So can beat the game on emperor pretty consistently but score is usually in the thousands. Just played a game on prince and boy was that funny now. Space victory with France on turn 350 LOTS of wonders and tons of future culture and future science research. Continents map standard everything. 778 ranking ... ??? Note I am using Vanilla without mods. How is score calculated...if I want to get the 2.5k score do I just need to win really really fast?
The faster you win the lower the score is most of the time. I'm not 100% sure what changed from vanilla to gs but basically you get score for every tech and civic you research. Also for every city and every pop for every district, build and wonder. Also for every great person and for a religion. So the longer the game goes the more cities you can settle/conquer and the more stuff you can build. Since R&F it is even easier. You can also get era score with the expansion which counts as points towards your score as well. Usually you get hunderds of those in a game.
Here is the calculation for how score is calculated, both in vanilla and post-expansions: https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/Victory_(Civ6)#Score.2FTime Winning really fast won't help you get to 2.5k. To do so, you really need the maximize the size of your empire to accrue points for cities, districts, and people.
So you don't get a bonus for playing on harder levels, and score isn't different based on winning condition? Aka winning by science doesn't give a bonus different than winning by religion. Also speed of victory doesn't seem to be in the calculation listed above or happy vs unhappy citizens hmm. So not doing any war seems like an impossibility for getting a high score. Interesting and unexpected.
Definitely different from the score calculations in earlier games in the franchise, e.g., Civ3 and Civ4. Now I want to go look at Civ5, to see whether it changed for 5 or 6 ...
Correct, this is why score is meaningless. The best way is simply to play a marathon game on the largest map you can and settle/conquer as much as possible.
Good to know will no longer measure my performance based on ranking at the end of games. They need to redo that make ranking meaningful again
Checked the wiki and strategy forums here: Both Civ3 and Civ4 do scale the score by difficulty and give a bonus for winning early. Their score and "ranking" also include elements of how much land you control, how many people you have, and techs you have researched. Both Civ5 and Civ6 removed the bonus for winning early. Their score calculations are based on wonders built, cities, social policies, and techs. Civ5 score includes the amount of gold in your treasury; Civ 6 score includes districts and Great People.
When you look in the victory progress screens, you have the score competition, and if you click you get all details on how the score gets calculated, each turn, within the game. I agree it is meaningless EXCEPT if you attempt a score victory (very rare).
The score makes sense to tell 'how big and radiant your empire was' that's it it doesn't reflect on how well you played.
Kind of a shame they dont give a difficulty bonus or a turn time bonus. It makes score pretty meaningless. The game seems to be balanced around a 300 turn standard speed win from what I've seen. Expand like mad and dont worry about a VC before 300 seems like the best way to get high score ranking.
There were 2 scores implemented in Civ IV for example: an "ingame score" and a "final score". The final score took into account those kind of criteria as @vorlon_mi mentionned. The ingame score however always increases with the game, as it can be used for the score victory. And only this one was implemented in Civ VI.
