I would like to give a little input, whatever it is worth. My feelings won't be hurt if you disagree.
I just recently played a game as Russia. As Russia, I almost always ignore china, prussia, and austria (too much headache to invade), support persia (I like persians ), and eat up scandinavia. In between scandinavian wars, I eat up eastern OE and try to support balkan nationalism.
This last game I just made it to 1888 or so before quitting due to an out of control economy and general boredom with Russia. This last game I was very happy with the difficulty in defeating the OE, while the time before this (many, many versions ago) it was incredibly easy to beat them. This time, while I knew I would win eventually, it took several years longer than I expected and I ended the war with a huge national debt. Towards the end, I was worried I might go bankrupt and drop my prestige several places. It was fun.
You perhaps know better than anybody what the power dynamics of the region should feel like, but I was very happy with the OE's military strength gameplay-wise, though I did notice Egypt losing the Oriental Crisis almost every game lately. For this reason, I was really looking forward to Rylock's new events to see how they played out in-game. I think the RP nerf to egypt was a fair compromise to strengthen it's military so it could stand up to the OE. I think we will see that when Egypt starts winning the OCrisis, the OE will be significantly weaker, due to not having the accepted soldier pops it is now gaining from the levant.
In the end, I would rather have an Egypt that is stronger than historically than an OE that is weak, even if it is more historically accurate. It seems egypt doesn't do much more with its army than put down rebellions when it isn't fighting the OE anyway, and the RP nerf seems a good idea to keep it as an unciv.