ok this one is really confusing me... you say you want good AI and otoh you don't want to give the game time? please...
ok I know their AI is so weak that it looks, like the PC is more throwing dices then calculating, but honestly, would you give enough time to PC if the turns made by AI would be strong enough?
imagine chess being forced to do calculations in fragments of seconds only...even best chess engines can take few minutes or even thenths of minutes in some parts of game.
Don't fool yourself even a second into believing that that time is required for a "good" AI. Here are some things that are currently eating crap tons of time:
1. Civ IV trade routes re-calc every turn. No caching, no exceptions for when there's no change.
2. (both games) unit movements, one by one, off screen. With animations off. *Not* the decision making process involved in moving the unit, but rather the actual physical motion.................................
3. General memory problems (game gets slower over time but speeds up if you quit/restart)
Off hand. Late game high level unit movement gets really bad, especially on huge. In my LP I could play my turns faster than the AI between turns, on average! You could literally SEE the game moving individual units ultra slowly.
Keep in mind, the AI bears the same movement lag we do (and could someone explain in plain terms why it is SO SLOW to simply select a unit and move it and click on another? Please? I haven't seen anyone manage a competent excuse yet), so when it shuffles 100's to 1000's (if you consider all of them) of units around every turn and they experience unit movement lag, moving them ONE BY ONE, I think you can imagine where over half if this idiot turn time is being spent, and it ISN'T on any semblance of quality on the AI's part! Want proof? Compare some turn times between strategic and normal views in civ V. Even then, however, you can literally outplay the interface...derp.
Civ IV AI doesn't make any complex thought patterns for MOST things. I am not a code wizard, but just read the things it does in the DoW logic thread; in some cases DanF actually posts the original code. You're getting RNG calls. Mass dice rolls that are then applied, for the vast majority of actions. Computers can do 100's to 1000's of dice rolls inside times we are capable of perceiving...but that doesn't mean it can move units if the graphical engine lags like the disgrace it is.
2)different world regions are banned from playing with each other. L O L. Why the f should I be denied the right to play against someone from Europe or Korea? If it's a little laggier, that's my choice. SC1 was worldwide and latency across the planet wasn't bad.
I actually consider this a good decision. Not everyone wants to play ladder with latency. Blizzard goofed slightly with the custom games though; hosts can't kick people from a public lobby (even repeat offenders) and restrict language; in this case might as well allow everyone in custom games, but never ladder. However, perhaps they had good reasons to split servers...like demand.
I was under the impression that blizzard typically did allow for some server swaps, I have an Australian friend who did it anyway.
As for practice: find a partner. You will not get what you are looking from by randoms no matter what you do. Ladder isn't so serious; it's an actual indication of your skill, and it will adjust you as you play it so rating isn't something so sacred.
The forced bnet thing and region lock are some of the biggest blemishes.
Notice, however, that you are not mentioning game controls or how the game actually runs in a game. There are no truly broken features that ruin balance like elephants or the apostolic palace. When you give a unit an order, it always happens (not so in civ, as I've shown in video evidence). Instead you're complaining about essentially the forced use of a blizzard server to play MP games, and that you can't play them the way you like. That is very reasonable as a complaint and has merit because of what the complaints are...but note that you are actually able to play the game without being mired in bugs, horrid UI, etc. Balance changes come with good reason and heavy testing by the community and probably a good dosage of statistical evidence. That's a far cry from "oh look what Unconquered_Sun did in this game! He had a big advantage that we didn't forsee! Nerf".
Civ V was so bad that HoF started making up garbage rules about banning "exploits" that weren't even known yet, a futile effort as the tables became way too far-affected by the next beta version (er..."patch").