[bryanlarsen]

Let me guess, II was the first you played? Everybody has a special attachment to the first one they got addicted too.

In my opinion II was the worst of the five. It was basically the same as the first with more of everything. More techs, more unit types et cetera. Didn't really add anything to the game except make it longer. It meant you couldn't finish a game in a single sitting which really lessened the appeal to me.

Starting with III they started added more dimensions like religion and culture. Sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't but I appreciated exploring how strategies changed.

Edit: did a really poor job of reading your post or else you edited it. Oh well, just pretend my comment stands alone, please.

[jcadam]

Yea, Civ1 was the first I played. I like Civ2 for most of the reasons you dislike it -- They took the original, updated the graphics, made some modest improvements/additions, but didn't mess with the fundamentals of the game :)

[vacri]

In my opinion, each civ built on the last, until 5 plummeted the interest factor. Played 1 first.

[moomin]

Same, I've played a lot of 1,2 and 3, but 4 was ridiculously deep and well balanced. Never got past Prince.