This is a hard research question. As achille hui says, one of the best lower bounds for the number of n-simplices known is (roughly) $2^n n! /n^{n/2}$, obtained by Hadamard's inequality, which gives you an upper bound on the volume that a simplex contained in the cube can have. (achille seems to be forgetting a factor of $2^n$, which arises from the fact that Hadamard's inequality is about the $[-1,1]^n$ cube, rather than the $[0,1]$ cube).
This "Hadamard bound" was improved by Warren D. Smith by using Hiperbolic volume and very recently by Alexey Glazyrin. They change the $2^n$ factor to, respectively, $6^{n/2}$ and $e^n$ (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019566989990327X, http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.4200).
In terms of actual constructions of triangulations with "few" simplices, the smallest size of a triangulation is known only up to dimension 7. It was computed by Anderson and Hughes (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0012365X95000758) and it has $1493$ simplices.
For high-dimensional cubes, there is a "simple but relatively efficient" trick by Haiman (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02574690) that basically says: If you can triangulate an $n$-cube with $\alpha^n n!$ simplices for a certain dimension, then by taking Cartesian products you can triangulate every $N$-cube ($N$ is now consider very big) also with $\alpha^N N!$ simplices. The best value for $\alpha$ known so far is obtained for the minimum triangulation of the $7$-cube, $1493 = 0.840^7 7!$. That is, Haiman's trick gives you triangulations with $0.840^N N!$ simplices.
With a more elaborate argument I, with D. Orden, constructed triangulations of the $N$-cube with (asymptotically), $0.816^N N!$ simplices (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00454-003-2845-5, http://arxiv.org/abs/math.CO/0204157).
For cubes of small dimension, apart of the Anderson-Hughes paper mentioned above I would cite this paper of Bliss and Su, dealing with lower bounds: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00454-004-1128-0, http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0310142
Summing up, I would say that so far "sophisticated ideas" provide only slight improvements to "simple ideas" (by "simple" I mean Hadamard for lower bounds and Haiman for explicit constructions / upper bounds).