I've never got the complaint about archer rush. I have yet to face one, my K-mod opponents do tech and in a sensible way (getting food tech and bronze age early on, none of them rushing religion at the cost of worst start, but some don't ignore it later on, ...).
If the complaint is that it's too strong, well, you asked for a stronger AI, if you overextend, and landblock an AI with undefended cities, of course a smart AI should punish you with archer rush, or even warrior rush depending on how ludicrous your opening was. Monarch+ AI getting archery for free doesn't make archer rush too strong, if anything, archer rush makes getting archery for free too strong.
If the complaint is that it is too easy to repel, or too lame without being good, well, again, I have yet to see one (I think it has been tuned down compared to the initial release I've seen people react to) and I am an aggressive REXer. But even if it happens, it's not much different from having Shaka and Monteezuma as neighbors: if there are more than 2 AIs, you still have a game to play (they don't archer rush each other, only people with huge discrepancy between total score and military score indicating good easy land to grab).
I agree non standard game rules is somewhat problematic, but for the most part, it's hard to tell the difference between that and unmodded, and the difference are minor and come at the later stages of the game. So if you post screenshots of your games for how to settle your 8 first cities, or ask advice about how to set up an economy, the regular civ answer is the exact same as the K-mod one. Sharing save is an issue, but I'm not even sure it's less of an issue with better AI.
Last but not least, unmodded civs is perfectly fine to learn most there is to learn about the game. And baring AI exploits, all you'll learn is reusable in about any settings, including multiplayer and some heavily modded ones.
