Civilization VI: Just another knowledge check 4X game
So after eight years since VI's release, it decided to get into Civilization VI. People were often talking about how innovative this game was, and it knew the Civilization Players League had a ton of cool balancing tools to make the game really engaging.
And obviously, the fact that there's a league for competing at all means a lot of people have found a lot of meaning in competing in the game.
The main worry it had was that 4X games are often all about knowledge checks, and you can often win with next to no experience against people who've played the game for years by just looking up strategies that dominate the meta if they haven't already done so. For those who are used to competing with strategy board games that throw you into a new, random situation every game and understanding principles is more important than knowing all the knowledge checks, it can be very frustrating to play strategy video games that add a ton of complexity just to make it hard to know all the things you're "supposed" to know.
Unfortunately, despite all the talk of innovations, Civilization VI was not much different. Just like how you had to know to Radio->Ideology in Civilization V, or that Great Scientists, Engineers, and Merchants are pooled together and so Merchants harm your science and production, you have to "just know" all kinds of things in Civilization VI and it makes for a very unpleasant experience with friends, competing over who knows more specific facts rather than whose intuition is better calibrated to the game's underlying patterns.
Not every game needs to be almost entirely principled like Spirit Island, Sidereal Confluence, or Go, but as an example, you can make up for a lack of knowledge in games like Twilight Imperium in all kinds of ways. It's just a very frustrating experience to know that to get to that point of making clever decisions, you and your friends are going to have to commit to like a year of doing homework so that you're not just one-upping one another on the basis of who happened to find the best resource for understanding the game.
And then if you want to play competitively, the main competitive leagues harbor tons of abusers who regularly try and drive vulnerable members in the league out, and refuse to do anything about harassment campaigns against minorities in their community because "this is just for gaming, we won't pick political sides" or whatever.
After playing with friends for about six months and feeling like any victories were awarded to whoever found the better tutorial for how to play the game, like it was rarely a matter of who found the insight necessary at a critical point to win, it was hard to keep going. The innovations of Civilization VI didn't make a meaningful difference between its experience of VI and V.
If you don't like dealing with abusers who face no consequences in CPL while those who call them out get punished, if you want to very quickly get up to date on all of the mechanics of a game and how they tie together and start just seeing who can outpace who in terms of decision-making, then Civilization VI is largely going to be a big waste of time. Obviously there are plenty of people outside of that demographic.
But for it and its friends, well, back to trying out new strategy board games. Been meaning to try out Brass: Birmingham from six years back.
One alternative strategy video game that's really fun is Red Alert 2 (Mental Omega mod) with a fairly low required APM much like 4X games, a thriving community and easy to get friends into, and a fairly low knowledge check barrier with a lot of room for experimenting and sharpening one's intuition.
The best way to overcome all the toxic elements of adversarial gaming is to play cooperative games. This style previously did not exist but has become popular in recent years. It's nicer to work together and interesting to see how people (mostly men) adapt to this style of play by continuing to compete in an environment where that causes the team to lose. Much like the English national football team of eleven adversaries Vs the German team.
I've sort of generally moved over to coop games in general nowadays.
Or even if I'm playing something that's a versus sort of multiplayer- like Civ- I just try not to focus too much on winning. I'm there for the journey, not the destination. If I end up winning, cool. If I don't, that's also cool as long as I had fun along the way.
You can play a lot of PvE games without competition.
Deep rock galactic, space engineers, Minecraft mods, left 4 dead, divinity original sin (or baldurs gate 3 these days).
I think there's AoE and starcraft co-op these days.
You can also okay grand strategy games in a peace with players war with cpu only game.
Just like how you had to know to Radio->Ideology in Civilization V, or that Great Scientists, Engineers, and Merchants are pooled together and so Merchants harm your science and production
Wait what!? Great people are pooled together!? No wonder I suck at civilization!
ETA: link for anyone like me who didn't know the details
If you think that's the worst of it, you're in for a surprise! But yeah, people do lose out on a shitton of science and production because they think generating Great Merchants doesn't come with a completely random opportunity cost to their science and production. Nonsense game design decision.
Also, one thing not included here is the AI problem. The 4X games with the best and most challenging, clever AIs, perfect for training competitively when you can't get together with all your friends, are also single-player. Ditto for 4X games that randomize tech trees and policy trees and the like to make the game more principled.
If you want a really good 4X game, try Stellaris. It's where I went after 1000+ hours of Civ 5 (and coming to Civ 6 to be disappointed by it, played only like 80 hours), and I've been ̶t̶e̶r̶r̶o̶r̶i̶z̶i̶n̶g̶ liberating the galaxy ever since. I especially like the additional nuances to diplomacy, which are further enhanced by mods -- Civ's AI has always been a bit ham-fisted.
OP seems to want a very competitively focused tightly balanced experience, and Stellaris is absolutely anything but that. I enjoy the game, it's fun, but I can't imagine anyone considering it to be particularly balanced or enjoyable as a PvP/Versus experience.
Use it/its and not you/your, please. its heard Stellaris has great narrative elements but it's very hard to play in a reasonable amount of time and there's some balance issues that can make competition feel really unfair. Maybe will still get around to it some day.
I never played Civ VI. Stuck with V instead. Though to be honest, what I really wish they would do is return to the cool alternate game modes that Civ II: Test of Time added. Being able to keep playing with a second playing arena after completing the ship to Alpha Centauri, or play an entirely different game of fantasy or science-fiction flavoured civ was really cool.
I stick with Civ IV for the soundtrack.
And gameplay but apparently I'm not smart enough to understand any of the things you all are talking about in this thread. I just play single player games that take months
Civ 5 was fun but despite its harsh review Civ 6 is kind of better in every way. The lekmod for Civ 5 is so pervasive and totally changes the game, which is necessary for balance and so the game is a bit more reasonable. Civ 6 on the other hand has the BBG mod which changes far less and remains basically the same game. Civ 6 also makes certain things more intuitive, like movement. Initially, moving from 5 to 6, it had a lot of trouble with the movement but once it understood it it loved how intuitive it was. You can only move if you have enough movement points left. Simple as that. No "ending on a hill" or other counter-intuitive tricks you have to remember and do in Civ 5 every single turn.
Civ 6's big big flaws are that on release it was broken due to infinite production exploits they wouldn't fix, and it came with spyware which they did not apologize for so you shouldn't buy it or anything from Firaxis from that matter.
Civ 5 was fun though. it wrote a huge, one hundred page document on how to play it well to catch its friends up. A lot of it was just detailing random counter-intuitive bullshit. That's the big issue. Both games are fun, but their limitations require just so much patience it isn't really sustainable and pretty soon, competition becomes more frustrating and a chore than fun.
I'm confused, are you asking to replace "you"/"your" with "it"/"its"? That's the only pronoun there but I've never seen it be replaced and it's not really gramatically equivalent.