ before inevitably doing one on Civ 6. Why? The podcast speakers frequently mention Civ in the context of other games but the discussion tends to dance around clearly deep opinions on the subject. Troy once distinguished between "empire builders" and other types of 4x that offer alternative paths to victory. Rob is nostalgic for the unit festivals of war in Civ 2 while acknowledging appreciation for the multiple paths to victory of Civ 5.
I'd love to hear a deeper discussion about the fundamental nature of Civ. Not simply from a standpoint of good or bad game design, but whether the foundational assumptions of the series should be challenged and reconsidered. Does the series still have value, or should there be a new approach for a game called "Civilization" given the two and a half decades of real world historical and anthropological research since the game was created?