Well i've already heard this from some civ fans with civ 4, when the game came out, they played it and were furious because it had changed ("where is pollution!! put it back in the game i want to have my 400 workers cleaning it!!! Omg i cannot do 200 towns anymore!! and so on turning on/off research to gain some extra money, same with production..), saying it had no depth, it was for the stupid masses of people too dumb to play a real strategy game.
But what i see in Galciv 2 (and civ 4) is micromanagement reduction and better presentation of the data to let us do things that matter more easily, analyse the situation, take a decision, make it happen.
In Galciv2 tech tree is so very simple and straightforward you could say its for children, but i think its amazing and the decision of wich path to take isn't easier.
City management seems like a game for the youngest people where you place buildings as if they were toys but the choice and quantity you decide to build has impact since its limited (even more than in galciv 1) and since population is a separate issue now (no need for people to build lots of a type of building) you can build whatever you want wherever you want it (less realistic maybe but freedom of choices).
Strategic map was not a feature i waited for but now i couldn't play without it, in galciv 1 it took an experienced player to see what was going on, now a unexperienced one can see the big picture easily.It really take the world map of civ 4 to a new level, you can actually play it that way... and you will!
And so on (ship design and info windows...)...
Easier to see what's happening (take a look at the big picture as they say
), harder to decide wich path will adapt to the situation.
Some people mistake depth with complexity of gameplay. I think its the decisions we make and not our capacity to multitask that should lead us to victory.
