Totally unlike the real world, where ruling or governing is more about figuring out how to exercise power without getting overthrown.
Such a game would be way more interesting.
Paradox is also in the business of making boardgames, albeit with way more elaborate rules.
> your own with a computer, and I think it's worked out really well.
I don't think it has. The AI in Civ series is just bad, and only gets by through rampant cheating. Civ V was out for years, and they haven't managed to do anything decent with the combat AI. Nor prevent the AI from doing stupid things.
Yes, that's pretty much what the game is designed to be; keeping the game what people have enjoyed it for is sensible.
> Totally unlike the real world, where ruling or governing is more about figuring out how to exercise power without getting overthrown.
And, sure, such a simulation would be interesting, but it's not what civilization has ever been, or advertised itself to be. It would certainly be good to have such a game, but why should it be in, or replace, the Civ line?
No emergent gameplay at all in Civ.
Have you read about the Russian frontier? As soon as it was at least somewhat secure so living on it wasn't a sure-fire way of getting enslaved by Muslim steppe raiders(Tatars), the empty land was filled up by peasants looking for land to farm.
An increase in population led to more slave raids, so Moscow was forced to push the border further south to protect the farmers. In this way the border kept moving south. In 250 years, this mechanism caused the Russian state to expand from Moscow to Crimea.