As to Player 1, we shouldn't have to "work around" a bad design. The design is flawed.
As to Orasis (and many of the posters here), warmongers today tend to be unpopular. But there have been many civilizations through the years that used conquest as ways to expand - ancient Rome and Medieval Europe being just two examples. Further, most nations have always maintained normal diplomatic relations with other countries, unless they were at war with them. Most nations traded with Hitler as long as they were at peace, and most of the world had no problems coming to the 1936 Olympics. Most of the world trades with countries who have oil to export, even if they do not agree with their politics. Why? They want the oil. Look at the warlike nations depicted in the game - in real life, they traded with others.
There really is no way to have both a large empire and be on good terms with the world. Throughout history, people traded with other nations on equal terms almost no matter what, if it was good for them. If anything, the larger nations got the best deals, since they had more consumers. Further, it is silly just to use one 21st century political mindset to govern a game that goes back long before that. The game starts with cavemen, and many games are over before the 21st century.
The fact is, you have two choices - go the 4 city model and trade with the world, or be a "warmonger", and go alone. That ain't realistic, and the gameplay is stilted.