I'm pretty sure that land has to be owned for at least 20 turns (on normal speed) before you start earning points for it. I believe reading Hendrikzoon state that in one of his spoilers for the GOTM games.
G-Minor 2
- Thread starter Dianthus
- Start date
My current attempt is going a bit different. I poped a Settler and a worker. Everyone was pretty close and I needed the elbow room, so I got iron and came out swing. I guess JC was a little overkill. I only built 2 or 3 Prats before the CS slingshot and machinary got me maces. I took a couple of cities each from America, England and then France. (Germany was out of reach.) I left off around 1100 AD, following a another round of attacks. Only this time, I bumped them off. Just me and Germany left. I think I am going to go for a Conquest\Space Race\Time victory. 
(I doubt UN timing will line up and I don't think I will fool around with culture again.)
(I doubt UN timing will line up and I don't think I will fool around with culture again.)
Agreed, the territory goes up. That doesn't mean he's had the score for the territory though!Kalleyao said:
Denniz said:
My score by winning that turn was 15,000+
My actual score was over 10 K.
I don't understand the score. Now my Total Score is 13,000 + and my "Score if I win this turn" is down to 10,000. Which number counts? Which one have you all been advertising when you finish your game?
Still 15 turns to go...
Still 15 turns to go...
The score that matters is the one that states if I win this turn. In other words, the lower score. The higher score doesn't matter.
I didn't know either, so had to pm Superslug for the answer.
I didn't know either, so had to pm Superslug for the answer.
14,099 total score. I thought this was important.
8,487 final score. I'm a little disappointed in that, but I guess you get a penalty for finishing so late.
Future tech 64 was a few beakers short of popping out.
I couldn't take too many cities in the final turn because I left Washington alone all game and he had every tech. Next time, I'll war with everyone equally.
8,487 final score. I'm a little disappointed in that, but I guess you get a penalty for finishing so late.
Future tech 64 was a few beakers short of popping out.
I couldn't take too many cities in the final turn because I left Washington alone all game and he had every tech. Next time, I'll war with everyone equally.
WastinTime said:
Just to clear some confusion:
There seems to be a modifier for the dificulty level applied at games end:
Dianthus said:
most information on scoring (mostly from Dianthus) can be found in these posts:
Scoring formula
Turns multiplier
Pop/Land/Tech raw score
Wonder raw score
Dificulty modifier as per V1.09
Land score as per V1.52
Denniz said:Both my last two attempt went down to unintentional domination victories. I keep getting greedy.
I know what you mean. A couple times I was at 67.90% out of 68% land.
Too close. I had to give away several cities to stay under 68. This has been a very good learning experience. Here's my tip... Conquer and keep some cities, but you need to raze a few and plant new cities too. a) your cities will be placed more tightly/efficiently. b) if you have to give a city to someone it won't have a ton of culture.
b) was really a problem for me. If I gave back a major city it would retain its old culture and return 10-15 tiles instead of around 5---which is all I want to give away.
godotnut
Inverted Unicycle
So this Gauntlet, I decided to try a game blind--that is, without reading anything in this thread (well I did read the first few posts, but no strategy). The idea was to see if I would naturally come up with some alternate type of winning strat. That was easy though, since I've been trapped without the web at a relative's house for Memorial Day weekend.
I didn't find my maverick lonestar strategy. I wasted a trait on Expansive, thinking health would be an issue (Vicky), didn't make a last minute grab at points, didn't maximize all of my squares with cities (finished with eleven), played too conservatively (panicked about the Dom limit as soon as I got to around 61%), and worst, like others here, got really excited by my massive pre-win score, only to watch it drop by 40%. Wound up a little over 7,000 on my first try. Live and learn.
I also wasted a bunch of retries looking for Settler pops, which turned out not to matter much, since all of my cities were at maximum population long before the final turn. Now I'm thinking good terrain--meaning tons of food resources and floodplains--will be more impotant in the long run than the huts.
I didn't find my maverick lonestar strategy. I wasted a trait on Expansive, thinking health would be an issue (Vicky), didn't make a last minute grab at points, didn't maximize all of my squares with cities (finished with eleven), played too conservatively (panicked about the Dom limit as soon as I got to around 61%), and worst, like others here, got really excited by my massive pre-win score, only to watch it drop by 40%. Wound up a little over 7,000 on my first try. Live and learn.
I also wasted a bunch of retries looking for Settler pops, which turned out not to matter much, since all of my cities were at maximum population long before the final turn. Now I'm thinking good terrain--meaning tons of food resources and floodplains--will be more impotant in the long run than the huts.
godotnut said:
I'm not sure food matters (except to have a strong capitol.) Let me explain...
If I understand it
There is a max food value for the map. Let's say you start with 0/280 for a population score and another person starts with 0/365. I believe these max values are based on available food. If you finish with 560/280 and the other person has 730/365. You will get the exact same score for population because you both exactly doubled your max value. The game with MORE food had to have 170 more population to get the same score. I can't tell if one map is better than the other. Seems like they tried to make them equal.You'll notice the same thing goes for land tiles. It doesn't matter how many tiles there are max. You get the same score for owning 67% of them.
Gauntlet games are submitted in the same way as normal HOF games. My guess would be that you're play the wrong map size. It should be tiny, not duel.hamfist said:
2037 AD cultural victory. I got so busy managing the dom limit, that a city I thought was a long way from legendary jumped up and bit me, you know where. 
I think I'm going to give it a rest for now and settle of another 15th place finish.
I think I'm going to give it a rest for now and settle of another 15th place finish.
Denniz said:2037 AD cultural victory. I got so busy managing the dom limit, that a city I thought was a long way from legendary jumped up and bit me, you know where.
I think I'm going to give it a rest for now and settle of another 15th place finish.
Same happened to me on try #2, but about 3 turns from the end...
hamfist: For the gauntlet you have to play with all four opponents listed however you may choose which leader from each civ will be your opponent. If you were just playing with 2 opponents it won't count for the gauntlet but you still should be able to submit it to the HOF since 2 opponents is the least amount you can have on a tiny map.
godotnut
Inverted Unicycle
@WastinTime:
Fascinating. I had no idea this is the case. That is definitely something to consider, and if we assume that we can have any tiles we want--which, I suppose, isn't at all unreasonable at this skill level--then it wouldn't matter how much food you have.
It would seem that at the very least we would want the capital, as you say, and hopefully the nearby area to have a higher percentage of the overall map's food than the area most distant from our capital, where we would want to banish our token resistance. Perhaps this game will turn out to be largely about map management--in the sense of trying to limit the AI's necessary space to desert and other low food tiles tiles, probably by way of relocation. Man, I feel like Andrew Jackon and the Cherokee (and I'm not sure how I feel about that).
Off with your tribe to the Dust Bowl!
I think next game I'll go back to my old faithful, Liz. The Britsh always were best at colonial world building, at least while that "civic" was in vogue (help! my historical imagination is being taken over by Civ4!)
Fascinating. I had no idea this is the case. That is definitely something to consider, and if we assume that we can have any tiles we want--which, I suppose, isn't at all unreasonable at this skill level--then it wouldn't matter how much food you have.
It would seem that at the very least we would want the capital, as you say, and hopefully the nearby area to have a higher percentage of the overall map's food than the area most distant from our capital, where we would want to banish our token resistance. Perhaps this game will turn out to be largely about map management--in the sense of trying to limit the AI's necessary space to desert and other low food tiles tiles, probably by way of relocation. Man, I feel like Andrew Jackon and the Cherokee (and I'm not sure how I feel about that).
Off with your tribe to the Dust Bowl!
I think next game I'll go back to my old faithful, Liz. The Britsh always were best at colonial world building, at least while that "civic" was in vogue (help! my historical imagination is being taken over by Civ4!)
Similar threads
