Is the end scoring system "flawed"

Nooble

Warlord
Joined
Sep 19, 2004
Messages
266
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see that the ending score where they rank you is based on your in game score when the game ends. This means that it's actually better to win later on, instead of early.

At the moment in my Brave New World emperor difficulty game, I make 1000 gold, 3000 science, and 500 tourism per turn, and have all 40 city states as allies, and won a diplomatic victory at the year 2019. I only ranked 2nd (2300 points) at the end score list (where they rank you after all the great rulers throughout Civilization).

So if I were to not win diplomatically, and delay the game longer (i'm way ahead of everyone in technology and military), I would be able to score higher.

Initially, I thought I would earn a higher rank for finishing the game earlier, but it's only based on score which will rise as the game progresses.

What does everyone think about this?
 
you get a mupltiplier on the score when you win for the remaining turns. So it's not always better to win later.

i think it's:
currentscore * maxturns / turn of victory
(so if you win on the last turn the multiplier is 1.00)

you can get >20000 points by winning a duel size marathon game before turn 10.
 
On that note, (still in G&K), I have thought that the computer scores either number of cities or amount of territory way too high. In my tall games, when an AI a full era behind me starts going expansion crazy and settles a dozen worthless cities, their score skyrockets. I'd like to play an endless game where the highest score wins, but with that flawed scoring system it's just not feasible.
 
I had one game with a cultural victory on King that finished sooner than my cultural victory on Prince and somehow the prince victory had a higher score. Intuitively that makes zero sense to me. Not only was my victory on a higher difficulty level, but it was achieved more quickly than the higher scored game. Totally agree with you.
 
Top Bottom