In defense of early warfare: I'm a roleplayer in addition to a wargamer (D&D 1st ed., ca. 1979, and no, I don't have it anymore). I'm also a student of history, political science, and whatnot, so I like to think about my growing Civ in terms of its evolving history, its ethnicities, languages, culture. Heck, even its food (no kidding - do we have wheat or rice? deer? sheep? seafood?). Also, if it's the violence aspect that turns you off, in the early game, those "wars" may be a lot of things besides warfare. Consider the time-scale, how fast units move, and so on. A single "battle" in Civ VI takes decades. The Battle of Kadesh, 13th-Century BC iirc, perhaps the greatest single engagement of the Ancient World, wouldn't even be a great part of a turn - I think it took a couple of days, maybe even just one, I'm not sure. These early wars may in reality be political power-struggles, or something along the lines of an annexation, as much as actual fighting. In fact, before
Rise & Fall introduced the Loyalty mechanic, I tended to imagine that these generations-long "wars" were really a cultural, economic, and political tug-of-war, involving marriages, religious conversions, and
"flower wars", in addition to genuine, blood & fire, military conquest. Additionally, if I have a religion, I usually imagine that plays a part in the shifting borders and allegiances too, because in the Ancient & Classical eras (and more recently, too, for that matter) religion and politics were often inseparable. This all changes a bit with the introduction of the Loyalty mechanic, but not a lot.
Early warfare in Civ VI is boring, but only from the wargamer's perspective, because there's usually not much challenge; from the roleplayer's and alternative-Earth historian's perspective, I find it essential. If you're a "sandbox"-type player, the fact that the AI can't fight its way out of a paper bag is a blessing, because it makes it easier to craft whatever history you want. In other words, not boring.