“Purists” say that because people often come with assumptions that are just plain wrong. You can see that in this thread. Multiplayers often have this perspective because they naturally see more strategies than any single player can. In one game, a multiplayer can see 8 different strategies while a single player can only see one. Multiplayers also push one another to become better in a way that doesn’t exist with SP. It’s not unreasonable to say learn what already exists instead of crowing for something “new” that already existed and might break the game for others. 

Any innovation, and the multiplayer purists come and jump. You tell me, there's nothing to fix. And the answer is if the game, apart from the performance, has nothing but incomplete mechanics, because the game is incomplete. It lacks mechanics and any new mechanics, they all come to defend the holy sacred balance (of an incomplete game).

That's why a design has to be done from the outside and not with what already exists.   Tech tree mod, something.  

I think they theoretically could make sense. For example, if you started out as a base Hellenic civ that you couple develop into Athens or Sparta with unique features then that would be pretty cool. But for simple techs I think it takes away from the cat and mouse game where players adjust their strategies in response to the other because tech pairs, by definition, eliminate future choices.  One of the main problems I have is that people want new, novel features and never consider whether those novel features actually make any sense. 

They raise their hands to the gods on high, no matter which god. The gods are on high, except for those of the Underworld.

That is true. I'd only use them as a design decision, not as some kind of fix for something. 

@Classic-Burger Will your Priests praise the Sun, as welll?