The shift from death-stacks to one-unit-per-tile made economic advantage relatively less important and battlefield tactics relatively more important. Tech is still important, though.
Some players like the old feel where battlefield tactics were abstracted away, and some players like the new feel where battlefield tactics are a big part of the game. But they are two very different feels from the same franchise, so we get into this debate.
Civ 5 onwards plays completely different because how tile movements are restricted.
In real life those silly restrictions they added do not exist and get in the way of simulating a war.
IMO it was sort of more “honest” from a realism point of view to just admit that the simulation is not that accurate at the unit level, you smash the stacks into each other and assume the officer corps of each army is handling flanking.
It is hard to say which way is more fun really. Seems like a matter of preference. I like tactical games better anyway, so IMO the new way is an improvement. But, realism? Not really.
The level of detail of battles is meant to be low because it's focused in wars not battles. You are not a war general you are a head of government.
There are still plenty of tactics in Civ 4. Units have different bonuses depending on terrain and other factors. You have to plan where the combat takes place and what types units you want to use.
Some unit types have collateral damage (catapult, trebuchet, cannon, artillery, mobile artillery, etc.), and there are similar mechanics with air units, cavalry, etc.
The game is not short of battle tactics just not the board game inspired mechanic of Civ 5+.
- you can destroy roads (needed for some resources)
- you can also occupy the tile or destroy the improvement (mine/plantation/camp/quarry/etc) needed to harvest a resource
- you can use diplomacy to deny a resource
- you can use a spy to destroy an improvement