Goofy Scoring

[mkorin]

I got a new laptop and thus, reinstalled CivIV without saving my score list and found a rather amusing flaw in the scoring. Since I am now only playing at the Prince level, it is easy to look at and compare the scores. I actually have a higher score for a game I lost than two games that I won. That makes no sense to me. You'd think that winning would give you enough of a score boost to put you above a loss, no matter how good your civ was when it lost.

[Son of David]

Well not necessarily, because if you look at lots of real-life 'civs' today, like Egypt, or Greece, or China, or Rome, Mongolia, or Britain, you see empty shells compared to what those civs once were ... but that doesn't mean that future generations will necessarily consider the USSR or the USA, three hundred years or a thousand years from now, to be more glorious than the ancient empires.

[mkorin]

The score is about how you did in the game. Reality has no baring on it. Winning/loseing should.

[Nikolai]

I must say I agree with mkorin here.

[mkorin]

Can anyone explain the scoring, or if it was explained before, provide a link.

Mike

[Nikolai]

A quick search gave this thread: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...hlight=scoring

It's short, but has two links at the bottom. It might be some explanation to be found there.

[mkorin]

Those are some detailed links, but if I am reading the code correctly. You will score more for an early retirement or lost than a time victory. I don't see any bonuses for winning. Thus a loss is the same as a time victory. Except if you retire early, you get the early bonus. That is seriously flawed. Any win should always net a game score higher than any loss.

Mike

[Bkeela]

I'm very unsatisfied with the score system. I play on average one game every two days, so the score should be something of interest.

I think part of the problem is what you mention, mkorin. The scoring system seems kind of unfair. It definitely favours warmongers.

Also the way the score is presented seems less than satisfactory. I'm not sure how it could be improved, but I found SMACs high score table a bit better. At the least each game should be tagged with a date - as it is I feel the need to name my leader after the date to keep track of when I played and such.

If the scoring system was more satisfying, and the UN options improved, Civ would be perfect.

[mkorin]

I am a warmonger but sometimes you can't kill everyone if you play on a high enough level, so other options come into play. Given that, the scoring should take winning/lossing into consideration. I also agree that winning through diplomocy or culture should be scored higher.

[Azuarc]

Winning through diplomacy or culture is horrible horrible point outcome, especially if you do so in the last 50 turns of the game (which is fairly likely with both, since one requires mass media and the other a lot of time building up culture in 3 cities.)

I almost always play through a non-militaristic strategy, and the couple games I have the highest scores on are ones where I turned aggressive at the end and won by domination.

[Smellycowsquid]

I saw someone post once, if you want a high score, go to war early and often, take one out with axemen, mace, and so on, aim for a domination, I do agree though, it does favor Warmongers...(Is that so bad? )

[mkorin]

I just won a game on Prince with the Space Race and it's score is lower than 5 games I lost. I repeat myself, winning should have a higher score than losing.

[Azuarc]

Originally posted by Smellycowsquid
I saw someone post once, if you want a high score, go to war early and often, take one out with axemen, mace, and so on, aim for a domination, I do agree though, it does favor Warmongers...(Is that so bad? )

I suppose not, if it were possible to warmonger without devoting yourself to nothing but warmongering.

In my last game I played, I had a slight tech edge on the English, and they were defending their city with Infantry. I had tanks on my side. 20 - 28...only they had city defender 2 on their units and they were dug in, so even after I bombed away the city defenses, it was still something awful for a balance like 48-20. (Don't ask me how. Should have only been 70% bonus for 34 total and walls shouldn't have been a factor.) Even after a roundful of artillery, they managed to just barely hang on for the turn. And of course, after that was over, then their guys had city defender THREE.

The only games where I succeed at fighting wars with people are the ones where I establish from the beginning of the game that I want to succeed at fighting wars.

[Dis]

I got my highest noble level score the other day. I think it's only because I was playing a large world. I used to never play large worlds, but I recently upgraded my ram, so now I do.

Is there any modifier based on world size? I don't think people playing small worlds should be penalized.

[mkorin]

I don't think there is a size adj. for scoring. My highest scores are with duels or small due to the fact I win quickly. However, it makes sense you would have a high score for a large world as you probably killed/destroyed more and had more wonders etc.