You are optimzing, otherwise you wouldn't win on King. That does not mean you have to crunch every number. You are satisfied by what you are doing because you are successfully doing it. And that involves not doing certain things because they are bad. And it also doesn't matter whether you see the winning screen or not. I don't play most games past the point where I know I will definitely win either.
I agree that I optimize to a certain degree -- it's an inherent part of 'playing a game'. As you say, I simply don't optimize to the same degree you do.
In part, I see it as part of the hierarchy of values -- I value optimization to a certain extent, until that optimization costs me other aspects of the game I enjoy. Sure, I could probably play more competitively and at higher difficulty levels if I followed the typical strategy of opening with Tradition, building only four cities, rushing the National College by chopping down forests, etc. But that would cost me in other areas, and so I don't pursue those strategies.
Civilization is all about your understanding of the game mechanics and seeing how your applied knowledge works out in different situations. The only reason you disagree with this is that my description seems so technical and that again seems contrary to fun. But in fact, it isn't. I just happen to gain more satisfaction from being even more efficient.
I would disagree with this assessment, however. I don't feel that Civilization is solely about reducing the game to some kind of abstraction and using it to test me knowledge. My most memorable games of Civ were back when I played hotseat games with my brother, and we made empires that sprawled across the globe. Sure, there is a certain degree of "overcoming adversity" to be involve, but it's not the
only aspect of the game I enjoy. Going back to the 'hierarchy of values', there are other things I value over simply applying my knowledge to defeating the game. There are aesthetic elements -- I'll refrain from chopping down forests and filling marshes, even if these would be more optimal, because I like having forests and marshes in my empire. There are roleplaying elements -- I'll try to get every luxury for my populace and ramp up my happiness to high levels, simply because I like the idea that my people are happy and prosperous. Or I'll simply crave the satisfaction of an empire that spans from sea to sea. If the optimal solution runs contrary to fulfilling those goals, then optimization gets kicked to the curb. Sure, I could open Tradition to get a better start, but I'd rather do Liberty to expand my empire and get more luxuries for my people. I could limit myself to only four cities, but then I wouldn't have a wide, sprawling empire.
As you commented to Manannan, these are all subjective opinions. What I prefer or seek in the game is going to be different from what you seek. I think the big issue is that people tend to be reductionist, thinking that everyone is (or at least, should be) the same. You argue that I'm the same as you -- I'm seeking to be competitive, just not as much so. I argue that I'm different -- sure, competitiveness is one of the things I'm seeking, but I'm also seeking other things that you aren't.
In the end, I think it's a question of how much we can tolerate diversity. There are people that look down their noses at casual players and call them pejoratives like "scrubs". You've got people like the OP who complain that the Civ team decided to actually make something other than a historical game for a change, and decided to make a sci-fi game instead. But I'm rather skeptical about people who try to pigeonhole things, who argue that everyone should aspire to the same goals, be the same way, never try new or different things. It seems needlessly conformist.
