Playing primarily by myself, the only good way I have to compare results of one game with another is the final score -- both "normalized" and other. However, I am frequently surprised by how high (or, alternatively, how low) a game that I have either felt bad or good about scores...

Is there someone out there that knows how Civ 4 BTS calculates its score? I am aware that certain of the following factors come into play (though NOT all of them unless someone tells me otherwise). I would appreciate "experts" feedback to help determine how/where I should be spending my resources.

1. How fast you go through the technologies (big factor, but not always a guide of how good the final score will be).

2. Number of great works, national works, and projects? (have no clue, but there seems to be some factor in this)

3. Number of spaceship parts completed? (I don't really think so, but there might be some contribution to the score...)

4. Territory? (not nearly as big as in CIV 3 and, frequently, a smaller civ winds up with a much higher score than a larger one).

5. Population?

6 Number of cathedrals? (There seems to be SOME relationship to the number of cathedrals that you've built).

7 Corporation expansion? (ditto to the above)

8 Conquest? (i.e. the number of cities conquered) (I seem to SOMETIMES do better if I've conquered other cities rather than spending my time in peace).

There was a good thread on scoring for Vanilla in the HOF section, I'll try to dig it out. But in the meantime: the scoring has not changed so the following things factor into the score:
- Difficulty (Noble multiplies the score from the other factors by 1 each level above adds .2 to this each level below subtracts .2)
- Turn number (the final score decreases exponentially with the number of turns (actually turns/max turns)
- Wonders (both world and national - not projects, so no space parts) build (actually controlled so conquered counts as well)
- Tiles controlled
- population
- number of Techs researched.
That's it nothing else counts.

Good question... I'm not exactly sure, nor did I ever really care much about it because I'm sure it's flawed somewhat, and doesn't truly represent your performance during that game. Nonetheless, it is a nice to compare games to each other in a crude, raw way.

I think the following heavily determines your final score:

1. Difficulty

2. Date achieved victory condition 'X' (the earlier the better)

3. Land (The more tiles you control, the better)

4. Population (The bigger your cities are, the better)

Also, perhaps...

5. Cultural influence? When you mouse over tiles you'll see a certain pecentage of your cultural influence. Globe view shows it aswell. This area will always be larger than your physical territory. The more of the world that is influenced by your culture, the more points you receive.

Technologies researched has no impact on the score? I would have thought otherwise since the score seems to increase by more once you discover a new tech...

Technologies researched has no impact on the score? I would have thought otherwise since the score seems to increase by more once you discover a new tech...

Yes that does too... as Ori stated. If it didn't, "future tech" wouldn't be all that great, especially if your cities are comfortably happy and healthy.

Hmmm, I wonder if "power" manipulates the score as well.

Here is the thread I meant:
link (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=135163), especially posts #82, 83, 84, 87, 99 and 119

also note that I forgot to add in land tiles that only those that you control for >20 turns are counted for your score and that population and land controlled by your vassals counts 50% for your score.

Hmmm, I wonder if "power" manipulates the score as well.
It does not (directly - of course it could translate in faster conquests or domination victories :hammer:).