not at all. Compare it to civ 4. In civ 4 you had multiple viable strategies and multiple viable paths, which gives you meaningful choices.
You can focus on food and specialists for GP. Now if you have GP you can bulb them to gain a lead in technology and what do you do with that lead? You could go on the warpath with technological superiority. Or you can settle the GP and build tall and spam wonders and build a very powerful economy while using not much land and gain a long term, late game advantage that way.
Or you can focus on food and production from the beginning and build massive armies to conquer and gain a land advantage early game and a military advantage with more generals and experience dunits.
Or you can focus on commerce and gain a tech lead early on using cottages. Late game there are options to make a cottage economy extremely powerful. If you manage to expand hard in the early game and grab a decent amount of land, and then hold that land, you can have a very competitive economy with cottages.
There is no set path. There is no optimal way to play. You have real choices to make. But in MoO CTS? Expanding harder is always better. More planets are always better. There are no wonders. There is no playing tall.
Civ 5 had meaningful choices as well. There were different strategies to employ. Now, to be fair, they weren't perfectly balanced and one strategy was much easier to pull off (4 city trad, tall, science). But a small balance problem like that is easily fixed with mods, or you can just play wide anyway once you're good at the game.
The strategic layer of MoO CTS seemed devoid of any meaningful choices. So, it was streamlined like AoW, right? So it's about combat, right? Okay, but the combat in MoO CTS didn't grab me at all. Do certain ships/weapons counter others? Is one design going to beat another design? I mean, yes, obviously certain defenses are there to counter certain weapons but none of it is explained very well