I don't think "realism" and "symbolism" (or abstraction) are necessarily at odds.
The traditional Civ way of representing terrain, cities, production, etc, are all abstractions (or "symbollic"), but they are representations of realistic things.
Civilizations lasting from 4000BC to the 21st century is an abstraction, but depending on what you consider a civilization to represent, not implausible. No state or polity has lasted that long, but certain cultures (e.g. China) have persisted, with a sense of continuity, for a very long time, and it isn't implausible that others could have as well, if things had turned out differently.
On the other hand, archers shooting over mountains and seas (and sinking battleships) seems to me to be just unrealistic, regardless of how abstracted it is suppose to be.
As to my preferences:
I like Civ to feel as though it is realistic.
Abstracting the building and development of cities is fine (and I don't think it should be changed unless the change makes for a more interesting game).
Abstracting combat is fine, although it should be designed so that the outcomes seem plausible. (Archers shooting over mountains to sink battleships is too unrealistic for my liking; a single warrior being able to destroy all the ships in an undefended city, then razing the city, without even having to roll for damage is not only unrealistic, but a very frustrating game mechanic).
It shouldn't force your game to follow real history, but I'd like it if as much as possible to gives the feel that whatever does happen in a game could have happened.
I don't want it to force all civs to appear, develop, and fall exactly as they did historically. But I would like it to make that a possibility (possiby subject to game configurations), and to ensure that whatever does actually happen generally looks as though it could have happend that way in an alternative history.
Civilizations lasting thousands of years is fine - most of them didn't in reality, but depending on how abstract the concept of "a civilization" is, it isn't impossible. And its a reasonable and necessary game mechanic.
Forcing a civ to rise, develop, and fall exactly as it did in reality might be "realistic" (although not necessarily, depending on how determaistic history really is), but wouldn't be good for a game except in specific scenarios or game modes. (I like Rhys and Fall, but I do find it frustrating the extent to which it forces certain civs to occupy exactly and only the areas they (by certain definitions of "they") did in reality).
Although I thin what would be the best of both worlds would be to have game setup options to control how "simulationist" the game was. For example, the civilization definition files could include date, unit and technology values for a normal game start, and for a historic start. So in a normal start, the Mongols (for example) would begin in 4000bc like everyone else, with two technologies and a settler and a warrior. But on a "historic start" they would spawn in the middle ages (possibly flipping part of someone elses territory, Rhys and Fall style, with a big stack of horse archers and appropriate technology.
You could also have options for "geographic (physical)" and "geographic (political)" starts, to make civs spawn in lattitudes or terrain types they historically occupied, or near other civilizations that they historically bordered.
Add in options for dark ages, rebellions, and other forms of collapse, and the game can be as "simulationist" or as "gamey" as you want it.