Losing my lead late in game?

[Cptobvious1]

I have played a number of games on noble, I always seem to be a couple hundred points above all the AI right through tell the Rennaisance/Industrial era and then the enemy always manages to catch up on my lead and then get 200+ points or so above me until the end of the game and win by one of the victories usually space race or UN. What is it im doing wrong that allows me to lose my lead this late in the game..usually I try to build up good infastracture, make as many allies as I can, get great people, spread religion, and continue tech tree right through to Apollo program or UN. Usually I try to avoid war though, and at this point in the game you cant really expand your cities also without war as you need to capture other cities since all land is taken by this time. Still that doesn't explain how the enemy flies by my lead. So what is it im doing wrong and what is some good advice to keep a solid lead this late in the game on noble..what kind of tactics/strategies should I use.

 

[snepp]

What is your power compared to the other civs? If you neglect your military your score will go in the tank unless you have big enough leads in the other areas to offset it.

 

[dh_epic]

It could be any number of things. But a lot of score comes from a few things: wonders, land, and population.

It's possible the AI is beating you to some key wonders.
It's also possible that the AI is colonizing a lot of stray islands that are outside your main continent.

Those are my two guesses. I recommend experimenting with your strategy, though. There's many ways to succeed at Civ.

 

[Paradoxus]

if you hover your mouse over your name next to your score, it tells your exact score with a breakdown of each category.

 

[Cptobvious1]

if you hover your mouse over your name next to your score, it tells your exact score with a breakdown of each category.

never knew that im sure if I did i could have found out, ill do it for next game. Usually im always the one to have most wonders though from my general knowledge, i think hes beating me by population maybe, but yeah ill check the point breakdown, any other tips still helpful though.

 

[KAuss]

Feel behind? Start a war...

A war can get you points like nothing else... Just kill and keep killing... I've racked up over 1K points in about 25 turns...

Still, most games I play with no wars or little wars end up in the 3 - 4K...

How in the world do people get past the bottom of the pile in score????

 

[Bezhukov]

How many cottages do you build?

 

[remconius]

and which civics do you adopt?

 

[Strobe]

I am playing on Noble small maps to get used to the game mechanics and find without war it is difficult to score highly, normally 4-5K but with an early or mid game successfull war I can easily get 10-15K.

If I cannot war at start of game due to position, resources or I dont want to then I will always go for war early mid game. I like playing victoria, a redcoat charge against lower tech or unprepared opponents is deadly.

I also don't always grab the land or cities but go for one or two large opponent cities (captial if possible) and raze them, then go back to peace asap and carry on building. They will never recover from this assuring your sustained lead.

 

[remconius]

I think high scores are accomplished by finishing early or growing big. So if you have a long game with a fixed empire you are going to have a hard time keeping up increasing your score at the same rate. Probably building units will give more score... Have you tried hovering over the score and over your opponents score. Or checked the demographics?

 

[Shillen]

In my experience you absolutely must claim a lot of territory/population to get a high score. It's more important than an early finish, although most early finishes are conquest/domination victories anyway which means you do claim a lot of land. But even if you launch your spaceship in 1200AD, if you only have 8 cities the score won't be very high. I personally dislike that scoring system completely. But then again I don't really care about the score much. I like fast finish dates per victory type. I think it takes more skill to launch your ship in 1200AD than to dominate the world in 600AD, but the domination would blow the launch score away.

 

[Astax]

I find it the AI has easier time expanding in late game and colonizing new lands at the expand of tech. Mos tof their score coems from land/people.

 

[Good Omens]

I tend to have a fall-off as the game goes on, and I think I know why--specialists. By which I mean that I usually ignore them, instead concentrating on making my cities as big as possible. I'm also a developer, and I like to make my cities full, but I need to start losing that mindset; not every city needs a University, for example, and those turns might be better used for some more military. There's alot of adaptation from Civ 3.

 

[Alistic]

Im willing to bet this is from the AI's persistant settler building. The AI will squeeze a city in anywhere there is room.

 

[Wlauzon]

I think high scores are accomplished by finishing early or growing big....

This is one of my gripes about the game.

In one game on a Tiny world, I wiped out the other 3 civs in about 20 turns - scored over 25k. Did this with Aztecs and just rushed jaguars, never made a worker or built any buidings but barracks.

In another game on a Large world I beat 11 other civs with a Cultural victory in 2042 and scored under 2000. I had possesion of about 40% of the total land area.

It appears the scoring is very heavily biased towards nothing but war, and war as early as possible.

 

[pilight]

It appears the scoring is very heavily biased towards nothing but war, and war as early as possible.

That's one thing that hasn't changed in CIVIV