Lower score when I win

[tour86rocker]

Howdy!

Has anyone else been puzzled by the scoring system? When I first started playing I did very badly and never won, but I'd get a normalized score in the 800's.

Now that I know the game a bit better, I've won the war of independence twice but I earned a normalized 510 and then 246.

What gives? How could I score better by losing? I may have lost more units in battle when I earned a lower score. When I lost I may have had fewer units to start with, and as a result had a smaller army to lose.

The scoring system is totally botched. When I look at the score graph I'm a very distant third...but I won and the other AI's didn't even declare independence. Shouldn't there be a boost for WINNING? When I look at the graphs of the breakdowns of the score, the only thing I lost in was crop yield!

Please don't tell me that crop yield is the point of this game.

[snoopy369]

Certainly something we'll look at. Population is probably the reason for your loss, I'd guess; but certainly there should be a significant bonus for the successful DoI.

[tour86rocker]

Thanks for the reply!

I went back to a saved game and skipped turns until the time was up instead of declaring independence and winning. I made almost the same score, so I guess the winning doesn't hurt me, but doesn't appear to give a bonus, either?

I certainly disagree with population being so strong of a factor in the score, if that is indeed the cause. I'm curious as to what scores average players are getting in Pilgrim mode on a large map. I tend to go for four colonies, tops, and this time through my economy until the revolution was it's best ever, so I'm extra confused at the 264 or whatever my score was.

If you ask me, there should be a score penalty for never declaring independence and a score bonus for succeeding in your revolution. It sort of throws me off to finally be winning the game, but then getting feedback that is more negative at the end! I suspect perhaps that some factor in scoring for Civ4 remains that needs to be clipped out.

[tour86rocker]

I guess I'm curious about the philosophy of the scoring, or a rubric (if available). The manual appears to be absent of any explanation. For Colonization, I think the point of the game is to declare independence and defeat your king. In the process, you simply do what you have to to get to that place.

Personally, I don't think cultural boundaries and population should be all that important for the score.

What sorts of things does the scoring system "think" are good for points?

[snoopy369]

Scoring has always been a problem in Civ4 ... The scoring algorithm in Vanilla Civ4 1.00 was pretty bad also, they fixed it in Warlords and for patches for Vanilla (but lots of people still don't agree with it). I suspect it just wasn't a high priority, and slipped under the radar...

This is definitely something to fix in the patch mod. What should a reasonable score bonus be for winning the WoI?

Do realize that time is going to be the most significant factor (other than handicap level, which should affect all of it); but beyond that, you should still definitely get a significant bonus.

[samsmithnz]

Originally posted by tour86rocker
I certainly disagree with population being so strong of a factor in the score, if that is indeed the cause. I'm curious as to what scores average players are getting in Pilgrim mode on a large map. I tend to go for four colonies, tops, and this time through my economy until the revolution was it's best ever, so I'm extra confused at the 264 or whatever my score was.

I'm curious as to why you'd play a large map and then only have 4 settlements...?

[wodan11]

Originally posted by snoopy369
Scoring has always been a problem ...
(but lots of people still don't agree with it)....
Do realize that time is going to be the most significant factor....

I disagree that time should be a significant factor of the score algorithm. Faster =/= better gamesmanship.

[tour86rocker]

Sam,

I just like to have space. :^) Other AI's are less likely to be in my face. And after all, Col has historically been winnable with as few as 2 colonies.

Is there a benefit to having more colonies? It takes all the self control I can muster to split the influx of colonists into even just four colonies! How do I work toward larger empires?

I already do inland colonies, do I just continue stretching further westward to benefit from more and more Indian settlement missions? I already do like 5 missions and can never get enough colonists.

[Senator]

I also encountered this and suspect that your liberty bells have a great impact on your score.

Now most people win by delaying their bell production, which dramatically decreases your score when you do win.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by wodan11

I disagree that time should be a significant factor of the score algorithm. Faster =/= better gamesmanship.

Time has always been an element of Civ/Col score, and I see no reason to take it out. You get a penalty for finishing early (slightly smaller colony, less time to get whatever the score elements are) so you are compensated with a time bonus.

[Unimatrix11]

300 turns in the game (at normal speed), right ? One percent score-bonus for each year you become independent before that.

[wilebill]

Maybe you get a higher score for remaining loyal to the king?

What this game really lacks is a Royalist Party option.

[tour86rocker]

Yeah, there's absolutely nothing in this game for those who want to play British Canadians! or British Caribbeans?