End score, dan quayle every time!

Here's an idea for a new scoring system: Forget the points. Look at the stats and find a way to aggregate scientific advancement, literacy, life expectancy, culture, manufacturing and food output. Balance that with land gain, population, military strength and wealth. Come up with a score that rewards a society that is powerful in every way and well balanced. Disable the space race, cultural and time victories and at some commonsense time after all technologies have been discovered and all civics mandated by the UN, declare a winner based on the aggregate number.

This gets rid of space race, which in real life would make the Russians the greatest society on earth. It also gets rid of the cultural victory, which, using the slider, makes it too easy to beat almost any AI. It forces you to have a truly balanced society, win the hearts of your neighbors (diplomatic victory) or beat the bejabbers out of everyone else.

Interestingly, if your society is a bit backward and decidedly disliked, but has a big army you can start a giant war and try to conquer the world (myoo, hah, hah, hah). That sounds like an accurate reading of history!

GrimyGrifter said:

Here's an idea for a new scoring system: Forget the points. Look at the stats and find a way to aggregate scientific advancement, literacy, life expectancy, culture, manufacturing and food output. Balance that with land gain, population, military strength and wealth. Come up with a score that rewards a society that is powerful in every way and well balanced. Disable the space race, cultural and time victories and at some commonsense time after all technologies have been discovered and all civics mandated by the UN, declare a winner based on the aggregate number.

This gets rid of space race, which in real life would make the Russians the greatest society on earth. It also gets rid of the cultural victory, which, using the slider, makes it too easy to beat almost any AI. It forces you to have a truly balanced society, win the hearts of your neighbors (diplomatic victory) or beat the bejabbers out of everyone else.

Interestingly, if your society is a bit backward and decidedly disliked, but has a big army you can start a giant war and try to conquer the world (myoo, hah, hah, hah). That sounds like an accurate reading of history!

Click to expand...

The Russians haven't won space race. That victory requires a civ to send a ship to Alpha Centauri.

LlamaCat said:

Boy if I were Dan Quayle I must really hate the Civ franchise.. not that he would even be aware of it. I think potato(e)s should be a special food resource in the game

Click to expand...

Yeah...because you can't say "You're a Dan Quayle!" to a person as a compliment. Really, you can't.

early win makes such a difference!
my experience
spacerace 2048= second or third last rating
1990 = nelson mandela
1950 = august caeser

try a quecha rush on deity, duel sized map, 1 opponent. conquest by 2800 BC will grant you like 350k points

Yeah...I usually get Dan Qualye but once I won a Huge map via conquest by the year 50 AD. I got Julius Ceaser!

I cant even spell quale right.

GrimyGrifter said:

It also gets rid of the cultural victory, which, using the slider, makes it too easy to beat almost any AI.

Click to expand...

I'm still finding Cultural the hardest of all the victories to obtain.

I think that early win should make a difference, but based on victory type and difficulty of win. IE: A space race victory in the 1800s is a spectacular accomplishment. A conquest victory against one other person by AD is less so-however, in the same vain, a conquest victory or domination victory on a huge map by AD is another accomplishment. Winning is everything-but score should be a way to stack yourself up against others. Very few people on these forums can say honestly that they have not won a single game, even if just by time victory. Victory on difficulty levels is a comparison, but maybe it should go beyond that. Score has too much emphasis on time, and not enough on other, more important things-IE, technologies and technological advancement (Midevil ages in BC, etc.), diplomacy (sure, there is a diplomatic victory, but there is very little reward for having some great diplomatic skills during the game. Never going to war with another civ, never declaring war, etc.).

Someone said that time, space, and culture should be removed as victory conditions. I disagree, and here is my rebuttal:

1. Time. Even though you said it should be removed, you mentioned that at the end of the game a winner should be declared by what was essentially a new score system. I would be fine with a no winner condition, but based on what you said, only the time limit dissapears. not the time victory.
2. Culture-While it may seem easy, it can be made hard because of the difficulty of advancing in the game while focusing only on culture. Plus, you need three cities. Too easy for creative civs, in a normal game they would accumulate 900 points for their first city, assuming that they never lost control of it and built it on the first turn. Revamp, but keep.
3. Space-Easiest to defend. This victory is not easy, nor is it trivial. In the original civ and CivII it was one of the only victory. Also, people like the peace aspects of the game. Culture, Space, and Time are the only victories where you can truely avoid a war. (Some may argue Diplomatic and Domination victories can also avoid wars if played right, but obtaining a larger population percentage and land mass percentage (which count for the all essential votes in the Diplomatic game) are difficult without wars.

That thought through, my suggestion is to revamp the scoring system (perhaps even add an online "leaderboard" for highest scores at certain difficulties (ignoring trivial difficulties like Settler and Chieftain)) and make a few changes to culture. That said, I don't see too many problems with the current system.

dylnuge said:

Too easy for creative civs, in a normal game they would accumulate 900 points for their first city, assuming that they never lost control of it and built it on the first turn. Revamp, but keep.

Click to expand...

lol, everyone knows the +2 bounus is trivial. If anything, the discounted buildings make creative better for it. Philosophical for more GP or Financial for more $$ = culture would be the two best choices IMO. Spiritual for cheap temples and necessary civic changes on the fly (culture and war civics are completely different).

ac196nataku said:

lol, everyone knows the +2 bounus is trivial. If anything, the discounted buildings make creative better for it. Philosophical for more GP or Financial for more $$ = culture would be the two best choices IMO. Spiritual for cheap temples and necessary civic changes on the fly (culture and war civics are completely different).

Click to expand...

Not too trivial in the early game, since you can expand to the fat cross without even building a cultural thing. But more trivial in the later game, or course. Just saying that culture is a pretty easy victory, all things considered.

i've lost and gotten ranked as "ethelred the unready" which i think is 2 above dan quayle . it's always when playing deity OCC, so i don't know if you just get that automatically if you lose on deity, or if it thinks i'm particularly skilled at losing, but it makes me giggle. and at least i'm not dan q.

no, not automatically. i just did a test game, worldbuildered a barb right next to my city on turn 1 on deity, i was dan quayle. maybe you have to last a little while.

on monarch when i lose i get dan quayle. it's true, i'm multi-talented. i can lose civ4 on a variety of levels .

I hate, detest and despise the scoring system. It takes no account of map size or victory type, is far too biased in favour of an early win, and the final ratings are far too closely spaced - the usual thing seems to be to jump from poor old Dan straight to Augustus. Indeed, apart from KMad's reference to Ethelred I don't recall any poster mentioning any rating other than top or bottom, and certainly I have been given no others (and Dan only in my first few games: mind you, I have abandoned some games when I could see no possible victory, usually very early).
It is surely more meritorious to get a Space Race victory at a certain date, or to conquer a Huge pangaea at that date, than to get a Conquest victory at the same date on a Duel map. Also I find that Tanks and Bombers suffice to gain a conquest victory sooner than I could develop the necessary further techs to go for a space victory. But the scoring does not reflect these differences, which I feel is an error on the part of the producers.

GrimyGrifter i guess i skimmed over your post the first time. if you're suggesting an official change to the actual game, i do not think i could disagree with you more, no offense meant.

GrimyGrifter said:

Here's an idea for a new scoring system: Forget the points. Look at the stats and find a way to aggregate scientific advancement, literacy, life expectancy, culture, manufacturing and food output. Balance that with land gain, population, military strength and wealth. Come up with a score that rewards a society that is powerful in every way and well balanced. Disable the space race, cultural and time victories and at some commonsense time after all technologies have been discovered and all civics mandated by the UN, declare a winner based on the aggregate number.

This gets rid of space race, which in real life would make the Russians the greatest society on earth. It also gets rid of the cultural victory, which, using the slider, makes it too easy to beat almost any AI. It forces you to have a truly balanced society, win the hearts of your neighbors (diplomatic victory) or beat the bejabbers out of everyone else.

Interestingly, if your society is a bit backward and decidedly disliked, but has a big army you can start a giant war and try to conquer the world (myoo, hah, hah, hah). That sounds like an accurate reading of history!

Click to expand...

forget the points, that's fine. i ignore the points myself. i play OCC games often, and those you are guaranteed low points simply because have next to zero population by definition. but they're fun for me, and they can be quite challenging, so i'm not any less "proud of" those wins than i am of the garden-variety game wins.

in fact, my peaceful OCC diplomatic victories are some that were the hardest for me--managing politics to get enough votes for that, without being able to rely on ANY votes from myself, and without killing off any dissenters. on my imaginary scoreboard in my head, those probably earn the most "wowsa points", but the official system doesn't give them many .

i can't tell if you're serious. but fundamentally, i completely 100% totally absolutely diasagree with taking away any options currently in the game, including victory conditions. including options that i never use myself and am not interested in (such as Always War), because i just figure the more options the better. different people like different things, and them having options doesn't hurt me in the slightest.

"That sounds like an accurate reading of history!" but civ4 is a game i play for fun. i don't care about history, and i don't give a fig if the game is accurate. please don't take away my choices, or even the choices that i don't like. all that does is limit people. *giggle*

there is a mod for a totally new "Mastery Victory" to the game. it's not a "do this and you win" victory, it's "at the end of the game everything is added up this new way and a winner is determined." it scores completely differently than the standard game. you might be interested in it, i dunno. here's a link. it disables all other victory conditions. it gives you a total score over the lifespan of your civ, based on things like only wonders that you built, not that you captured, the %age of the total power in the world that was yours over time (not just at the end, this is summed up throughout the game), all kinds of stuff.

folks bored with the standard scoring might want to check it out. i haven't tried it. i bet it leads to very long games .

KMadCandy said:

GrimyGrifter i guess i skimmed over your post the first time. if you're suggesting an official change to the actual game, i do not think i could disagree with you more, no offense meant.



forget the points, that's fine. i ignore the points myself. i play OCC games often, and those you are guaranteed low points simply because have next to zero population by definition. but they're fun for me, and they can be quite challenging, so i'm not any less "proud of" those wins than i am of the garden-variety game wins.

in fact, my peaceful OCC diplomatic victories are some that were the hardest for me--managing politics to get enough votes for that, without being able to rely on ANY votes from myself, and without killing off any dissenters. on my imaginary scoreboard in my head, those probably earn the most "wowsa points", but the official system doesn't give them many .

i can't tell if you're serious. but fundamentally, i completely 100% totally absolutely diasagree with taking away any options currently in the game, including victory conditions. including options that i never use myself and am not interested in (such as Always War), because i just figure the more options the better. different people like different things, and them having options doesn't hurt me in the slightest.

"That sounds like an accurate reading of history!" but civ4 is a game i play for fun. i don't care about history, and i don't give a fig if the game is accurate. please don't take away my choices, or even the choices that i don't like. all that does is limit people. *giggle*

there is a mod for a totally new "Mastery Victory" to the game. it's not a "do this and you win" victory, it's "at the end of the game everything is added up this new way and a winner is determined." it scores completely differently than the standard game. you might be interested in it, i dunno. here's a link. it disables all other victory conditions. it gives you a total score over the lifespan of your civ, based on things like only wonders that you built, not that you captured, the %age of the total power in the world that was yours over time (not just at the end, this is summed up throughout the game), all kinds of stuff.

folks bored with the standard scoring might want to check it out. i haven't tried it. i bet it leads to very long games .

Click to expand...

Nicely said. I hate the talk of "make civ more like history." Here is civ made more like history once the topic progresses:

1. If you choose a civ that died early on, like Greece, you are auto-killed once they fell.
2. If you choose a civ with a late start, like America, you start too late to do anything.
3. No time system or turns till you research Calender.
4. No letters on the screen till you research Alphabet.
5. You can't start the game without researching Computers.
6. You can't research anything, because in real life people don't click on buttons and press enter six times to get what they want.

These topics start off with something harmless, but eaisly progress into extremities that don't make much more sense then these.