View Full Version : hmm, 20K Points max for me


Darthstar
Apr 14, 2008, 04:20 AM
Hi,
i am playing Civ4 Warlords and having a great time. But what makes me the game really unsatisfiying is the points i get in the end. I ended a lot of games with domintaion around year 1950 and only got 10K points.

This time i left ICBMs (because a freind told me they reduce points), dominated the world at year 1930 , got 15K gold and only got 20K Points. Hmmm

What am i doing wrong? Or what is your main motivation playing Civ4? Making the scenarios? Chasing higher points?

Is there somewhere a help guide a bout points? what reduces and what adds points?

Help me
daniel

Refar
Apr 14, 2008, 04:33 AM
You shouldn't care about points. Often the most fun games end with low final scores.
Actually - it's by design. Either you have fun on the game, or you get a high score... A very odd design choice, but it's how it was from the very beginning with Civ I iirc.

The final score depends very much on how fast you win. Early win = high score. The later you finish, the less you get. Also higher difficultie levels give you a slightly higher score.

Other factors are Land, Population, Techs and Wonders.

Nukes do not matter. (Tho of course, you will get a higher score, if you end your game before you have nukes :p)

tycoonist
Apr 14, 2008, 04:43 AM
what long drawn out space races a more fun than rapid domination???

Refar
Apr 14, 2008, 05:07 AM
I didn't necessarily say Space Race. Had a lot of intereting (because tight and challenging) games, that ended with a late game world war and 20K'ish score. Rapid domination is: Build troops, Rush-Rush-Rush. It's Warcraft, not Civ.

EDIT: BTW, this game is about "Building a Civilization to stand the test of time" (Sid himself said it, right here on top of my game box. :p) So why those civs, that actually stand the test of time get a low score, while early domination wins, which often have a near dead economy and are probably going to crash under they own weight get the best...

Darthstar
Apr 14, 2008, 05:31 AM
so 20K points is quite normal for Warlords open game difficulty 3?

Napalm102
Apr 14, 2008, 07:10 AM
Perhaps your non normilized score is low. I think my last 1945 victory on monarch normal size epic speed got me about 50k points. The raw score was about 6700 or so can't remember exactly now. Space race victories tend to have lower normalized scores, cause you tend to finish later and tend to have smaller empire size when compared to domination game.

But high points don't meen satisfaction. In one of my games I got 75k points for a domination win sometime around 3rd quarter 19th century. But the game was stacked in my favor. I personally get alot more satisfaction from a victory where you are bitting your nails till the last moment, doen't matter that it only scores 20k points.

edit: when you hover your cursor over your score in game (during the actual game, not when you already have won), it shows the break down of what contributes to the score. From the top of my head its wonders, land area, population and technology. After you finish the game that score gets multiplied depending on how long it took you to achieve victory. Difficulty and size of the wolrd also modify the outcome, but I'm not sure how.

Darthstar
Apr 14, 2008, 07:36 AM
hm these are nice tipps. Thx Napalm

futurehermit
Apr 14, 2008, 12:10 PM
The scoring system is pretty dumb, I wouldn't worry about it. The way to get a high score (if that is what you want) is to win by domination with HUGE cities as early as possible (sub-1900 for sure, sub-1800 is better)

DaveMcW
Apr 14, 2008, 04:41 PM
sub-1900

Preferably 1900 BC on a tiny map.

oyzar
Apr 15, 2008, 04:45 AM
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=260902 to milk the game(get as high score as possible) you need to have a very good understanding of the game mechanics... As you start out focusing on score at all is wrong. Once you get better and progress along the difficulties your scores will get higher and higher, especially if you learn to warmonger properly as huge empires give more score.

Kesshi
Apr 15, 2008, 12:34 PM
The scoring system is pretty dumb, I wouldn't worry about it. The way to get a high score (if that is what you want) is to win by domination with HUGE cities as early as possible (sub-1900 for sure, sub-1800 is better)

futurehermit, close!

Actually the way to get the highest score is to play a custom game where you turn off domination as a victory condition, then expand just like you would for domination. Once you've taken everything possible, you should move your troops into your last enemy's city and have 100% of the land (or very close to it due to the last city's revolts.)

Properly executed, aka the perfect game, you should be able to stay in near permanent war with the last civilization holding him down to a single useless city which you pillage endlessly.

Another way to get a decent score, but is really really really cheap, is to play a Marathon speed, Duel sized map on Deity with unrestricted leaders, no barbarians, and no random events. Choose your leader to be Boudacia of the Incas. Then regenerate your map until you get a plains hills with stone or marble. Build nothing but Quechias, and when you capture a worker, make that worker mine those plains hills. I've finished Deity Duel games with two other civs early enough to get over 100,000 points. Keep in mind this is really cheap and shouldn't really count as a win.