Why is this game such a boring, sluggish, chore for me?

[Ezzyz]

Thoroughly enjoyed civ 5, and while I can't pinpoint exactly what it is about civ 6 that makes me uninstall between attempted playthroughs, I feel a strong part is motivated by how frustratingly long it takes to do anything. Nothing feels streamlined or fluid, and I'm curious if anyone can tell me why I suck, or why it is that way.

[Twelvefield]

I feel that 6 is quite fluid, at least until the endgame. But if you like 5 better, then go with what you like! A lot of my friends greatly prefer 5 over 6. 5 is an excellent, excellent game.

In 6, I find it very difficult to keep focussing on a specific long-term strategy. There is always something that compels me to make a compromise away from the purity I imagine my people long for.

The devs themselves have said they wanted a game where you have to make many meaningful choices, and that's true for Civ 6. The trouble is, you have to make a zillion choices, period. There's never any moment where you are looking at the battlemap and you can just tell your underlings "Make the war front here, attack with everything we have!" There's always some sort of compromise. That's part of being a supreme leader, though.

[Traim]

I dont really feel like making any meaningfull choices. Its more the Map that chooses for me. Discovering City States early on gives you some ridiculous boosts, but good luck going for a religion if you cant find a religious citystate early on (or good luck in general if all citystates are found by other civs before you). Finding many goody huts grants you many bonusses and Erapoints. But on a landmass surroundes by AI? No Goodyhuts for you. Research-strategy? Pretty much determined by the Eurekas the map grants you. No early Natural Wonder to discover? No Rice or Wheat at your starting city? No coast nearby or only without searessources? No Barbariancamps nearby OR you are surrounded by 3 of them with no AI to help clear them? And so on...
I find the randomness of it all very frustrating. In 5 you simply started a new game when you were spawned in the middle of a desert or tundra. In 6 you have to play 50 turns before you realize that AI + City States are blocking your advance so hard that you will have to spent 2-3 Eras to actually chew threw them. Once you reach the renaissance there isnt much more but war to do and once you swallowed 1-2 neighbours, you will steamroll everything.
The R+F Addon doesnt really add any interesting mechanics for me; one of the more interesting parts of the game actually gets hindered. I liked to start out by spreading my cities far apart from each other, claiming the land inbetween with settlers later on, so my boarders are protected by strong cities (and in early eras a single archer is enough to defeat every invading AI army, no need for backup) and interesting spots are taken away from the AI. But that wont work with the Loyalitysystem. Even worse, colonizing foreing continents across the sea with setlters was something I really liked to do, but I dont see any Colony keeping enoug loyality without a Governor. Even then, the scaling for Districtcosts will leave your colonies useless for more than 50+ turns... meanwhile, technologies and civics are researched so fast after the renaissance, that the eras simply fly by, and within 3 turns you can upgrade your military to the next level...
Mods do fix some of these issues, but not all. Specially the terrible mapmaking. Im kind of tired of playing for 100 turns just to start a new game (and yes, I could finish this 100 turn game, but y if its not fun to play???).
Civ 5 had much better pacing and the game remained interesting over a much longer period of turns in my opinion.

[BucketHat]

Funny I feel the opposite. With V games always felt like they ended up as 'turn grinding' by the mid/late game as my strategy was established. VI had the same problem, but with R&F now the mid/late game becomes very interesting in navigating the global state of my civ with the ages. The historical timeline is killer, I love keeping track of where I've been.

[Aleksi]

Originally posted by Traim:

I dont really feel like making any meaningfull choices. Its more the Map that chooses for me. Discovering City States early on gives you some ridiculous boosts, but good luck going for a religion if you cant find a religious citystate early on (or good luck in general if all citystates are found by other civs before you). Finding many goody huts grants you many bonusses and Erapoints. But on a landmass surroundes by AI? No Goodyhuts for you. Research-strategy? Pretty much determined by the Eurekas the map grants you. No early Natural Wonder to discover? No Rice or Wheat at your starting city? No coast nearby or only without searessources? No Barbariancamps nearby OR you are surrounded by 3 of them with no AI to help clear them? And so on...
I find the randomness of it all very frustrating. In 5 you simply started a new game when you were spawned in the middle of a desert or tundra. In 6 you have to play 50 turns before you realize that AI + City States are blocking your advance so hard that you will have to spent 2-3 Eras to actually chew threw them. Once you reach the renaissance there isnt much more but war to do and once you swallowed 1-2 neighbours, you will steamroll everything.
The R+F Addon doesnt really add any interesting mechanics for me; one of the more interesting parts of the game actually gets hindered. I liked to start out by spreading my cities far apart from each other, claiming the land inbetween with settlers later on, so my boarders are protected by strong cities (and in early eras a single archer is enough to defeat every invading AI army, no need for backup) and interesting spots are taken away from the AI. But that wont work with the Loyalitysystem. Even worse, colonizing foreing continents across the sea with setlters was something I really liked to do, but I dont see any Colony keeping enoug loyality without a Governor. Even then, the scaling for Districtcosts will leave your colonies useless for more than 50+ turns... meanwhile, technologies and civics are researched so fast after the renaissance, that the eras simply fly by, and within 3 turns you can upgrade your military to the next level...
Mods do fix some of these issues, but not all. Specially the terrible mapmaking. Im kind of tired of playing for 100 turns just to start a new game (and yes, I could finish this 100 turn game, but y if its not fun to play???).
Civ 5 had much better pacing and the game remained interesting over a much longer period of turns in my opinion.

Or maybe you have not learned to play Civ6 yet.

[ExpendableGrunt]

Originally posted by ADawg:

Or maybe you have not learned to play Civ6 yet.

And this is one of the problems. One thing Civ VI does, moreso than previous versions, is corral you into a specific playstyle if you want to succeed. Player choices don't mean much if one choice is always superior to the others. Sure, there are differences depending on the map layout, AI position, and Civ Leader abilities; but it seems like there's always a right way to play, and veering from the script just causes problems. This is most prevalent in the early game, where I find myself building/researching things in the same order time after time.

[Twelvefield]

Originally posted by ExpendableGrunt:

Originally posted by ADawg:

Or maybe you have not learned to play Civ6 yet.

And this is one of the problems. One thing Civ VI does, moreso than previous versions, is corral you into a specific playstyle if you want to succeed. Player choices don't mean much if one choice is always superior to the others. Sure, there are differences depending on the map layout, AI position, and Civ Leader abilities; but it seems like there's always a right way to play, and veering from the script just causes problems. This is most prevalent in the early game, where I find myself building/researching things in the same order time after time.

If not this, then falling behind is really fatal. Either you build an unsurmountable lead or else you can't ever catch up. This goes for the AI as well.

Not that I am a fan of rubberbanding difficulty and/or bootstrapping, I think that's worse. You have to find more in the game than winning and losing.