I'm trying to go back to Civ6. (vanilla, as this is the only version I possess)
No matter what, I quitted a few turns after start because I felt bored/unsatisfied.
I have no clue what makes me feel that way. I tried to find distinct reasons in various threads I started, but put aside, when I embrass the game globally, all these fade away and I just can't explain why I feel so discomfortable with the game, even on Prince difficulty.
I don't know maybe I watched too much videos and I feel I play the game bad.
Problem is with goals I think :
For example : I'm invaded by barb galleys that could pillage my fish ? Let's research masonry then, and build walls ! But I have galleys going to barb camp, and a warrior and an archer too. The time I kill all those annoying quadriremes* with my archer & galleys, take damage with my warrior from the spear inside the camp, and with my archer too, kill the spear, kill the remaining quadris and finally pillage the camp, the wall is no longer needed.
So I made all a fuss about building walls, but at the end that's wasted time. My goal in a wish to play well is completely useless, and maybe counter-productive. I ended up with only 3 cities, including a fresh one good for nothing for a long time (30 turns to build a monument !) and with my only holy site and shrine I will probably not have a religion. Thing is, if I neglect too much barbs, they can be a game quitter. So either I don't care too much, and that will be not enough, either I care too much and that's… too much. I can't seem to be able to adapt to the situation because I don't have a clue of what makes what (I didn't have a clue I could beat those quadris with my archer and my galleys, by the way I could stay safe from their shots because they only have 1 tile range and the island was big enough to stay 2 tiles from them, barely) So I stick with lost opportunities especially in the expansion and religious departments.
*seriously, early naval RANGED barbarian units are annoying, and can be VERY annoying, I thought they understood that w/since Civ5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do I play Civ ?
I mostly play Civ for the historical flavor, the "recreate History" and the wow effect between first turns and late ones. VERY NOT for any strategic reasons. But what is the link between the story I want to live and this "wow effect" ? I think it's a matter of Progress story. Although one didn't live better in States than in Nature (hunters-gatherers), I think that States do Progress better. I know the idea of progress have been criticized : we can wonder if this is really Good, Neutral (irrelevant ?) or even Bad. What I think now is that Progress might be good (?), but that we obtain it through bad ways. Younger I thought it was good all the way. Progress ! Progress ! Progress ! Go go you ! (after all that's why I could play video games)
Progress in Civ games is a FACT. Just by seeing the tech tree (that conditions everything) and the population meter more or less always going up, and never down. (or rarely) Not to forget the ever-developping major civilizations, be it by expansion of strangely empty lands to conquest, passing by the constant improving of the land around. It puts us in the anonymous Grandmasters of Progress' skin. That's what did fascinate me, not the setup of districts tacks at turn 1 for my capital.
Also, the reason I disliked tech trading in Civ4 was because we had to check basically EACH turn EVERY civ if they hadn't a new tech to trade. And I thought like it was very representative of the way I like to play the game : fluently, one action after the other, without too many "pauses". Maybe that's what makes the "one more turn" thing ?
That's why I play Civ like a book, fluently and without thinking too much, as surprising as it might sound. Actually, the first time I beat Civ2 Deity, was after a "break" when, outside the game, in my bed or whatever, I thought a little bit about the meta. I probably figured that out before reaching the Deity level, so I progressed the difficulty line while liking my stories, because a too easy game is obviously not satisfying or credible. And I had to check twice in which difficulty level I was when playing Deity !
Is this a cons ? Considering I stopped playing after a couple games in Deity, one could argue it. I wrote down a synthesis of hundred notes took during playing and sent it to Firaxis. It mostly were ideas to improve the game, my imagination was in full steam. That was probably a great part of my experience ! Could we say this with every iteration ? Considering the improvements made, and the pitfalls solved, probably not. However I like challenge, more precisely resistance, but not attention stretchers. I hate when I'm too sollicited. I don't like when I'm not enough either, who likes it ? I think it's a matter of balance in that topic. As to pitfalls, I think every new idea contains their seed, so every new iteration of the game had some, inevitably. And that's why I'm here on those forums, mainly to give ideas of what I would like to play.
To be totally frank, the reason why I dislike Civ6 is because I find it's too hard. IIRC the meta in Civ2 was the same for low difficulty levels to Deity, you just had to think a little once and you could steamroll towards Deity am I right ? I'm not playing this game for strategy, the difficulty level is, here for me, only to make so we truly feel we fight against another nation rather than a braindead AI. Thing is with Civ6 I NEVER had this sense of story because it just feels like Minesweeper all the way...
