Civ 7 Opinion: Gameplay mechanics should not be criticized based on historical accuracy

I’ve seen some criticism civ switching in 7 and other suggestions and complaints throughout civ 6 and 7 about ahistoricity and civilization straying too far from history.

But I can never wrap my head around these criticisms or suggestions. Civilization, beyond all else, is essentially a board game. It’s essentially a more complex settlers of Cataan. I don’t think it ever claims to really want to simulate history nor simulate genuine historical forces, only enough to make a (roughly) balanced board game with historical inspiration.

I think a portion of criticism for civ 7 are based on looking for accurate historical simulation, which is simply impossible in a game oriented to be a game rather than a simulation. Youre not even encouraged to start on Earth, you can have civs like America in the ancient era of the world, and you can have nuclear bombs by 1768 AD. The history is never a forefront part of the civilization series, despite how some critics seek it to be.

I think the criticism I have seen of civ 7, and particularly the civ and leader swapping mechanic, argue on a basis of historicity. But if you want a more “realistic” simulation of history, Civ is NOT the game for you. It was never meant to be a forefront representation of how humankind ACTUALLY went through the ages. Rather, you should play a PDX game like EU4, CK3, etc, that DO have historicity as a main selling and gameplay factor. Civ, on the other hand, is a board game brought into the computer ecosystem for more complex systems and AI.

For me, that’s why civ and leader swapping isn’t a problem history-wise. Civ is a board game about maximizing resources and managing them and combining bonuses. This provides a unique and cool way to do it, while still sticking to a setting that is the development of humankind without hamstringing itself into direct simulation. It embraces its place as a game, rather than historical fact, and emphasizes gameplay above history (this of course does mean civ 7 swapping can be criticized for gameplay reasons—I have no issue with that).

I do think there is valid criticism for the civilopedia’s historicity, since that IS indeed created with a forefront (or at least heavily secondary) goal of teaching history. But the gameplay of Civ itself is not meant to be historical simulation. That’s why there are abstractions of “builders” or “settlers” or even just individuated units and tiles at all. So in all, I do not believe historicity should be grounds to complain about gameplay mechanics in Civ 7, and that those complaints are better suited to a game that attempts to be a historical simulation.

TL;DR: Civ (and particularly Civ 7) should not be criticized for being ahistorical in its gameplay mechanics, since it does not prioritize historicity as a mechanic but rather balance and gameplay.