Some people get really worked up about the lack of unit stacking in Civ 5+. (Not sure if that's the case for the person you're replying to, but it's why a lot of people see Civ 4 as the pinnacle.) It's the 3.5mm headphone jack of Civilization games. I can see how, if you played and loved Civs 1-4, changing such a fundamental game mechanic would be jarring. But I don't think anyone who came later to the series would miss it.
Even if disabling unit stacking for combat was the right choice, disabling it for workers too just made the game far more tedious. Workers constantly cancelling the routes they're building because other workers were in the way means much more micromanaging. (Not to mention, workers under automatic orders are far less inclined to build roads on their own in 5 than in 2, so that's even more micro.)
approachable != better
For Civ it is. It's a pretty big title. It's the easy entry into the genre of big sprawling tech+strategy games, but it's not meant to be EU4. I play Civ as a casual game when I'm burned out from EU4. (I should really pick up and continue my Mare Nostrum attempt.)
Ah, just had a good Mamluks run in EU4 :) Left Civ to Paradox (thru HOI1) after Civ4. Nice to see a fellow Paradox player
I see Civ as the gateway drug to Paradox games. "Do you think Civ is too shallow and insufficiently historical? Well, check out these games!"