Optional, your screenshots from your game don't refute my point.
That is correct. Neither does your screenshot
make a convincing point, because it are all just individual moments from games. Those pictures are only illustrations.
Looking at your Washington, it is very centraly located, with America already wiped out from the game. It is reasonable to expect a high amount of military pressure on America from the beginning of the game. America will likely have been in a situation where building workers was justifiably not the highest priority.
If you're saying Egypt, Polynesia and England had done better, some of those civs seem to have either started from a more insular position (Egypt at least) or have been the bullies instead of the bullied (Polynesia). It's too difficult for me to make guesses about the other ones just based upon this one screenshot.
It'll be easier for an AI on a lower difficulty to get into trouble. Their means are tighter. In the juggle between military needs and terrain management something's bound to lose out.
The AI should not have to cheat by receiving free Workers to improve its tiles properly.
Are you calling the bonuses the AI receives on higher levels cheats? I like to compare them to the handicap system a sport like golf has. Different rules for different players, mutually agreed upon. You can only talk about cheating when you break rules.
Are you having problems with the existence of difficulty levels in games in general? Most strategy games have them. The Civilization series has always had huge bonuses for the AI on the higher levels, it's nothing new.
It's not as much of a problem for players who play on the higher difficulty levels because the AI cheats and receives ridiculous bonuses such as free Workers. The only way for the Player to compete is to produce enough units to deter the AI from attacking, and shamelessly exploit Research Agreements to advance in the tech race. That ensures that higher difficulty campaigns tend to be relatively peaceful; fewer wars ensure that Workers aren't captured, therefore the AI can improve its tiles like it should.
This is pretty far off from how it really is. You're not forced to build military only to survive in the game, that was true for Civ III (CIv 4 I never played), but in Civ 5 you can still even build early wonders on the higher difficulty levels, just look at W A I N Y's Let's Play's, he will often have a go at the Great Library.
Research Agreements aren't crucial on any level, and I find them helping extremely little to keep the peace. Peace itself is not crucial either to do well on higher levels. It was in Civ III, but not in Civ 5. 1UPT has meant a huge nerf to AI military strength, this is well documented. There's much less to be afraid of.
You'll have a better chance to sign Research Agreements on the higher levels, as the AI has more money, but I normally use it for allying City States. I'm behind in tech most of the time, but as long as the gap doesn't get too big that's not too bad. It's much easier in Civ 5 to do well while not exactly being in pole position in the tech tree.
AI bonuses had a much more unbalancing effect in Civ III (again, I can't speak for the others, as I haven't played them), and the strategy path for the human player became rather narrow.
There could be potential worries in Civ 5 as well. If I'm looking at the obscene financial bonuses the AI gets, they only need to step up their efforts to ally City States and it would become impossible for the human player to compete for their favour. Then I would have a problem, because I don't like parts of the game being completely taken away from me.
How it is now, on higher difficulty levels the human player can still compete on all levels. Not on all levels at the same time, I mean you can't expand fastes, build the most wonders and have the biggest military
at the same time, but that's not how it should be either.
But pick any strategy path you want to focus on and it can be a viable path. That you have to make some sacrifices in other departments is only logical and how making choices in strategy games
should work.
I don't have any problem with Civ 5 AI bonuses. What problem would you have with your game, Soryn Arkayn, if the AI received an extra worker?
The only thing I'm getting concerned about if I'm reading your post is that you're stating that AI workers were better before the patch. But I can't say anything sensible about it, I only started playing this game in the summer and never noticed much of a problem.
I have no idea what could explain that change you've observed. I don't think there's anything in the flavours about workers. The flavours are for the leaders, not the workers.
I'm afraid all workers do the same thing, from whichever tribe they are.
An Iroquois worker is just as likely to chop a wood as any other worker, regardless of the Iroquois leader trait or their unique building. I don't see anything in the XML files that would point to different rules for different workers.
Did you even read what I wrote? 
