View Full Version : Why am I always Dan Quayle?


bedowin
Jun 18, 2006, 03:01 PM
I just got the game last week. I finally got my first Warlord skill level victory via Space Race Victory.

I finally got "Eth the Unready"; second from worst person to be like. Do you have to just completely obliterate your opponents to get higher and higher or do you think there is something this noob is missing?

Truronian
Jun 18, 2006, 03:04 PM
I wouldn't read too much into them, a victory is a victory after all. IIR its all absed on average score. The higher the score the better the grade.

On the subject, with whom will Shaka and Augustus be replaced in the rankings with the coming of Warlords?

Sisiutil
Jun 18, 2006, 05:17 PM
One of the best ways to increase your score is to win earlier. Having a bigger population that other civs also counts for a lot.

Prussia
Jun 18, 2006, 05:58 PM
Go to the standings screen and see your ranking of everything (Life Expectancy, Population, etc.). You might be winning even if you are in last place in certain categories (I'm always behind on Life Expectancy for some reason, I think you need like 0 sickness in every city), but if you maintain being the best throughout the entire game and win beautifully, you'd up your ranking.

Bushface
Jun 18, 2006, 06:30 PM
To get a good score, you need to :-
1. Have a large population.
2. Own as much land as you can get.
3. Build all the wonders you can.
4. Develop all the techs that you can.
5. Win as soon as you possibly can - this is vital.
6. Do all the above at as high a difficulty level as possible.
You can see how you're doing by mousing over your score in the lower right corner of the screen (unless this option is off). Simple, really. Not so simple is how you achieve these ideals, so read the strategy threads and guides.

Silver Marmot
Jun 18, 2006, 11:29 PM
I rarely get a good ranking whenever I don't win by domination or conquest. Since the other victories cannot be accomplished as quickly, domination and conquest seem to give the highest scores (at least this has been my experience). Really though, it doesn't matter - a win is a win.

Slip de Garcon
Jun 19, 2006, 06:28 AM
I got Augustus the other day!

I always assumed you had to be successful militarily, whereas I'd only had one early war, then five millenia of peace...

Andraeianus I
Jun 19, 2006, 07:33 AM
I rarely get a good ranking whenever I don't win by domination or conquest. Since the other victories cannot be accomplished as quickly, domination and conquest seem to give the highest scores (at least this has been my experience). Really though, it doesn't matter - a win is a win.

Also on other victories this is quite possible. I have reached Caesar Augustus several times by cultural or diplomatic wins on Monarch.

wmtrexler
Jun 20, 2006, 11:16 AM
Why am I always Dan Quayle?

One word: potatoe

ShaLouZa
Jun 21, 2006, 03:01 PM
Military victories sure help, you have a higher game score and end the game faster : I once won by domination on a large or huge continents map (Rome, praets, overkill...) in the 1850's and scored 25k, ending as Augustus for the first time. I usually win by space victory in the 1900s and never scored more than 8k this way.

karlhegna
Jun 21, 2006, 09:33 PM
Rank Leader Score
1 Augustus Caesar > 15,000
2 Hammurabi 14,000 - 14,999
3 Abraham Lincoln 13,000 - 13,999
4 Charlemagne 12,000 - 12,999
5 Winston Churchill 11,000 - 11,999
6 Nelson Mandela 10,500 - 10,999
7 Emperor Constantine 10,000 - 10,499
8 Shaka Zulu 9,500 - 9,999
9 Charles de Gaulle 9,000 - 9,499
10 Simón Bolívar 8,500 - 8,999
11 Lech Wałęsa 8,000 - 8,499
12 Ivan the Terrible 7,500 - 7,999
13 Henry VIII 7,000 - 7,499
14 Herbert Hoover 6,500 - 6,999
15 Louis XVI 6,000 - 6,499
16 Neville Chamberlain 5,500 - 5,999
17 Nero 5,000 - 5,499
18 Warren G. Harding 4,000 - 4,999
19 Ethelred the Unready 3,000 - 3,999
20 Dan Quayle < 3,000

Watiggi
Jun 21, 2006, 10:00 PM
karlhegna, are you kidding? Is that meant to imply that Firaxis/Civ4 considers a 15,000 point score an exceptional score and anything above that is beyond exceptional? Strange. A player can get 20-30K by just doing a "no-thrills" noble small map conquest rush.

Watiggi

Esox
Jun 21, 2006, 10:23 PM
The highest score in my hall of fame, by far, is a quechua domination win on Warlord. I play on Prince now trying to work up, and it looks like that one will be at the top for the foreseeable future. Oh well. I guess difficulty level is its own reward.

Gumbolt
Jun 22, 2006, 03:33 AM
Well if its only 15k and above they should rejig the system as i always get around 30k on domination wins on monarchy.

wioneo
Jun 22, 2006, 09:11 PM
I always get Caesar now! I'm so proud. I used to get the bottom guy. I've never gotten anything in between. and What's this about removing Caesar and The Zulu? That's just wrong...

Instant_Cereal
Jun 23, 2006, 11:16 AM
Heh, I remember I had to look Dan Qualye up on the internet. I seriously had no clue who he was. Clever, Firaxes.

NT_Jedi
Jun 23, 2006, 03:41 PM
So how do we change the historical names linked within " Rank Leader Score " where is this information stored ?

Sisiutil
Jun 23, 2006, 11:55 PM
Heh, I remember I had to look Dan Qualye up on the internet. I seriously had no clue who he was. Clever, Firaxes.
It's nice to know he's doomed to be a footnote in the annals of history, at best. :lol:

wioneo
Jun 24, 2006, 12:38 AM
You know, I am going to Google Danny right now...

Haha, he can't spell putado:lol: ...wait.

Sisiutil
Jun 24, 2006, 11:15 AM
You know, I am going to Google Danny right now...

Haha, he can't spell putado:lol: ...wait.
:lol: Good one.

Murky
Jun 24, 2006, 11:19 AM
Poor Dan Quayle. I guess someone has to be last. :lol:

I usually score Hammurabi or higher now when I do a Space Race victory.

You get the best scores by going for domination wins. To really milk out a high score you also need to grow your population fast. You need to setup the military victory first. Once that is certain then have your workers builds lots of farms/pastures to grow the population at the fastest rate possible.

karlhegna
Jun 24, 2006, 02:33 PM
I went to Civ 4 in the Wikipedia and went down right about halfway to where it says "scoring system", and hence it shows the scoring system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civ4

juballs2001
Jun 25, 2006, 10:33 AM
i have won games in every way (culture, space race, conquest)
i find that a conquest win will give you a better ranking because there is no AI to rival you.

Pam4Water
Jun 25, 2006, 12:25 PM
karlhegna, are you kidding? Is that meant to imply that Firaxis/Civ4 considers a 15,000 point score an exceptional score and anything above that is beyond exceptional? Strange. A player can get 20-30K by just doing a "no-thrills" noble small map conquest rush.

Watiggi

That's how I got mine ;) You can see what your final score will be when to pass the pointer over your in game score. It shows the score if you win this round.

Older than Dirt
Jun 28, 2006, 08:31 AM
I see little relationship in the final score and how skillfully a game has been played. Even in a GOTM the final scores do not make for very good comparisons - even with the same type of win there are too many varialbes.

CF4L
Jun 28, 2006, 09:51 AM
I got Augustus the other day!

I always assumed you had to be successful militarily, whereas I'd only had one early war, then five millenia of peace...


Yep same here. I was 1 turn short of the space race victory when i won(Time Victory) . I was FAR more advanced than all the other civs (i was on future techs and they still had infantry or less) and still got Quale . It seems to be designed in a way that you almost need to conquer to get a high score which isent somthing im too happy with

NT_Jedi
Jun 29, 2006, 04:24 PM
So how do we change the historical names linked within " Rank Leader Score " where is this information stored ?

wkndwrrr
Jun 29, 2006, 05:35 PM
The highest I have gotten is Simon Bolivar, from a brutal nuclear-assisted domination win in 1974. (I just realized-I should have dragged the war on ten more years, then I would have conquered the world on 1984! ;)

BlackMage
Jun 29, 2006, 09:03 PM
It's nice to know he's doomed to be a footnote in the annals of history, at best. :lol:

The future will be better tomorrow.

Howitzah
Jun 29, 2006, 10:22 PM
I usually get that rank. My best rank was Ivan the Terrible.

...that didn't make me feel any better.

Joel Von Hall
Jun 30, 2006, 07:45 AM
I can get a domination 20k+ augustus caesar playing prince. I usually play fractual with 12 opponets (13 players total including myself). If I go for space race I usually end up some place in the middle and time usually gets quayle or ethelred the unready. I think the game is a little biased towards war-driven wins. I have yet to win a diplomatic victory. Usually the civs abstain or the vote is split and falls short.

Gimasag3
Feb 24, 2011, 04:23 PM
I've gotten Caesar before, but it's hard for me. That's the only thing I don't like about CIV 4 really, that they made the worst guy someone living, Dan Quayle. I really feel sorry for that guy, getting heckled for the "potatoe" incident and all. What if he had Civilization? Man...I really do feel for him.

TheMulattoMaker
Feb 24, 2011, 05:36 PM
Dan Quayle being last place has been a Civ hallmark since II, maybe even I.

On an unrelated note, 56 months' worth of thread necromancy is pretty gruesome.

phoenix_sprite
Feb 24, 2011, 09:51 PM
Ugh, necrothread.

Civ4Brains
Feb 25, 2011, 02:32 AM
6. Do all the above at as high a difficulty level as possible.

this last one doesn't make sense. surely the first five categories in your list are relative to the difficulty level you are currently playing, which is why its possible to achieve a ranking of 1st whether you play Chieftain or Deity...

Civ4Brains
Feb 25, 2011, 02:33 AM
scrub that. only just noticed how truly necro this thread is.

Tealeaf
Feb 25, 2011, 05:13 AM
I think that maybe this thread got revived because the actual Dan Quayle googled his name, saw this pop up in one of the result page, and really, really wanted to know why it's that way for him too.

Well, I can hope anyways.

lucashp
Feb 25, 2011, 03:02 PM
Wow from 2006.

2006 Was an entirely dfferen't world back then kids, back in the time of humans landing on the moon and world peace was inevitable.

sav
Feb 26, 2011, 01:07 AM
I had never heard of Dan Quayle till I got Civ 4, which was about a year after this thread died the first time...

Tristan_C
Feb 26, 2011, 08:32 AM
Fifty six months after the fact, I still vote quechua rush for farming an absurd score on zero-effort. The engine seems to see fit to slap a ~200,000 point normalization on runaway BC domination wins.

Bushface
Feb 27, 2011, 02:02 PM
this last one doesn't make sense. surely the first five categories in your list are relative to the difficulty level you are currently playing, which is why its possible to achieve a ranking of 1st whether you play Chieftain or Deity...

Necro or not, what I said in 2006 is still valid and level does matter since there's an overall multiplier for difficulty (0.5 at Settler up to 2.0 at Deity). But I think that the numbers in post #11 are for Epic speed: to get Augustus at Normal speed needs 10,000 not 15,000. This doesn't alter the sad fact that the ratings are set much too low and too close together, he said from his lofty attitude of regularly getting over 400,000 at Emperor.

Koszmar
Sep 30, 2013, 10:07 AM
Rank Leader Score
1 Augustus Caesar > 15,000
2 Hammurabi 14,000 - 14,999
3 Abraham Lincoln 13,000 - 13,999
4 Charlemagne 12,000 - 12,999
5 Winston Churchill 11,000 - 11,999
6 Nelson Mandela 10,500 - 10,999
7 Emperor Constantine 10,000 - 10,499
8 Shaka Zulu 9,500 - 9,999
9 Charles de Gaulle 9,000 - 9,499
10 Simón Bolívar 8,500 - 8,999
11 Lech Wałęsa 8,000 - 8,499
12 Ivan the Terrible 7,500 - 7,999
13 Henry VIII 7,000 - 7,499
14 Herbert Hoover 6,500 - 6,999
15 Louis XVI 6,000 - 6,499
16 Neville Chamberlain 5,500 - 5,999
17 Nero 5,000 - 5,499
18 Warren G. Harding 4,000 - 4,999
19 Ethelred the Unready 3,000 - 3,999
20 Dan Quayle < 3,000

How do you change these names to ones of your own?

Maybe I would like to change Quayle to Bush.

rfcfanatic
Sep 30, 2013, 12:22 PM
I've always wondered what Dan Quayle did so bad that he deserves to be ranked even more inept than Nero and Louis XVI.

Murky
Sep 30, 2013, 12:57 PM
Likewise, was Augustus Caesar really all that?

qazq2
Sep 30, 2013, 01:06 PM
In the Oxford English Dictionary (British spelling), potatoe is correct. The problem was that he was in America, where we use Webster's dictionary. OED spelling is common in colloquial scenarios (colour, armour, harbour etc) but if you are in a spelling bee it pays to check what country you are in. It was an epic fail no doubt, but it wasn't as dumb as it looks at first glance.

vandermerwe
Sep 30, 2013, 02:38 PM
Um, over here it's potato too. Adding an '-e' is the sort of mistake a British schoolkid would make as well.

But not being able to spell and even dodging the draft is hardly in the same league as vassaling to the Vikings (Ethelred), appointing corrupt cronies (Harding), persecuting Christians (Nero) or appeasing Hitler (Chamberlain). Just a soft target, I guess.

drewisfat
Sep 30, 2013, 07:02 PM
Warren G. Harding is also a really weird name to have on the list at all... same with Mandela.

Manco Capac
Sep 30, 2013, 07:29 PM
How do you change these names to ones of your own?

Maybe I would like to change Quayle to Bush.

For doing so, it's an easy XML change take no modding skill.
Look for your Vanilla civ4 folder (which happens to be a parent folder of the most used BTS folder). In there, you have an Assets/XML/Text/CIV4GameText_Misc1.xml

Then search for the exact keyword hereunder:

TXT_KEY_DQ_LEADER_NAME

There 20 of these.
The 20th is Dan Quayle and you just change the text.

The excerpt:

<TEXT>
<Tag>TXT_KEY_DQ_LEADER_NAME_20</Tag>
<English>Dan Quayle</English>
<French>
<Text>Dan Quayle</Text>
<Gender>Male</Gender>
<Plural>0</Plural>
</French>
<German>
<Text>Dan Quayle</Text>
<Gender>Male</Gender>
<Plural>0</Plural>
</German>
<Italian>
<Text>Dan Quayle</Text>
<Gender>Male</Gender>
<Plural>0</Plural>
</Italian>
<Spanish>
<Text>Dan Quayle</Text>
<Gender>Male</Gender>
<Plural>0</Plural>
</Spanish>
</TEXT>

===================

BTW, you're an evil necrophiliac person!

qazq2
Sep 30, 2013, 09:06 PM
Really? I could've sworn potatoe was correct in Britain. Sorry for that then. Guess I get a Quayle rank. Seriously though, how is Quayle worse than some of these.

dohh
Sep 30, 2013, 11:28 PM
I rarely get a good ranking whenever I don't win by domination or conquest. Since the other victories cannot be accomplished as quickly, domination and conquest seem to give the highest scores (at least this has been my experience). Really though, it doesn't matter - a win is a win.

This is actually quite logical, as score comes mainly from population. Domination and conguest victories mean bigger population by default. They also can be achieved faster than space race. Try focus on population even more than on timeline (finishing reasonably early is necessary tho) if You are after the score. I have won game, I think it was about 1910 AD on emperor, scoring near 200 000 points while finishing immortal just like 20 years later and scoring roughly 100 000 points.

Koszmar
Oct 01, 2013, 07:26 AM
For doing so, it's an easy XML change take no modding skill.
Look for your Vanilla civ4 folder (which happens to be a parent folder of the most used BTS folder). In there, you have an Assets/XML/Text/CIV4GameText_Misc1.xml

Then search for the exact keyword hereunder:

TXT_KEY_DQ_LEADER_NAME

There 20 of these.
The 20th is Dan Quayle and you just change the text.

The excerpt:

<TEXT>
<Tag>TXT_KEY_DQ_LEADER_NAME_20</Tag>
<English>Dan Quayle</English>
<French>
<Text>Dan Quayle</Text>
<Gender>Male</Gender>
<Plural>0</Plural>
</French>
<German>
<Text>Dan Quayle</Text>
<Gender>Male</Gender>
<Plural>0</Plural>
</German>
<Italian>
<Text>Dan Quayle</Text>
<Gender>Male</Gender>
<Plural>0</Plural>
</Italian>
<Spanish>
<Text>Dan Quayle</Text>
<Gender>Male</Gender>
<Plural>0</Plural>
</Spanish>
</TEXT>

===================

BTW, you're an evil necrophiliac person!

Thank You. :thumbsup:

Lennier
Oct 01, 2013, 07:31 AM
Warren G. Harding is also a really weird name to have on the list at all... same with Mandela.I disagree. Warren G. Harding was one of the worst US Presidents; he was president at the start of the Great Depression and basically didn't do anything.

Nelson Mandela was an excellent leader who brought South Africa out of apartheid into a more equitable system while minimizing rancor associated with the change.

Really? I could've sworn potatoe was correct in Britain. Sorry for that then. Guess I get a Quayle rank. Seriously though, how is Quayle worse than some of these.A bad joke that doesn't get better with age. Dan Quayle was noted for his lack of intellect before the potato/potatoe incident. Another politician might have been able to laugh off the mistake, but it sealed Quayle's reputation as a joke. However, I think we can find a more deserving person to be "worst leader" on the scoreboard.

The Diocletian
Oct 01, 2013, 09:35 AM
I disagree. Warren G. Harding was one of the worst US Presidents; he was president at the start of the Great Depression and basically didn't do anything.

Isn't that Herbert Hoover?

Lennier
Oct 01, 2013, 12:07 PM
Isn't that Herbert Hoover?:hammer2: Yes, that was Herbert Hoover, another really bad president. Harding had the Teapot Dome scandal, then died in office halfway through his first term and was succeeded by Calvin Coolidge, another bad president.

I don't know why they didn't put William Henry Harrison in his place instead.

Robert FIN
Oct 01, 2013, 12:59 PM
I've always wondered what Dan Quayle did so bad that he deserves to be ranked even more inept than Nero and Louis XVI.

Likewise, was Augustus Caesar really all that?Yup, I've been thinking those questions many times. Who is Dan Quale? Why is he so bad? Some people thinks that he is Don Quijote (<- hmm.. how to write that..). I guess that its not same. And since what Augustus has been more successful than his father? They chose him to be the Roman leader in V too..

rfcfanatic
Oct 01, 2013, 01:25 PM
During Augustus' rule Rome experienced the first major military failure - in the battle of Teutoburg Forest, 9 AD. But for example Charlemagne who's ranked below Augustus Caesar, is said to never have lost a military campaign.

ZeekLTK
Oct 02, 2013, 09:47 AM
The only time I ever got a high score (Caesar rating) was on a tiny duel map with one opponent who I conquered fairly early. Normalized score put it at like 27,000 or something.

Otherwise, all my games usually go into the 1900s or later, and by then it's not possible to get a score higher than 5000 or so, which means I almost always get Quayle. Lame.

Willem
Oct 02, 2013, 08:24 PM
Really? I could've sworn potatoe was correct in Britain. Sorry for that then. Guess I get a Quayle rank.

Not necessarily. From the Oxford Dictionaries site:

The spelling of potatoe, while not terribly common, existed for almost the entire 20th century. For example, the New York Times was still occasionally spelling potato with an –e in 1988. In fact, one can easily find spellings of potatoe all the way up to 15 June of 1992, at which point they suddenly drop off or become used in an ironic way, referencing this incident.

Here in Canada, it's always been spelled "potatoe". I was always baffled why the media made such a big deal over Dan Quayle's comment.

Manco Capac
Oct 02, 2013, 08:24 PM
Lol Dan Quayle ===> Potato(e)

That escalated quickly...

TezaPsyborg
Oct 03, 2013, 11:50 AM
The amateur classical historian in me rears it's ugly head...

In brief... Gaius Julius Caesar was indeed popular and he was successful at tearing the Roman Republic and it's conquered lands apart into civil war however he made himself so reviled by the leading citizens that he ended up being assassinated. Everyone who mattered decided that Julius had really meant to adopt his nephew (who went by a number of names during his life, Gaius Octavius, being just one of them) as a son and that he was the natural successor to Julius. Octavius managed by various political and military means to reforge the shattered remenants of the republic into a mighty Empire and found such good favour (or at least made everyone who was left alive and mattered too afraid to oppose him) that they granted him the title Augustus. In short he REALLY was all that.

The massacre of three entire legions lead by Publius Quinctilius Varus in Teutoburg Forest at the hands of a supposed ally, Arminius, was indeed a major military set back for the Roman Empire. However prior to that, Rome was sacked by the Celts, several campaigns were lost in the east versus the Parthians, Sassanids and Persians and virtually every single battle versus the Carthaginian general Hanibal was an utter, utter disaster.

The amateur classical historian in me goes back to sleep and the amateur medieval historian wakes up...

WHY is Eleanor of Aquitaine not in the top six or so leaders somewhere???

tbh though we could spend all day bickering over who is the better or worst leader and why didn't such-and-such get in the list.

The Diocletian
Oct 03, 2013, 02:10 PM
During Augustus' rule Rome experienced the first major military failure - in the battle of Teutoburg Forest, 9 AD. But for example Charlemagne who's ranked below Augustus Caesar, is said to never have lost a military campaign.

On the other hand, he initiated massive public works projects, and greatly expand the borders of the empire via military conquest. His reign began the Pax Romana for a reason, folks.

However, to be brutally honest he was a manipulative, cunning autocrat who fooled the Roman Senate and people to basically make him emperor.

You decide.

malfuriouspete
Oct 04, 2013, 08:49 AM
Those 1920s US presidents were big jokes.. and I don't even really know american political history! But seriously, a 2006 post?