Yay: Hexs (diagonal movement on quads is wierd), really ranged units (one of my favorite things added in fall from heaven), and dead super stacks (maybe)
Boo: Steamworks
I don't intend to ever play this game online, so why should I have to use steam?
Also Also hoping Civ dosen't go the way of SupComm2 and DoW2 with the less is more thing.

you can play steam offline was you download the game, you don't have to have a permanent connection to it.

The more coverage I'm seeing of Civ V, the more I'm looking forward to it. All of the streamlining to the interface and the game mechanics really look and sound like they work well. I am curious to know more about the supposedly deeper political game and AI.

Well it has never been tested yet so there's no statistc to prove either way but having non steam version would definately increase sales even if it's multiplayer would be stripped to bare bones version (multiplayer thru hamachi, gameranger or something, no additional MP features). Civilization is and hopefully always will be primarily singleplayer game. To make it more multiplayer friendly, it would have to be dumped down a lot and that would drive away majority of it's current fanbase.
It could actually been interesting experiment, to offer steampacked version and bare bones one to see if there is enough market for bare bones versions and could of games could they be made profitably. Only problem is they don't generally release DD sales statistics and even if they did they could be easily modified to show what ever they want the statistics to show without any way of verifying if it's right or wrong.
BTW, how does DLC generally effect multiplayer anyway? I'd imagine DLC to be unusable in multiplayer unless everyone has the same DLC's.

What coverage exactly? I've yet to see any screenshots or videos showing game interface or actual gameplay (yes there have been some pics of battles but there's no indication how the battles actually work).

Maybe it would increase sales, but would there be a point?
All you would be doing is releasing a gimped version ("Argh! They are discriminating against us! The non-Steam version has no multiplayer!"), dividing the community, and probably straining the relationship with Steam/Valve.
As for DLC and MP: It varies from game to game. Sometimes it is as simple as a few people have access to more shinies, sometimes it is separate maps, and sometimes it is complete incompatibility.

Yeah but in 5, 10, 15, 20 years when Steam dies I install the game I paid for anymore.

Err, excuse me but more sales = more money. Only thing of any relevance to them should be wether or not the it's worth the added expense. Also it would not alienate part of their fanbase as steam exlusive does.

I would disagree. It would alienate the people who bought the Steam version but wanted the non-Steam version or vice-versa. It would also alienate the people who wanted to play multiplayer without Steam.
Ultimately, I don't think releasing a Steamwork'd and a stripped-out non-Steamwork'd version will work, largely because of customer confusion and the extra QA required for two versions.
Of course, we won't know how this will alienate the average Civ player until launch, if at all. (Average Civ player is not the same as the average Civ forum poster)

As Delusions said, it really would divide people.
You have the people who thought they only wanted SP, then scream because they can't play MP.
You have the people who wanted achievements, but scream because the non-Steam version doesn't have them.
Then you have the people who are currently screaming that there is no non-steam version who will scream that the Steam version has features they don't.
Also, as for "more sales = more money", only in a very naive example. Let's use a marginally less naive example:
You own a lemonade stand. You know that Old Man Jenkins will buy a glass every day if you make raspberry lemonade. But everyone else on the street HATES raspberries. Is it worth buying a can of raspberry lemonade concentrate a day just to get one more sale?
It is always costs versus benefits.

For DLC in multiplayer, they could follow the model THQ does with expansions. You can use whatever factions you own the content for, while anyone else can have those units display and everything, but they don't have access to it. For example...if I own Tales of Valor for Company of Heroes and you don't, I can use the alternative vehicles offered there. You can't, but you'll still see them stomping all over you. :)
And as for coverage...seriously? Civ V was one of the best received games at E3 (that ended yesterday)! Every game site has had coverage of it, including hands on impressions. Sounds like they have really developed a Hell of a game.

Smart move, they'll have lots of content ready at Day 1:
http://www.bitmob.com/articles/import-your-civilization-4-maps-to-civ-5

Hmm... interesting. All your favourite Civ IV maps (in theory, map converters traditionally don't work out too well. Probably the only converter that works flawlessly is TrackMania's), check, SDK confirmed, check, and map maker, check. (Source). I think it's safe to say that on the modding front, Firaxis aren't about to do a Creative Assembly.

The converter does sound good, but Civ 5 is apparently a very different game from Civ 4, so I don't think all maps and scenarii will be easy to convert.
The change to hex-tiles alone will really change maps, so you might be able to import your favourite one from Civ 4, which is a good thing, but it might not be very good for Civ 5.

Sad day for the Civ5 dev team. :/
http://kotaku.com/5582531/layoffs-hit-civilization-v-creators

This example is so horrible you should stop making them.