Yea, I never thought I'd be a big fan of Ancient Med, and after playing it (to be fair, only a single game) I still feel that way. It would probably be better in a full press (as is regularly diplomacy), it just doesn't seem as big of a strategy game, like you said. At least for me, I feel like the way I opened pretty much set the course for my entire game. The map layout makes it real difficult to suddenly switch of your target. For example, I opened against Prussia, and by the end of it I had like six units over there and Egypt had a ton also. I felt I was pretty much forced on making a move against him next, because 1) it was likely he would attack me due to unit positioning, and 2) it would take like three years to put myself in a good position to attack Rome.
In a way, it was definitely fun. It was a completely new map to me, I had no idea of common or good openings (for me or my opponents) so instead of just going on autopilot at the beginning I actually had to look at the board and see what may be good. The map, and the number of players, just doesn't really appeal to me, so it's not something I see myself playing regularly.
You are correct though in that sometimes there are only 5 on, so we have to do what we can...and that's the reason why I played: