Real Civilisations vs Fairer Gameplay?

Title pretty much explains it. If you want to be consistent with history you gotta make some civs stronger than others because they WERE stronger. On the other hand, if you make all civs almost equal then that civilisation is just a label with no meaning to it, cause its not that civ.

I think thats not really correct. Cause all of this civs were at a certain Point really strong. Some more economical others in the Military part. For a game you Need to find a way all civs are at LEAST playable. so you can “exaggerate” with some stuff. lets say the civ X had a real strong economy but their army was just big but not a lot of Quality. In order to be playable you (max Pop) you Need to make adjustments, strong economy YES, but maybe give them some Upgrades they normally not had. So WHAT? It is not reality BUT ist a game not a tribe Simulator or whatever.

What do you think about that approch: “Keep the main historic Advantages but buff/nerf them to fit in a gameplay”

I quote from the FE forum: Countless ,balance adjustments``

I think they mean with this the balance system from the civ

They will be balanced to be as equal in strength as possible, but each with their own strengths and weaknesses. Being equally strong doesn’t necessarily mean being the same.

Imo, obviously you don’t make the civilizations completely historically accurate in terms of strength. That would be ridiculous and would leave you with…what, like 4/5 viable choices? The whole point of civilization diversity and game balancing is to give the players plenty of choice, while making sure that no civ hopelessly outweighs the others. This would be one surefire way to break the game forever, and fairer gameplay is the correct option. It’s a game, not an interactive documentary.