Some games don't suffer from being little realistic, may be are more fun instead
. Civ is another matter, because it draw a great scenario and, apart from inserting an "immortal player" (it's not a movie after all, is it?), it try to keep history as a main line.
Your post appear to suggest that fun is more important than historically realistic, and I can agree to a point. Our idea, OTOH, is that historically realistic game can be
more fun or at least not less.
I underline too much time how a good game should teach something to the player. I'm not speaking of "edutainment", I'm speaking of helping player to make new links between actions and consequence, between given results and original environment.
Understanding often is equal to discover and rebuild the underlining model. Any player can work on any game model but surely he/she can learn more interesting stuff from realistic one.
So, until is playable and fun enough, I'm for historically realism on any Civ game.
------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant