I agree, realism is not the most important aspect of Civ. However, it is an entirely different thing altogether when there is NO realism to certain parts of Civ. The game loses its charm. The goal of the game is to build a civilization to stand the test of time. Civ is based off of straight forward aspects of the real world. For example, Republics and Democracies give your Civ more trade, but restrict your military flexibility. A gold deposit in the mountains will help your city with trade and in turn allow you to become richer. In playing the game, you weigh these factors in your attempt for domination. Obviously, the world is more complicated then this. There are numerous games that are more complicated than this system (Europa Universalis III for example). However, there is still a straight forward correlation to the real world. This is what is lacking the military aspect of the game. Riflemen are stronger than Chariots. This is just as apparent as gold giving you more trade and wealth. Why then do Chariots have a greater attack than Riflemen? Why do Riflemen have such a high probability of losing to a Chariot unit? Why is something so straight forward so incorrect? A Phalanx in modern times would have spears unless the civilization in question had better technology. This still does not mean that the Phalanx would be assumed to be equipped with better weaponry, because if the Civ had better technology, like gunpowder, it would not be attacking you with phalanx, it would be attacking you with Musketeers. So when I build my civilization into a world power and am ahead technologically, I expect that technology to give me the advantages that it would in the real world in Civ terms. This means my Riflemen should not be losing to ancient units. A very simple, straight forward connection to the real world.