I agree, I didn't like how much the "AI" relied upon cheating in order to defeat you on the highest levels. There was no actual strategy involved, it simply started with settlers and military units, and you started with a settler and a warrior. Then it had other bonuses and didn't get as penalized for civilization size like you did.

My favorite Civ was Civ II. I loved the advisors that spoke to you, I liked the user-friendly interface, and the playability, even at higher levels. I liked the various workable strategies that you could use to win.


Civ III I hated... didn't like the direction they went with it.

In Civ IV, it seemed that on upper levels, you could only win via military force to expand large enough to win the science race, since the AI would trade techs like mad and have more cities than you, that were more advanced than yours due to their bonuses. The only way to win then was to have more science cities, since they would usually beat you to several key world wonders and thus have at least one city that was better than half your cities combined.

I got into Civ IV a bit, but I still feel like Civ II was a better gameplay experience.