It's because of it turning peaceful victories into psuedovictory conditions. If you can win domination, you can win any other victory so if you set up for domination, then naturally any fast victory is derivative of that because nobody can stop you. Well, I won't argue that some things are just plain better than others. Running a settler into the barb camp and not settling a city is probably a very bad idea. The funny part is,of course, that it an argument for England to not be nerfed because what it had wasn't particularly overpowered anyways and I saw no reason to believe 2 trade routes (especially when you need a district building now) could be overpowered since now I'm even less likely to build c-hubs, speedrun or not. It is of course always good to point out potential flaws in gameplay and poking holes is important. The AI more or less does the same thing aside from agendas and recently, a religious flavor. It always does a vague beetling to rocketry and builds whatever becomes available. If it gets disrupted, then it'll just have a hard time catching up. If you've ever seen a bunch of horse barbs surrounding an AI, it'll generally never recover because it got knocked that far off course. Thus, the Ai will look worse if you do disrupt its plan, by attacking, stealing/trapping its settlers. It's not that the AI is getting dumber, it's just having a bad (worse) game. A bit of a hyperbole yes. And indeed this does drive something widely known as the metagame and also very important to a game's design.