The clarity of the game rules, complexity of the game systems, and quality of the UI data and in game reports suggest the development team did not go out of their way to make the game accessible to new players to the Civ series.
Therefore I wrote "relatively new" - there are also long time players, still low efficient.
I like very much what Sid said in the linked video about "Rise & Fall" ...
He wanted back then to make that game "we" would love, but experienced then, that too many customers don't want 'Fall'. I feel his disappointment - Rise and Rise and more Rise, no problem. NO Fall. (and obviously resulting boredom)
In this light Anton is my new hero. Rise&Fall, the expansion, I think, is somehow again a test balloon ... dark ages ... tiny Fall ... How to convince many players to take the risk to receive some hits and then win a fortiori ...
The problem: too many players have a low frustration tolerance: they think, they cannot stand any significant losses; they don't desire the satisfaction from overcoming problems.
I agree with Sid's statement, nobody complains about to often winning the game. Of course I want to win in the game most of the time, too, but I have an issue with winning every single battle ...
Civ1 WAS a GREAT game. I invite everybody to try it at least once (despite the graphics & everything). You experience real losses. Turn after turn: several or even a dozen units lost in mission. Of course also the tank against the legendary phalanx (but just with the appropriate, very _LOW_ probability!!!). All the time at war: losses. And it is ok. (Btw, war IS expensive.)
Are the players degenerating more & more? Is it that great to build a set of slingers, upgrade them to archers and crossbows and win again and again 'Deity-challenges' and upload whole series with
barely any losses?
In a single player game the human shall usually win. That is the whole war. But the human shall not win every battle/skirmish.
Take WW2 as a simile. Of course I don't advocate the human player should experience to finally loose (as Germany or Japan). Also not winning after suffering terrible losses and devastating destructions (Russia). Even not winning after invasion, big losses and destructions (France).
Would Britain's experience be a too heavy burden for the player (destruction much more manageable compared to Russia)? Has it really to be the experience of the USA?
but there's very little in the game design to suggest that they have tried to make it simpler for new people to pick up and play.
I agree. But we don't complain about too few complex & complicated game mechanics. Still a bit unbalanced, but
not too simple at all.
I'm unable to phrase it properly in English. Somehow it is an issue with a bit too childish, better childlike(?), players ...
Civ1 had the highest difficulty Emperor. And that was good. I began on Chieftain and finally loved King - Emperor was too strict for me in its possibilities.
We got a mad inflation on the names since then ... Immortal, Deity ...
Once Emperor was tough. Now many people on YouTube think, that they are good players or even experts, because they beat 'Deity' ...
('Everyone is above average')
Sid mentioned originally 4 difficulties being enough (sandbox, casual, experienced, difficult to beat).
Civ6 seems to have now the problem that this "highest difficulty" is still missing -
hide it as option somewhere in the submenus.
(Firaxis) would not benefit (financially) by spending time and money in a smarter, more "human" AI.
They could agree though, that the human player shall experience a (bonus driven) challenge over the whole distance.