I'm not going to go into too much detail because honestly when it comes to world history I'm not qualified to, but what are the major themes you would want Civilization VII to focus on if it was the game made for you in this moment of time. For me the areas of focus should be:
1. Forward progress is not guaranteed, knowledge can be lost, scientifically, culturally, civics, etc
2. Trade drives civilization, does civilization break down when trade breaks down?
3. Religion is a good excuse to get people organized to do something that otherwise would make no sense
I apologize that I cannot express these more eloquently nor can I vouch for how accurate these are but I'm sure there are some of you that can. These are the things I'd like to see emphasized, looking forward to your thoughts.
1. Scientific Knowledge is rarely lost, ability to
apply that knowledge may be, because the need to apply it gets lost or the skills to apply it require constant training and practice which is no longer worth the effort. Classic example would be building stone walls and fortifications, which was highly developed in classical Rome and Greece, but disappeared in northern Europe completely from about 500 to 1000 CE because building in stone was so expensive the little tribal states could no longer afford it, and so defended themselves with earth and timber fortifications (of which the infamous Norman 'Motte and Bailey' castle was but one example: the central 'keep' in those was originally made of wood, not stone)
Since Civ has never made the distinction between Science and the ability to apply that science, the distinction has never been as obvious in the game as it is in history.
Culture and Civics are much more flexible. The ability or reason to adopt any particular Civic is very often dependent on local requirements, and those can be economic, political, military, religious or cultural or (most often) a combination of several of those. That makes the concepts of Culture and Social Policy/Civics much harder to handle in the game because, unlike 'scientific' knowledge, there is no straight line between them. There is no 'progress' in Civics or Culture, just adaptations to local Events of all kinds.
For instance, Classical Greek city states, German tribes, Macedonia, Hindic Aryan tribes and the Roman state (republic) all had the concept of "Those who defend the group should have a say in running the group": 'kings' had to be elected or at least 'acclaimed' by the armed members of the society and the ability to bear arms to defend the state gave you Status. That makes the 'Civic' of Warrior Elite very widespread during (and before) the Classical period in cultures that vary widely in their ostensible politics and other features. The same 'Civic' shows up again, as Warrior Aristocracy, in the Medieval Era and the officer (i.e., Leader) corps of European armies down to the 20th century. In other words, there is little discernable 'progress' in that Civic choice from 2000 BCE to 1914 CE)
2. It's more accurate to say that trade and civilization drive each other. Trade, especially long-distance Trade, breaks down when Civilization and protection/control of trade routes and the mass markets for goods from a long way off break down. That, in fact, was one of the major effects of the 'fall' of the Roman Empire: long distance trade in Europe virtually stopped for nearly 500 years, even though Roman political forms and administration were carried on with varying success by the Germanic successor-states to Rome, and 'civilized' things like access to good iron tools actually increased compared to the Roman Empire - but everything from politics to economics became Local.
3. Religion and Politics are neither of them necessarily logical, so both are reasons to do things that, again, in game terms are not 'progressive' in their relationship. The ability to mobilize labor and work stone required to build Pyramids was present in the Roman Empire, Han Dynasty China, and the various Persian Dynasties from Classical to Medieval Eras, but none of them built them, because neither their religion nor their politics required/demanded such conspicuous consumption of labor and materials for Leader Tombs.
This, by the way, speaks to the 'requirements' for Wonders in the game. Many of them are like the Pyramids, reflections of very specific combinations of Ability and (religious/political/cultural/civic) 'Need', and simply will not be worth the trouble to any Civ not having that specific combination. Just because they
can, doesn't mean everyone will
want to build the Pyramids, or Stonehenge, or the Taj Mahal: because not everyone would get the same - or any - immediate benefits from building any of them.
