HoMM can be brutal. The problem with it, especially when compared to AoW or Civ, is that, in addition to solid strategic play during the battles, an efficient play style is crazy important, and a lack thereof can easily put you into a situation where you've effectively already lost, but you're only going to realize it once you meet your enemy's main force with its 400 liches, 1200 skeletons or whatever. For example, you 'have to' set up relay heroes to move newly trained troops between your towns and your main army(ies), otherwise if you use your main hero to do that then it's a good 3+ turns wasted, which on some levels can cost you dearly. I say 'have to' because not all levels are like that, but a lot are, in particular those with Crag Hack and Gem which are the ones I played. It took me a solid weekend to beat one of Gem's levels against the undead, where she had to get a veil or something, and each time I had to figure out how to conquer my starting area even more efficiently than before.

This is different from AoW for example, where even if you fall behind, a small force can defeat a stronger force with clever strategy and smart uses of the terrain, eg, hiding between houses, and creating choke points. In HoMM, once the enemy army is twice as strong as yours, you're effectively screwed.

First Person shooters
Real Time Strategies

Basically all games that need immediate reaction. I am terribly slow. Not because I am old, I was like that even when I was 17.

Yeah I bought it on a whim ignoring the reviews I saw about it. I wanted a 3D wrestling game but I didn't want to watch a bunch of half nude guys or guys in spandex wrestling around. The graphics were good, they seemed to put a lot of effort in the jiggles lol, and the controls were perfect to me. The story throughout was sub par but then again I don't think the people who bought this game bought it for the story. The moves were cool and acrobatic too, though some looked like sexual positions gone wrong. All in all it was fun. Not too difficult but not too easy either. If I was to compare it to anything it would be Dead or Alive.

I've never heard of Senran Kagura though. A quick google search..... I don't have any newer game systems though. I stopped buying them after my PS2. If they make a PC version I'll check it out.

RTS. I have a habit like a lot of people to turtle up and build lots of things before even thinking about destroying my opponent... rather than do the right thing and attack immediately with endless waves of level one peasants.

Anything, really anything that involves competitive multiplayer. I usually do quite okay in single-player-mode in rts or fps, for example. But when it comes to multiplayer I could serve myself the headshot as well...

It's funny, because I'm the opposite. I adore RTS and FPS games and have always had an affinity for them since at least 20 years ago when I was young all the way up till now. I'm talking anything from Warcraft 2, Age of Empires, and even Mechwarrior 2 Mercenaries. I loved Starcraft, was awesome at Unreal tournament, and I occasionally get in my shooter modes where I go nuts playing and collecting the latest games. I also kind of put Assassins Creed under this category as they are quick reaction games and in real-time, and go figure, I own and have played every single one.

I enjoy all types of games though. I just get a thrill out of the crazy-in-your-face types :D

Arena shooters, RTS, HoMM-like TBS...
Love them so much, but... I'm trying to convince myself that I don't have to be the best, that it's only a hobby. But...

Similar for me. I enjoy beat'em ups, but I suck at those that are too combo reliant.

I'd call myself pretty well rounded on PC and consoles, but i just can't get a hang of games like Super Smash Bros.. Also: most things with motion control (i.e. everything Wii related).

Yes, that's one problem. But I think for me the thing is that I somehow can't get into the flow of these games. I've beaten Master of Magic and Master of Orion 1+2 on Impossible difficulty but I can somehow feel the flow in these games, instinctively knowing what to do next and focusing my deeper thoughts on the grand strategy.
With the HoMM-likes I never seem to get the balance right between development and conquest. I either end up with too few armies and cities and the enemy outproducing me because I spent too much in buildings for higher level troops or spread out too thinly with small, low-level armies that can offer no resistance to the incoming enemy heroes.
I really like the look-and-feel of those games, especially HoMM, but I seem to have some kind of mental blockade regarding their mechanics. If there's some game of this type that is really easy and where I might get a foot in the door without too much frustration, I'm open to suggestions :-). But bear in mind that even HoMM3 on Easy got the better of me in level 5 or 6...

I agree to the people mentioning Beat'em Ups, especially those with a lot of buttons (like MK). The one game of the kind that I used to be kind of good at was One Must Fall 2097, where I found the controls to be very intuitive.

Another genre that I used to love are simulations - not the "reduced" kind, like Strike Commander, Freespace or TIE Fighter, but the more hardcore ones, like Sturmovik 1946 or even Falcon 4. I used to prefer the medium-realistic type like the old Gunship 2000, 1942 - Pacific Air War, M1 Tank Platoon, later Total Air War was one of my absolute favourites.
In this case it was life that got in the way. Those games need working into, learning the controls, the cockpit gauges, avionics, weapon properties and the character of the simulated vehicles as well as tactics etc. I just don't have the time for this anymore. I would really love to play this kind of games again, but with limited time I always go for games that require less time to get into.

This video is for you. :D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVUMMorJTC8

(I apologize in advance for the wall of incoming text, but your question is ideally set up for me to talk about one of my all time favorite games)

You should definitely check out Disciples 2 then. It's definitely my favorite fantasy tbs, in no small part due to its intoxicating atmosphere, gorgeous 2D graphics and ridiculously badass units.
Compared to MoM, AoW and HoMM it's a whole lot simpler mechanics wise, and for the most part quite a bit easier as well. Not that it's an easy game mind you. In fact overall it's pretty difficult as well, or at least it often can be, however it's not anywhere near as difficult as HoMM. What I think you'll appreciate most though is the simpler mechanics, compared to MoM, AoW and HoMM, when it comes to the balance between development and conquest. Ideally you'll, for instance, start by hiring two cheap squires (if you play as the Empire faction) in the beginning to put into your hero's group and then win enough fights with that group so that they gradually climb the 'squire' tree which leads to witchhunter/various knights/angels depending on what buildings you build in your capital city. Similarly there are trees for archers, healers and magic casters. These trees differ significantly between factions as well, eg, the undead has an extensive tree for huge undead dragon/wyrms, for which the Empire has no equivalent.
The thing is though that, provided the appropriate building has been built in your capital, the upgrade to the next tier is automatic, which for a squire is either a basic knight or a witch hunter, and it happens as soon as the unit has gained enough experience. So there's no running-between-towns-to-reinforce/build-an-army mechanic. There are towns in the game, but they only really act as fortresses to heal, to gain massive defensive bonuses, and to spread your faction's influence (green forests for empire, snow for dwarves, blight for undead etc..) and obtain resources.
The armies are simpler mechanics wise as well, because they can only have a maximum of 6 units. However this does not make for trivial combat at all. After all, 6 units vs 6 units allow for a very large number of different interactions, and you'll soon discover that you have to think very carefully about how you want to attack the other side, and if necessary what types of buffs you need and/or what kinds of debuffs your opponent 'needs' for you to win the fight.
As a final cherry on the top, there are five factions, each with its own lengthy campaign, and they are all vastly different. If you want to check it out, and based on your experience with the other fantasy tbs titles I would highly recommend it, then start with the Empire. They're the easiest, mostly because they have healers.

As a final note, bear in mind that the game looks a lot better than gog would suggest. For some reason they have very old and outdated screenshot on the game's page. Refer to steam instead if you want to see some higher res screenshots.

No need to apologize and thanks for the input!
I just have one question: What about Disciples 1? I'm one of those pitiful people who have an autistic need to play things in the right order (if at all possible). As things go, I've just installed this game a few days ago to give the genre just another try (and take a break from Witcher 3, which I was playing too excessively to the point where I enjoyed it less than the game deserves), but never came around to play it (System Shock EE got in the way). Just a quick note to the OP:

Magic Carpet is best played with mouse+keys - for strafing. Play it like an FPS with base building, and your problems will be... less. MC1 is a pretty hard game, the Hidden Worlds are beastly hard. MC2 is considerably easier.

To be honest, I've never tried it :P It just so happened that I started with the 2nd one, and because I found it so perfect I half expect it would be difficult for me to now try out the original. Mechanics wise though, it seems that the two games are pretty close together.
I suspect Disciples vs Disciples 2 is kind of like HoMM2 vs HoMM3. Some people will claim 2 is better than 3, and some(most?) will claim 3 is better than 2. It's easier to play 3 after 2 than it is to play 2 after 3, so if you're only going to play one then it makes more sense to play 3. But if you are in any case going to play both then it makes sense to start with 2, pending a risk assessment. The risk being that the gameplay features a novel mechanic/feel and it will only be novel once, so you have to personally decide if you want to have a novel experience with 2 or 3. It's a risk because the novelty adds to the experience, and it will be lost/reduced by the time you play 3 if you first play 2.
I suppose there everyone has to make up his/her own mind, but for me it makes Disciples 2 the more attractive place to start.
However this does not factor in the possibility that you already own one of the games :P I suppose it would be a great pity, or even injustice, to own 1 and to shoot straight to 2 without giving 1 a proper go :)

Do you play with a joystick of some sort? If the answer is no, it might not be you that sucks, but your equipment. A flight stick or at least a thumb stick is pretty much required for these kind of games.