Sid Meier's Civilization II

The Good
The evolutionary nature of the game, power levels of nations varies depending on wealth, military power etc. Technology begins with the wheel and ends with fusion and spans 6000 years. The game can be good when your nation is under threat and construction of tanks etc is what u depend on, it also varies the amount of years a turn takes up so that science advances occur when they should have done in real human existance, it also gives you the opportunity to control the diplomatic negotiations and customize your empire with roads, railroads and irrigation modifications....

The Bad
... however a sense of helplessness arises when one sees ones towns and cities being overun one after another, also the nature of turn based strategy means the game isn't intense at all, RTS games allow you to change combat while its occuring by giving units different orders, for me its the best turn-based strategy game because of its scope, but when I play it I stop after about 30mins and change to an RTS game.

The Bottom Line
If you like turn based strategy then get it if you prefer RTS, don't it will only make you want to play a RTS game. Simple.

The Good
Just about everything. Basically, it has the addictive qualities that few games can match, and will hook you very easily. It's varied enough so that there's incentive to play, and fairly well balanced, although perhaps not as much as its pseudosequel, Alpha Centauri. It uses recognizable icons from human history, so it draws you in, as you can identify with the subject material. It's hard to describe all that's right with this game-there's just too much. The Gold edition also has scenarios from the expansion packs that are varied and rather interesting, as well as the multiplayer, which works fairly well (at least over a LAN.)

The Bad
-Lots- of micromanagement as your empire expands. The AI pathfinding is somewhat braindead, so if you're playing on a large map, it's a pain to maneuver units all the way across. You can't group units, so you have to individually move each. The automatic build orders for your cities don't always work, either, and they build stuff that you don't always need. Graphics are crisp, but not spectacular, and there's no multiplayer in the original.

The Bottom Line
Simply awesome. Civilization II may not be a huge leap over the original, but it fine tunes everything in the original to create a polished and highly addictive game.

The Good
The first Civilization was already a great game. The second is better in part because of a detectable upgrade in sound and graphics. More importantly, the game is richer as you have more units, technology, wonders, etc to play around with. Also, the introduction of damage bars (as opposed to an all or nothing combat resolution system) goes a long way in alleviating any residual fears from Civ I where you have found yourself exclaiming in surprise, "That cheezy phalanx sunk my BATTLESHIP!!!"

So relax, don't have your battleships run away from those spear throwing punks.

The Bad
Some of the same problems as the first. The AI didn't seemed to have improved. With more unit wonders and unit types, it is now easier to beat the game. Consequently, the Emporer level in Civ I is harder than the Deity level in Civ II. So if you are looking for a greater strategic challenge from Civ II, it will disappoint.

The Bottom Line
Best game of the genre I've ever played...I never quite appreciated Fundamentalism to its full extent until Civ II.