Which Civilization game you prefer?

[Oche]

Ok, i'm gonna put this question out there...please answer HONESTLY  ;)

Overall, which of the Civilization games do you prefer and why?

I think the best is Civ II, I think that the AI in Civ III somehow "cheated" and it was HARD as hell...Never really got into Civ IV, the cartoonish approach turned me down,...Civ V is there and the hexes look comfortable...i'll jump in sometime in the future i guess.

[Al]

Started out with Civ II.  Bought both Civ III and IV but gave those away and went back to Civ II.  Civ II I thought was just more fun.

[Airborne Rifles]

Civ IV is my favorite.  I've really enjoyed some of the mods, especially the Realism: Invictus mod and the various Ryse and Fall mods.  They add a lot of depth to the game that the original was lacking.  Definitely spent hours of my life in high school playing Civ II as well, and really enjoyed some of the scenarios that came out in the expansions.

[tgb]

IV with Beyond the Sword.  I don't know why you would call it "cartoonish", especially compared to the cheesy advisers in II.

[eyebiter]

Liked the army system in Civilization III.  Loaded 2x Roman Legions, left room for a tank later on.
Armies were replaced by the stack of doom in Civilization 4.

Civilization 5 had potential, but the scale was all wrong.. The one unit per hex thing only works when the map is large enough for units to to maneuver.  Recall Italy on the default earth map was 10 hexes tall and one hex wide.

[Bismarck]

IV with Beyond the Sword.  I don't know why you would call it "cartoonish", especially compared to the cheesy advisers in II.

I too think the Civ IV series is the best.

[bayonetbrant]

I've played every one of them since I, with most of the official expansion packs, but virtually none of the external mods.

I enjoyed II, but found some things to be a bit too quirky for my tastes. 

III rocked.  I really, really dug III, and some of the later expansions to III were quite enjoyable (I liked playing the Celts a lot), but III also had waaaaay too much granularity in the types/quantities/capabilities of military units for the scale the game was at. 

Unfortunately, I think a little too much of that granularity is what kept me from liking IV.  Not only that, but I found some of IV's interface to be difficult to decipher at first blush.

V has grown on me to the point where it's supplanting III as my favorite.  I have G&K installed and play with it, too.  I accept as a valid criticism that "faith" is just another metric to track that doesn't seem to properly encapsulate the way a religious movement can happen to catch fire and sweep across a region/continent.  But I like the options of what/how to build things, the way resources work (bonus, luxury, etc) and the diplomacy model in V better than any of the others.  I also like the way city-states work, though I wish they would become more active between each other in the background (just to add some realism).

[W8taminute]

III rocked.  I really, really dug III, and some of the later expansions to III were quite enjoyable (I liked playing the Celts a lot), but III also had waaaaay too much granularity in the types/quantities/capabilities of military units for the scale the game was at. 

That granularity made for some great scenarios.  My WWI and WWII scenarios come to mind as well as El Justo's The Cold War.  I have spent more time in Civ III than in the combined time investment in all my other games I've ever played or am playing now.  So I guess Civ III Conquests was the best ever.  Sadly, I'm so burnt out with Civ that I'll probably not go back until I retire in the old age home.

[Oche]

IV with Beyond the Sword.  I don't know why you would call it "cartoonish", especially compared to the cheesy advisers in II.

This is what i'd call cartoonish :P:

[Airborne Rifles]

The Realism:Invictue Mod gos a way towards eliminating the stack of doom in IV.  Once you start stacking past a certain number of units your army suffers an overcrowding penalty.  Also, different kinds of units give the stack different kinds of bonuses, so you're encouraged to diversify your force.

[W8taminute]

^As the cultural adviser of Civ II used to say, "He speaks the truth, sire."

The Invictus mod is absolutely awesome and a must have if you're playing Civ IV IMHO.

[Tuna]

I really enjoyed II and III when they came out.. I think CIV IV BTS is my favorite.. CIV V, I'm still trying.. but IV still has it beat in my book..

[steve58]

I've liked all the Civs with the exception of III..still can't believe I traded off my original Civ I  :(.

Just a side note...looks like there was a massive patch for Civ V just released...

http://www.spacesector.com/blog/2012/11/civilization-v-massive-fall-patch-available-now/

[Greybriar]

I have purchased and played every one of the DOS/Windows games in the Sid Meier's Civilization series. Civilization II: Test of Time has been my favorite of the series for many years. I can't even remember why; perhaps because of The World of Midgard was added. I did not care for Civ3 as the AI violated territorial boundaries and would grab every bit of land it could.

In recent years, I have probably played more Civ4 than any other Civ game. The thing I disliked most about the Beyond the Sword expansion was that it introduced espionage into the game, and espionage is something I detested in every Civ game that had it.

After getting past the Steam hurdle and buying Civ5 (it was so cheap by then that I couldn't pass it up!), I found myself enjoying it almost as much as I had its predecessors. Unlike previous Civ games, Civ5 did ranged weapons properly. The Gods and Kings expansion made quite an improvement on the base game and made it more enjoyable.

But don't get me wrong. I feel that all the games in the Civilization series are good. Even those I didn't particularly care for.

[OJsDad]

Call to Power was the best in my opinion.