How is the Civilization IV Score Calculated?

[JeffS]

This may well have been asked and answered before (perhaps several times), but I have not been able to find an explanation of how the Civilization IV score is calculated. I haven't found it in the manual, the Official Strategy Guide or using the search feature at Apolyton (though I probably failed to define my search well since I either got 2 or 3 irelevant posts, or 20 pages of posts of which the first page or two contained nothing useful). Civilization Fanatics has has a detailed (and quite useful) explanation of the demographics screen, but it doesn't tell how the total score is calculated. If anyone can tell me where to find this information, I would be grateful.

[johnmcd]

If you hover on your own score it will give you a breakdown of it, so much from tech, wonders, population and land area.

Most of the score in the early game is wonders, land and tech, but by the end game population and land area are the things that drive the differences mostly.

All in all, score is best used a proxy for size and not much more.

[JeffS]

Johnmcd:

Thank you for the information. I appreciate your taking the time to answer my question.

[Blaupanzer]

The score is only important at end-game if you haven't won any other way. In the interim, the score gives you a sense of comparitive sizes and accomplishments of you vice your opponents. The power score matters as the AIs use that to determine who is weak and ripe for being attacked and who is not. Certain psycho civs will attack with only a small advantage, or none at all if they think another AI will join them.

[JeffS]

johnmcd

All in all, score is best used a proxy for size and not much more.

Blaupanzer

The score is only important at end-game if you haven't won any other way.

My purpose in asking the question was to try to get the highest score late in a game where I was behind. I was successful in redirecting my efforts toward the 4 factors that go into the score and finishing ahead of the other civilizations. It's not something that I expect to do again, because to me it was unsatisfying and felt like an exploit (even though it isn't).

Unfortunately, Civilization IV seems to have retained a rather simplistic formula for the score, similar to that used in Civilization II and III. The four factors they use (land, population, wonders, and technology) are all mportant but, in my opinion, there is a lot more that goes into what constitutes a "great" civilization. I would like to see the score take into account all the other factors on the graph screen and the demographics screen, in additon to the four that they currently use. Then the score victory would be one that reflects the "overall dominance" of the civilization, while the other victories would continue to reflect one or more narrower aspects of a civilization. Since that is unlikely to happen, I'll just continue happily playing the game as it is, and not worry about things I can't change.

[Ming]

The real trick is to get one of the other victory conditions before the time runs out

[johnmcd]

Your point about scoring is interesting, I agree that the mechanic is clumsy and fails to communicate a lot of what is important.

It made me think a little about other scoring approaches. If Civs have unique units, characteristics and buildings, then why not unique scoring formulae? Land area could be a big element of the Russian score, but be irrelevant to Greece say.

It still wouldn't tell you much about the game, but at least nobody would think it did!

[Blaupanzer]

Johnmcd's approach is to make the score so irrelevant that even newbies would know it didn't matter?

[johnmcd]

And if not meaningless, only meaningful to how well you're role playing your civ maybe.

[wodan11]

Originally posted by johnmcd
And if not meaningless, only meaningful to how well you're role playing your civ maybe.

Not even that. Since score is based on some factors which have nothing to do with how well you play.

[slnz]

Slightly off topic, I'm wondering if anyone knows how exactly the normalized score at the end of a game is calculated? My search here just found the usual "Earlier win & higher score & higher difficulty = higher normalized score" hypothesis, but I noticed the following in my HoF:



So in this case later win & lower score = higher normalized score.

Both games played with no mods, same version (3.17 BtS), same map script, same amount of enemies at start and at end, same custom game settings. Maybe score derived from vassals is worth less in the normalized score or something like that?

[macaday]

Originally posted by wodan11

Not even that. Since score is based on some factors which have nothing to do with how well you play.

Always annoying when I win a One City Challenge and still get rated as Ethelred the Unready.

[wodan11]

Originally posted by macaday


Always annoying when I win a One City Challenge and still get rated as Ethelred the Unready.

How can that be annoying?

As soon as I realized that score was based off things which had little to do with how well I played, I ceased to both be pleased when I got a good score and be annoyed when I didn't

[Chemical Ollie]

I think the end game score gives too much award for early wins. My highest scores in the HoF come from quick & dirty Praethorian rushes on duel maps, where I conquered the AI in BC years, while the games I'm really proud of, the epic wins on large maps after weeks of playing, end up far below on the score list.

[wodan11]

Totally agree. Speed of win =/= how good your gameplay was.

[Jaybe]

I have stopped responding to the standardized score, which gives those bonuses based on time.

I LIKE to play the late game. Besides, I am usually more comfortable with the larger tech lead I have then.