High Scores Seem Possibly Easier Than Past Civ Games

[Pounder]

How many cities did the AI have at that date? I can't imagine more than 2 or 3, but by the longer the AI's have to expand and grow the more points you'll get for taking their cities

If the early win bonus is the same if you win in any year B.C., then that would explain how Skintigh's score was higher than yours.

I think I ended the game with 5 cities, two that I founded myself.

So if I left one city to the last Civ and then played to a Domination Victory, I would have had a much larger score. I might be starting to get it.

 

[Shi_no_Kami]

I dunno if this will help the Scoring debate or not, but tonight I finished the game.

Cheiftan Level: Large Map.
I was Romans. Vrs: Persia, Germany, Mali, Japan, Spain, China, Greece.
Domination Victory.
Score 15,989
Won in 1974.
I had every tech, was researching first future tech, and was rolling across 3 other empires when the game ended. 2 were already gone due to my hand.

I found the high scores easier to acheive in this version over others.

 

[Aeson]

I forgot that gc.getDefineINT()'s return values can be found from GlobalDefines.xml, so if you want the wonder, population, territory, tech breakdown it can be found in there.

<Define>
	<DefineName>SCORE_POPULATION_FACTOR</DefineName>
	<!--Score you get if you have the 'maximum' population possible on the current map-->
	<iDefineIntVal>5000</iDefineIntVal>
</Define>
<Define>
	<DefineName>SCORE_LAND_FACTOR</DefineName>
	<!--Score you get if you have all the land on the current map-->
	<iDefineIntVal>2000</iDefineIntVal>
</Define>
<Define>
	<DefineName>SCORE_WONDER_FACTOR</DefineName>
	<!--Score you get if you have all the wonders-->
	<iDefineIntVal>1000</iDefineIntVal>
</Define>
<Define>
	<DefineName>SCORE_TECH_FACTOR</DefineName>
	<!--Score you get if you have all the techs-->
	<iDefineIntVal>2000</iDefineIntVal>
</Define>
<Define>
	<DefineName>SCORE_FREE_PERCENT</DefineName>
	<!--Percentage of the maximum score you get for free-->
	<iDefineIntVal>0</iDefineIntVal>
</Define>
<Define>
	<DefineName>SCORE_VICTORY_PERCENT</DefineName>
	<!--Percentage of your score that gets added if you win the game-->
	<iDefineIntVal>0</iDefineIntVal>
</Define>

 

[CiverDan]

Appears the scores are much higher the earlier you win. That is, the highest scores will all be conquest. It is still early, but I see no evidence that milking leads to a higher score. I also dont appear to see the score increase with difficulty.

That being said, here are some thoughts regarding HOF records compares to Civ 3:

Very early conquest will be tougher. Classic rush strategys will probably be less effective on higher levels. The best rush units in this game are the Inca Quecha, Jaguar and Persian Immortals (if you have horse). Of course the high level AI may very well have the counter by the time you get there.

Milking at max land area will be harder. You cannot sell cultural buildings when you do not need them anymore. Being creative is obviously out.

 

[superslug]

Being creative is obviously out.

I think it's way too soon to jump to conclusions like that. Milkers are already aware of the dangers of culture in border towns, and even if cultural buildings can't be sold, there's plenty of ways to reduce the number of occupied tiles.

 

[CiverDan]

True, giving cities to the AI is always an option.

 

[Pounder]

Is there any multiplier applied to your score during the game as you play based on the difficulty level you are playing, I don't feel that there is.

Wasn't there a multiplier in CIV3, if you played SID wasn't there a x8 multiplier applied to your score and then upon a victory any bonuses earned would be applied.

 

[Masquerouge]

I got more than 31,000 with a conquest win, Noble, Tiny, Pangea in 800 BC. So yes, it is easy to have high scores.
HOWEVER, I think having high scores with a cultural victory is really, really hard.

 

[Zevus]

I've gotten 50K on a tiny/pangea map on "Settler" difficulty level. Easy win, no challenge at all... on the other hand, my Emperor difficulty level wins on a standard/continents map have only netted me between 7000 and 10000 points.

Hope it'd be something that's changed in a patch at some point, kinda messed up that difficulty level doesn't factor in at all.

 

[Vol]

Just another data point:

Prince, Spaceship Victory, 2002 AD
Standard Map, Continents
Base Score: 4313, Final Score: 7200

Had majority of Wonders, was #2 in land, #1 in pop, and Future Tech 3.

 

[Pounder]

Just another data point:

Prince, Spaceship Victory, 2002 AD
Standard Map, Continents
Base Score: 4313, Final Score: 7200

Had majority of Wonders, was #2 in land, #1 in pop, and Future Tech 3.

That is the kind of score, I would have expected with Civ3, but in Civ4 it appears the HOF needs some work.

Doesn't look like they spent much time testing it, if they did, they would have found these issues after one or two games.

I am really disappointed that the difficulty level appears to play no part in the score.

It there a file that can be accessed to save the HOF or clear it if one chooses.

 

[CiverDan]

I wouldnt say the HOF needs some work. It is simply set up differently than in previous Civ game. Here are the apparent differences.

1. No multiplier for difficulty level. Means that Highest scores will be on Settler/Chieftain. The lowest "high" scores will be on deity.

2. Early conquest scores higher than milking. This is different than civ 3.

That being said. I have the following to say with regards to HOF scores and attempts.

Conquest: MUCH tougher on highest levels and larger maps. I have heard that praetorian rushes are doable on Deity, but unsure if they are feasible on, say, huge maps.

UN, Space: Dependant on rapid tech development.

Culture: This will be interesting. Stuffing 3 cities with wonders and Great People (artists specifically).

histographic: Milking per se is no longer applicable, due to the new scoring formula. Rapid Mil conquest, city growth and tech development all must be balanced. Goal is to get close to max land. then farm everthing with all hammers to research to max future techs, with all specialists to merchants from the start. (for extra food=bigger cities). Maybe scientists can get you more points from more future tech but unsure. Will have to be tested. Can you get future techs for free from GP?

 

[CiverDan]

There is a "125000 score" thread in the general forum. Although it appears the Domination victory condition was turned off for that game and had too few oppenents for an "official" game, it appears that 70-75000 is theoretically feasible on lower difficulty levels. That thread basically verifies that early win beats milking ONCE terrain is maxed out for area and pop. Of course at higher levels, it may just take too long to recover score by maxing pop and land after killing the AI. In other words, early domination may be the ONLY was to get the higher scores at these levels. Only testing will verify though.

 

[killercane]

Now thats an impressive game; 116 cities is a heck of a lot in this game and a future tech per turn is equally as impressive.

 

[LulThyme]

I don't see how the fact that there is no difficulty modifier is a big deal.
In all versions of civ, it was very hard to compare games from different difficulty levels, even victory types.

 

[Pentium]

I don't see how the fact that there is no difficulty modifier is a big deal.
In all versions of civ, it was very hard to compare games from different difficulty levels, even victory types.

Comparing different VC's is now impossible, with Dom score being more than 10 times greater than SS.

With different levels... There should be a modifier. A Deity game, say 1000AD Conquest can be (and is) a lot tougher than a 1000BC Settler Conquest, but it still get less points.

 

[EMan]

My understanding is, with the exception of Histographic (2050AD) Victories & the High-Score Table, score was irrelevant.............Fast Finish Date is King!

I think what's important are the RELATIVE dates/scores within each table.

 

[superslug]

My understanding is, with the exception of Histographic (2050AD) Victories & the High-Score Table, score was irrelevant.............Fast Finish Date is King!

Date is king in most things in HOF III, and will be in IV's tables as well.

The aspect that could be the problem is the Quatromaster's Challenge. In III's Quartermaster's, we needed some way to rank games from different tables. When two #1's are facing each other, a tiebreaker was needed, and the first tiebreaker was always raw Firaxis score.

 

[Gufnork]

My high scores, all on standar maps:

21658/5672, Domination, Immortal, 1876AD
14985/7125, Space Race, Emperor, 1955AD
11263/3781, Space Race, Monarch, 1946AD
9629/5159, Space Race, Immortal, 1968AD
3627/3627, Lost Space Race, Monarch, 1942AD

I'm getting higher scores on higher difficulties due to the cities I will inevitably conquer being better developed. Never tried to rush a victory though.

 

[LulThyme]

Comparing different VC's is now impossible, with Dom score being more than 10 times greater than SS.

With different levels... There should be a modifier. A Deity game, say 1000AD Conquest can be (and is) a lot tougher than a 1000BC Settler Conquest, but it still get less points.

But comparing different VC's and Difficulty was impossible in CIV 3 too though.
Look at the civ 3 hof table, and its clear to see if we would disregard VC or difficulty, than some would have never been represented

Your example is just saying that it's impossible to compare fast conquests between difficulties.
It was the same in Civ 3. A 3800 BC chieftain was much harder to obtain (if even possible) than a 3500 BC say warlord. But the warlord game would have gotten almost double the score.
So nothing changed, it wasn't possible to compare between different difficulties, and it still isn't.