I am looking into trying out one of the Civilization games. I love RTS games and I don't know why I never picked up one of these games. Summer is rolling around and I'm out of school so I'm gonna be doing some gaming this summer.

So Which Civ's game is the best? I know sometimes the newest isn't always the best. So I wanted to hear the gaming communities opinion. (Since none of my friends have played these games)

Also, is the Xbox version Civ Rev any good? Thanks for the help guys! :)

It's not real time, if you had that impression. Out of the last 3 games, I think I prefer V the most. It's the most accessible, easiest learning curve, and most polished. I didn't spend a lot of time with IV so I could be wrong, though.

V is the easiest to pick up by far, and was the first Civ game to actually grab me since II

Civilization is turn based, not real time.  If you're looking for an RTS in its style, try Rise of Nations.  If you want to try out a Civ game regardless, go with V.

I would say Civ V, although I can't say much bad about Civ IV. I didn't play Civ Rev but I hear it's pretty good, as far as a console version of a pure PC experience goes.

@Turambar: I guess just any strategy games I enjoy. Total war is kind of RTS/ Turned base so I am still interested in this game.

Looks like majority vote is V. So I'll go with that one. Thanks guys! :)

I would also vote for V. I started with the Civilization II, and can say with a bit of authority that it's come a long way since then. Definitely the most accessible and fun, even if Civilization IV is a deeper game in some ways.

If you're new: Civ 5. It's fairly easy to get into.

If you want a really deep game with a ton of unbelievable mods: Civ 4. Fall from Heaven 2 alone is a mod I'd put up with many stand alone titles, to say nothing of Rhye's and Fall of Civilization or A New Dawn.

I prefer Civ IV but Civ V is fine too, though the AI seems way more aggressive than in Civ IV. The lack of being able to stack tiles in Civ V makes it so you have to be a bit more strategic with how you lay out all your units on the field. In Civ IV you could just stack them all and steamroll everything. 
 
And yes, it is similar to the world map view of Total War games, rather than the battle portion.

I didn't really play much of Civ before V so I guess, I'll have to go with that. Though they aren't RTS games they are turned based.

You should also take a look at the Hearts of Iron games (2 or 3) - a series of grand strategy games where you take control of any nation you want from a rather large pool of nations and lead them through World War II, the game has a big focus on both combat, research and diplomacy.

I think Civ IV is the best, but Civ V will do fine.

Civ IV is the most feature-rich. Revolution is great as a more casual Civ. Civ V is a great mix between the two. I personally prefer Civ V, even if it does feel a little more "video gamey." I sunk an obscene amount of time into that game. I'm talking hour numbers that make me feel ashamed.

I preferred Civ IV but I got into it late after the expansions had all come out so who knows how much will change in V after the expansions. I really didn't like any of the changes they made to V except for the combat and one unit per tile.

I haven't played V so I can't speak to its value but IV is really good. I played it today actually.