Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
I don't want to play a "politics" game. I don't want rules for elections, I wouldn't use rules for intrigue even if they were there. I don't want many of the out of combat situations to be resolved by game rules at all. I want it to be a fantasy world simulator and there are not enough books or rules that could be printed to handle all the possibilities. A game that does do that is very constrained to specific scenarios and paradigms.This is just false. Combat has rules when people want to play a combat game. If they want to play a politics game, they have rules for politics. If they want to play a game of intrigue, they have intrigue rules. If they want to play a game about trading, they have trading rules.
People don't sit around and play Advanced Squad Leader and claim it covers elections, and building business empires and spying and then glibly state 'Ah we don't need rules for all that, because only combat is complicated."
Rules express preferences. Lack of rules also express preferences.
Out of combat is both easier to run and infinitely more complex than combat. To put it another way, what would you add? Specifically? Because every time this comes up it's always "add this please" with no specifics. But you want rules for elections, running businesses, spying, intrigue and on and on. What about rules for being a dog catcher or being a jockey (human and small sized mounts included of course)? Wait you missed those? But they're critical to my game! Oh, and BTW they have to work in Greyhawk, Eberron, Forgotten Realms, Wildemount and every home campaign out there while being simple to understand and easy to implement. Good luck.
You can't please everyone. I've never needed or wanted more out of combat rules yet there is plenty of intrigue, mystery and decision points in my games. It's just that I don't need nor do I want a mechanical resolution to that aspect of the game. I think you're asking for something that's virtually impossible. To each their own.