Well I know the team had good intentions, but what their philosophy is one thing, what was produced is quite another.
I think that philosophy is actually the source of most of what's wrong with Civ 4, myself.
There are two perfect examples of this. One is improvements. In civ3 you had 4 improvements, a mine, a farm, roads and railroads. Now you have lumber mills, waterwheels, workshops, forest preserves, and cottages, not to mention improvements on strategic resources.
The second are promotions. In civ3 you had four levels, conscript, regular, veteran, and elite. Now you have XP, levels, and promotions which give you a multitude of different abilities.
Exactly what came out of the game when these two examples were put in?
Pollution, corruption, unhappiness leading to civil disorder and possible revolution, unit strength varying in more than one dimension, and a number of diplomatic options. All of which were IMO mistakes.
I'm not saying I don't like it. HELL NO. I love it! It makes the game feel more like SMAC which had lots of options, units and buildings (though the unit builder is something we need to revisit one day because it was much fun!).
Aaaaaaaagh no please no. I want Civ to be a game, not a toy like Spore.