At least in Civ4 the other leaders (including those you personally destroyed) don't jeer at you at the end of the game for "failing" to win, as they did in Civ3.
I won, so why am I Dan Quayle?
- Thread starter MBJODET
- Start date
The Q-Meister
King
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2005
- Messages
- 774
I agree the scoring system needs to be changed.
I don't care what anyone says, a win is a win. You should not be given a loser rank after winning the game. I once played a game where I was able to come from behind late in the game, beat 3 other civs, most of whom were bigger than I was and more advanced than I was to become the highest score and the biggest (pop and land) civ by the end of the game and all I got was Warren G Harding or something like that.
Another time I played on a duel map with 4 civs and won an early domination victory with the Incas and got Augustus.
I can tell you right away, that my greatest victory was by far my easiest and it took a lot more skill, patience, and strategy to win as that civ from behind against more powerful and more advanced civs than simply being the biggest in the game and knowing how to build lots of units.
I think it is unfair how they reward Domination victories so lavishly with bonus points and give little respect to diplomatic or time victories; all that does is demoralize the peaceful builders who prefer peace and glorify the war-mongers. And I can play both but I don't think scoring should be that biased to favor only the military victories.
If possible, I think some consideration should be given to come from behind victories, looking at where the civ was at the early or mid parts of the game and seeing how they ended up.
I don't care what anyone says, a win is a win. You should not be given a loser rank after winning the game. I once played a game where I was able to come from behind late in the game, beat 3 other civs, most of whom were bigger than I was and more advanced than I was to become the highest score and the biggest (pop and land) civ by the end of the game and all I got was Warren G Harding or something like that.
Another time I played on a duel map with 4 civs and won an early domination victory with the Incas and got Augustus.
I can tell you right away, that my greatest victory was by far my easiest and it took a lot more skill, patience, and strategy to win as that civ from behind against more powerful and more advanced civs than simply being the biggest in the game and knowing how to build lots of units.
I think it is unfair how they reward Domination victories so lavishly with bonus points and give little respect to diplomatic or time victories; all that does is demoralize the peaceful builders who prefer peace and glorify the war-mongers. And I can play both but I don't think scoring should be that biased to favor only the military victories.
If possible, I think some consideration should be given to come from behind victories, looking at where the civ was at the early or mid parts of the game and seeing how they ended up.
The Dan Quayle score have nothing to do with the lower level. Even on the Settler level, you should be able to get "Caesar Augustus" without any problem. If you don't want to be Dan Quayle, "build more cities" --- a message from your advisor from civ3 and still work the same on Civ4.
TomOC said:
That's true! Happy people is usually more productive than angry people. We need to make them happy to bring in the $$$. The more $$$, the more cities we can build. It goes without saying that cottage spam is the key.
Tarkhan
King
you basically have to play like an AI, and zerg cottages on every square.
Raisin Bran
Cereal Killer
migthegreek said:
Yeah I got tired of getting DQ with time or cultural victories.
I started a pangea map with 7 civs and won a conquest victory at 1400 and I had Augustus at warlord difficulty.
igelkott
Chieftain
I think we should add appropriate info to the Dan Quayle wikipedia entry, just to let everybody know just how important we think he was for Civilization 
Similar threads
