Maximizing Your Score

It is possible to speed production more (in addition to buying improvements) by transferring shields, e.g. building Modern Armor in core cities and disbanding them in developing regions. This is a nice boost for building but I find it tedious and generally don't do this, I just wait to generate cash and buy improvements.

Some calculations (temple for example, democracy, standard rules):

Building and disbanding units (1 turn)
Production in City A - 120 shields/turn (modern armor)
Production in City B - 120 shields/turn (modern armor)
City C - build temple (disband 2 armor - 240 /4 = 60 shields)
Additional : - 2 gold for maintaince armors

Buy improvements: (4 turn)
Production in City A - 120 shields/turn = 30 gold (wealth)
Production in City B - 120 shields/turn = 30 gold (wealth)
City C - buy temple - 60 shields*4 = 240 gold
Additional economy: + 4 shields in city (during 4 turns) = +16 gold
 
Originally posted by Black Fluffy Lion
excellent post SirPleb. I will now ceratinly think twice before trying to win a game as early as possible to increase the bonus instead of milking my score. Did you figure out all that score calculation stuff??
Yes, I worked out the score calculation with a bit of trial and error. Chiefpaco worked it out independantly on this thread: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17439&highlight=chiefpaco+score. The score calculation I describe is only theory - I don't think anyone who has access to the source code is talking about it. :) But it is a very solid theory, well supported by evidence and safe enough to use as a fact I'd say.

I got the bonus calculation info from other people's posts. I'm not sure who worked it out first but I do remember that a post by Aeson was the first time I saw it documented.
 
:goodjob:
Indeed a very good job you have done there, Sir Pleb. I'm amazed that you have figured out the way ones score is calculated.
That's what made me curious. I wondered, how old are you, and for how long have you been playing Civilization, ever since the first one came? Please write back to me, with the answer.
 
I'm a 49 year old software developer / consultant / hired gun.

I didn't play CivI, missed it. :sad: I played CivII avidly for quite some time. But I hadn't played it for some years when CivIII came out, then I got hooked again! :)
 
Nicolai posted some very interesting questions

SIRPLEB
How old are you ?, what is your IQ ?, for how long have you been playing this game ? and how much time do you devote each day to play Civ 3 ?

Those questions are being made because of your revolutionary MILKING THEORY. This theory is so helpful that now the CIVILIZATION 3 community is curious .


reply writen by Marshal Zhukov, who was clearly the best general of WW II
 
Marshal, it looks like our posts crossed over, see my post just before yours. I don't think IQ numbers mean all that much so I'll dodge that question :) And all I want to say about how long I spend playing CivIII is "an embarrassing amount". I'm fortunate to be self-employed and to be able to do that. But I really must start cutting down my play time soon. :lol:
 
Interesting investigation on the score calculations. However, what is the relation or factor between territory and happy faces, i.e. how many tiles equals one happy face?).

In the F11 screen shot it mentions square miles, how many square miles is a tile?

What is normally your average score per turn at e.g. 10 AD? (Don't tell me you kill them all by that time on a large or huge map...;) )

// Kip
 
In the F11 screen shot it mentions square miles, how many square miles is a tile?

Divide that number by 100 and you'll get the number of tiles


Interesting investigation on the score calculations. However, what is the relation or factor between territory and happy faces, i.e. how many tiles equals one happy face?).

I believe this is how it works:
1 point per tile of territory X difficulty level
2 points per happy person X difficulty level
1 point per content person or specialist X difficulty level

Edit:typo

Difficulty levels:
Chieftain X1 factor
Warlord X2
Regent X3
Monarch X4
Emperor X5
Diety X6

So, when you plop the capital down on the first turn on a luxury you start out with 11 points on Chieftain (9 tiles +2 for the happy person), and 66 points on Diety (9X6=54 6X2= 12 54+12=66). It's usually easier to add another city (9 more points on chieftain, 54 points on Diety) than to try and get 9 people happy (that had been content, or from unhappy to content) to match that. Or, to get a city's border expanded (12 pts. on chieftain, 72 pts. on Diety). But if you have hundreds of cities, then getting one more luxury could mean hundreds or thousands of points.
 
It was my impression that Firaxis said at some point that having pollution at any point in the game (not just at the end, as in Civ2) had a negative effect on the score. Has anyone confirmed that pollution affects the score?
 
Originally posted by Kipner
what is the relation or factor between territory and happy faces, i.e. how many tiles equals one happy face?).
See Bamspeedy's note. On the line where he says "1 point per content or happy person X difficulty level " I think he meant to write "1 point per content person or specialist".

Originally posted by Kipner What is normally your average score per turn at e.g. 10 AD?
I don't know. I'm sure it varies quite a lot depending on the map settings, difficulty, etc. In general I think it is very hard to evaluate a game based on its score at that early a date. In successful huge Deity games my score at that date is only a very small percentage (perhaps between 2 and 5 percent) of what I reach at the end. Especially with the 1.17 patch, at 10AD it is still just a matter of survival in such games. On the other hand, on a large Monarch map with few rivals, I'd hope to be visibly on the way to world domination at that date with a higher score.
 
Originally posted by kundor It was my impression that Firaxis said at some point that having pollution at any point in the game (not just at the end, as in Civ2) had a negative effect on the score. Has anyone confirmed that pollution affects the score?
I'm not sure whether pollution has any direct effect on score but I think it does not. If it does then it is a small effect. (Unless there is a huge amount of pollution perhaps - I haven't played a game with a huge amount so I don't know.)

As far as I can tell the only effect pollution has on score is indirect. While there are polluted tiles they can't be worked so there is some starvation for a short time in a max'd city. And the total amount of pollution affects the frequency of global warming. Global warming causes tiles to become less food productive. (Usually. Occasionally it is harmless this way, just causes jungle to become grassland for example.) Less food production means less citizens can be supported, means a slightly lower score. The overall final effect of this on score is I think quite small in games I've played.
 
See Bamspeedy's note. On the line where he says "1 point per content or happy person X difficulty level " I think he meant to write "1 point per content person or specialist".
Right, I should have paid more attention to your original post and tried a few turns myself. Ususally, I'm on a 2 points per turn increase after 30 or so turns, so I was confused by the calculation of every tile being 1 point - since I did not account for the averaging method.
I don't know. I'm sure it varies quite a lot depending on the map settings, difficulty, etc. In general I think it is very hard to evaluate a game based on its score at that early a date. In successful huge Deity games my score at that date is only a very small percentage (perhaps between 2 and 5 percent) of what I reach at the end. Especially with the 1.17 patch, at 10AD it is still just a matter of survival in such games. On the other hand, on a large Monarch map with few rivals, I'd hope to be visibly on the way to world domination at that date with a higher score.

OK, Deity is still some miles away for me, I'm trying to get hold of Regent at the moment (only on large or huge) and I have trouble keeping up with the buildout pace. I have great theories, but I need to convert them into reality.... :) The 1.17 patch does not really help me here...
Divide that number by 100 and you'll get the number of tiles
Right, thanks for the lesson, I should be paying more attention myself to the screen shots.
So, when you plop the capital down on the first turn on a luxury you start out with 11 points on Chieftain (9 tiles +2 for the happy person), and 66 points on Diety (9X6=54 6X2= 12 54+12=66). It's usually easier to add another city (9 more points on chieftain, 54 points on Diety) than to try and get 9 people happy (that had been content, or from unhappy to content) to match that. Or, to get a city's border expanded (12 pts. on chieftain, 72 pts. on Diety). But if you have hundreds of cities, then getting one more luxury could mean hundreds or thousands of points.
OK, that's a strategy I have not explored - to settle ON the luxury. For some strange reason I thought that the luxury sort of "disappeared", but of course - you'll have instant access to the luxury by settling on the luxury. The same goes for strategic resources? And how about bonus resources? If I settle on Wheat for instance - do I get the extra food in the city center?

Thanks everyone for the advice, I know I should worry more about the strategy of the game than on the scoring, but I'm a competitive person...
 
OK, that's a strategy I have not explored - to settle ON the luxury. For some strange reason I thought that the luxury sort of "disappeared", but of course - you'll have instant access to the luxury by settling on the luxury. The same goes for strategic resources? And how about bonus resources? If I settle on Wheat for instance - do I get the extra food in the city center?

Yes, the same applies for strategic resources, you'll get instant access to it. Bonus resources I believe would be the same IF you are in any government other than Despositism. In despositism any tile that produces 3 or more of something produces one less. So if a tile should produce 4 food, when in despot you would only get 3 food. This is why when you first start a game you don't want to settle directly on a cow, because you can mine it and get another shield.

Billchin did a study on placing cities directly on resources, you might want to read through it (read all the responses because some like the cow ended up being wrong in his first post).

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=16602&highlight=resources

If your not worried about production at all, and just want points then if there is a hill in the middle of grassland, settle on the hill. You automatically get at least 2 food, regardless of terrain and a hill would only produce 1 food normally, so your adding more food to the city.

If your thinking of placing cities directly on resources and luxuries, keep in mind the surrounding terrain. Settling on a luxury prevents you having to connect it by road and instant happiness, and the AI can't pillage to deny access to it, he must capture the city. However, if a river is only one tile away, that may be better (free aqueduct).
 
Right, I should have paid more attention to your original post and tried a few turns myself. Ususally, I'm on a 2 points per turn increase after 30 or so turns, so I was confused by the calculation of every tile being 1 point - since I did not account for the averaging method.

Yes, the points per turn varies by several things. It will greatly increase shortly after you get railroads and hospitals (more citizens), or start acquiring more territory (like doubling or tripling your territory).
 
Thanks for the input, I've started to learn all the small (but important) details for the initial game. In the beginning I was so eager to start playing that the first 50 turns were done more or less without thinking.

You know it just killed all my games - hopelessly behind, only chance were then to conquer/dominate or go for space race.

Also, building all city improvements is obviously not the way to go - follow one path and disregard some improvements.

//
 
Improvements like colleseum and cathredral are useless unless you are going for cultural win. Temple, libary, marketplace, bank, barracks, hospital, some factory, and anti-pollution improvements are the ones to build. Aqueduct if needed.
 
Improvements like colleseum and cathredral are useless unless you are going for cultural win. Temple, libary, marketplace, bank, barracks, hospital, some factory, and anti-pollution improvements are the ones to build. Aqueduct if needed.
I don't know why you dismiss Cathedral and Colosseum but still are keeping Temple as a "must build" ? Cathedral turns three citizens content whereas Temple only one. Cathedral has a higher Culture per turn as well (4 to 2). Are you putting the time perspective into account as well (Temple being built before Cathedral)? Anyway, with a high culture you reduce the risk of city-flipping, and will probably have a better position at the negotiation table.

Eventually, I'm building most improvements in a city anyway, unless I have a specific target when I must churn out a huge army etc.

Still, I would say, no improvement is really worthless, it just depend on your target for the city, the surrounding civs and the environment in question. Police Station and Courthouse in my mind is important for distant cities to minimise corruption, just as an example.

//
 
Still, I would say, no improvement is really worthless, it just depend on your target for the city, the surrounding civs and the environment in question. Police Station and Courthouse in my mind is important for distant cities to minimise corruption, just as an example.

Coastal Fortresses and SAM missle Batteries are worthless. There has been rare reports of a coastal fortress actually working. I haven't really seen a SAM work at all.

I don't know why you dismiss Cathedral and Colosseum but still are keeping Temple as a "must build" ? Cathedral turns three citizens content whereas Temple only one. Cathedral has a higher Culture per turn as well (4 to 2). Are you putting the time perspective into account as well (Temple being built before Cathedral)? Anyway, with a high culture you reduce the risk of city-flipping, and will probably have a better position at the negotiation table.

Cathedral and colluseums may be needed in some games especially if you are in a republic or democracy, but when I play under a monarchy, having the military police, I don't need the cathedrals and colluseums. Temples are necessary, they are cheap and to ensure the cities borders expand, and you can't build cathedrals until you have a temple anyways. And this thread is about maximizing score, so usually if you have a large empire (300+ cities) like Sirpleb, then having cathedrals and colluseums in several cities will trigger a cultural victory way too early. Temples he puts in the cities so it expands the cities limits. And even then will sometimes sell off the temple after the first city expansion.
 
OK,

I shouldn't go into a debate on this with the icons of the site ;)
You're right, it is about maximising the score. So far down the thread, you sometimes loose the original issue.

I agree on the Cathedral/Temple issue. I have yet to come up to 300+ empires. I usually like to build Cathedral, Library, University to increase my chance of cultural flips ( I enjoy when other cities want to join my empire) - but although I have a few flips every game, I should probably manage the empire a little bit better.

Normally I skip Monarchy and go directly into Republic - is that worse than going Monarchy and then into Democracy?

On Coastal Fortress I agree, I have never had a CF take free shot at anyone - or they are never close enough during wartime anyway.

Also my Bombers seem to fail quite often on their runs.

//
 
Top Bottom