What is the highest score you have gotten on civ 6

[paperhero2]

I was wondering what is the highest score people have gotten on civ 6? I have started playing civ 6 again after being disappointed by it's poor AI and seems somewhat easy to beat on it's highest level, so I wanted a bench mark from others to compare against. I have played all 6 civs and I believe civ 6 is the easiest to beat on deity. The settings I am currently playing on to get a high score: Deity, marathon, lakes, Huge, age new, sea level high, no barbarians. everything else default.

 

[Naokaukodem]

Civ2 (don't know about Civ1 since I never completed a game of it) was by far the easiest to win in Deity. Civ6 Deity is not so easy with standard settings...

 

[Timothy001]

I play on King. Usually Continents and Islands. 8 Civs. New Planet, Wet, with Abundant Resources. Disaster at level 2.Barbarian Clans, Monopolies & Corporations, & Secret Societies.
Culture 2788: Tamar. Avg: 1895
Diplomacy 2531: Qin Shi Huang (Mandate). Avg:1772
Domination 3354: Saladin (Sultan). Avg: 2057
Religion 2881: Frederick Barbarossa. Avg: 1368
Science 3037: Pericles. Avg: 2070
Lose Game 2152: Eleanor (France), Gitarja (won a Religious victory). Avg: 1332

 

[Oberinspektor Derrick]

I have played all 6 civs and I believe civ 6 is the easiest to beat on deity. The settings I am currently playing on to get a high score: Deity, marathon, lakes, Huge, age new, sea level high, no barbarians. everything else default.

If you rely on early rushes against the deity AI, try turning off marathon and new world age.
On standard speed, that opener is much harder to pull off because your window of opportunity is so small.
I assume that you have 12 players on a huge map, otherwise you can up the count to 12 to make it harder as well.
Spawning less than 15 tiles away from Montezuma and otherwise boxed in is kinda rough.

 

[Freaky]

I beat it on King, then beat it on Deity at an earlier date and got a significantly worse score. That's then I stopped paying attention to score... Is there any kind of sensible comparison between score and how well you played that I'm missing?

 

[Oberinspektor Derrick]

I beat it on King, then beat it on Deity at an earlier date and got a significantly worse score. That's then I stopped paying attention to score... Is there any kind of sensible comparison between score and how well you played that I'm missing?

Not really.
If you want high scores, win late on domination, as owning many highly developed cities inflates the score.
Meanwhile if you win fast and peacefully (which is much harder to do), your score will be much lower.

 

[Tuvok694]

if you win fast and peacefully (which is much harder to do), your score will be much lower.

Exactly and therefore this number which they call "score" is completely meaningless regarding how well you play the game.

 

[Abaxial]

Score reflects really how long you prolonged the game. It's nothing about how well or cleverly you played.

 

[reddishrecue]

I ranked up to Catherine the great which is 1600+ points. I aimed to Augustus Caesar of course on domination.

 

[paperhero2]

The reason I ask is that although I enjoy playing civ 6, I need some type of goal to set for myself that I try to achieve. As I suspected, victory points are meaningless, and I have already beat it on deity. As has been pointed out, and I believe, settler spam, and conquest of other computer players makes any of the other types of victories easier. So the question is where do you draw the line on how many settlers you can produce and cities you capture to make the game challenging for yourself?

 

[Naokaukodem]

The reason I ask is that although I enjoy playing civ 6, I need some type of goal to set for myself that I try to achieve. As I suspected, victory points are meaningless, and I have already beat it on deity. As has been pointed out, and I believe, settler spam, and conquest of other computer players makes any of the other types of victories easier. So the question is where do you draw the line on how many settlers you can produce and cities you capture to make the game challenging for yourself?

If you don't spam and conquer a lot of cities, according to others here your score will be bad. If you want a high score though, you have to spam and conquer as many cities as possible, there's no other way around. That's your challenge. If you think that it's not good, just set up another challenge to you than score.

 

[reddishrecue]

If you don't spam and conquer a lot of cities, according to others here your score will be bad. If you want a high score though, you have to spam and conquer as many cities as possible, there's no other way around. That's your challenge. If you think that it's not good, just set up another challenge to you than score.

There really should be a comparison between conquered cities and built wonders.. I think the larger the civilization with more cities can eventually bring more score but from looking at others, I see that being small and wonderful will make more score on victory if left untouched.

 

[Yorke]

So the question is where do you draw the line on how many settlers you can produce and cities you capture to make the game challenging for yourself?

I usually build up settlers until all land from the continent I spawned are filled with me and the AI. If this means I will have few cities because of lack of space, then I will go to war to capture at least their border cities in a way I expand and also punish them.

Later in the game I will settle only if needed for late strategic resources

 

[Disgustipated]

9115, Julius Caesar as Rome, Emperor difficulty, huge continents and islands map, marathon speed. And yeah, it took a while. Obviously I delayed victory by quite a bit. One reason I can't do high scores like this on higher difficulties.

Usually what limits me from getting more than that is boredom and slow turn times, though I have a pretty fast cpu, so they aren't long like my old comp. I still think this game has a memory leak, however. Turn times do get slower after several hours of play. Most of the time my score is around 3000 for a peaceful victory (though I still grow my cities at the end with neighborhoods and Seasteds).

 

[reddishrecue]

I see the map has to be larger to get to that level, Augustus Ceasar's score or better when you use the larger maps like huge or gigantic.

 

[newtociv6]

The reason I ask is that although I enjoy playing civ 6, I need some type of goal to set for myself that I try to achieve. As I suspected, victory points are meaningless, and I have already beat it on deity. As has been pointed out, and I believe, settler spam, and conquest of other computer players makes any of the other types of victories easier. So the question is where do you draw the line on how many settlers you can produce and cities you capture to make the game challenging for yourself?

eh, managing 100+ cities was pretty challenging to me.

It took over a hour just to check their status every turn, and opening trade route list would take like 20 seconds. Plus dozens of builders, engineers, maintaining entire lines of missionaries and moving them one by one, ... (and people say AI has too many missionaries?! I kept like 50 myself)

 

[Miserable Old Git]

I've just (5 minutes ago) got my best ever score: 9,315. (I don't usally play for high score, but fancied a challenge).

Played Abe Lincoln as deity on huge splintered fractal map, with tech and civics shuffle, barbarian clans, and monopolies and corporations.

Kept every city I captured, wholly eliminated all other civs, and tried to maximise population.

Game ended on turn 465.

Here's the map before the capture of the final city.

 

[Miserable Old Git]

By the way, I haven't "gotten" that score, I got it.

We dropped that strong verb form sometime shortly after the Mayflower sailed.

Moderator Action: Not everyone here is a native English speaker. Please be tolerant of others. Let us get back to the topic please. leif

 

[shaglio]

By the way, I haven't "gotten" that score, I got it.

We dropped that strong verb form sometime shortly after the Mayflower sailed.

Moderator Action: Not everyone here is a native English speaker. Please be tolerant of others. Let us get back to the topic please. leif

The OP used it correctly anyway. The verb is Get/Got/Gotten. Get is present, got is past, and gotten is past participle (when used in conjunction with have, has, or had). Since the title of the thread contains "have" then the past participle "gotten" is used.

 

[leif erikson]

Moderator Action: Please return to the topic. It is NOT the English language. Thanks.