New here, got a few things to say

[BlueBaron777]

Hi I'm new here, I played the original Civ and Alpha Centuri, Civ 1 rocked, never played any others, then got Civ 5.

I like Civ 5 it generally rocks I spent 160 hours playing the thing and I think I have mastered Prince level now, got my own strategy that I kind of developed and stumbled across.

But things I don't like, Spaceships, it the original you designed and built your own spaceship and then you had to wait till it launched to find out if your ship made it to Alpha Centuri. Also AI is not the best is it !

No Spy's and espionage, I loved stealing tech it made up for my bad game play in Civ 1, which was hard to manage cities.

What is a good Civ 5 score? I'm playing my 2nd only Epic game on Prince, large earth 13 Leaders and I'm owning it. I'm in the year 2006, I could have won a science victory 10 turns ago but holding on to my last spaceship part, I'm 7 turns away from future tech, got 2400+ science 600+ gold and 500+ culture, number one in everything my score atm is 2300, I'm hoping the future tech will make it more. I'm also on my 5th culture section, only filled 3 of my 4th selection. So I doubt a Culture Victory is possible but this is the best I have done so far in culture. I could dominate too if I wanted, I'm still to act on that, what is my best way to get the my highest score.

P.S. this is my highest score already, I just want to make it higher still.

 

[headcase]

Interestingly, the civilopedia seems to suggest you do have to wait in a spaceship victory, though you don't.

Espionage would be good, whether the devs improve on the game or hand it over to the mods, we'll likely see something, eventually.

The scoring's a bit dumb, it really depends on what you're victory is and the method of achieving it, it can be kind of gamed too. Instead of going for higher scores, I like to either play higher difficulties, spice up the option settings, or roleplay a little and limit what I can do a bit.

 

[Bezurn]

off the top of my head I think one of the biggest contributors to high score is number of cities and number of people. I could be wrong as I don't really bother worrying about score Glad you are enjoying the game!

 

[Smokeybear]

off the top of my head I think one of the biggest contributors to high score is number of cities and number of people. I could be wrong as I don't really bother worrying about score Glad you are enjoying the game!

Yeah, you don't get an awful lot of game points for building a small empire and winning by any means other than domination. Even though some of those games were far harder to win and much more interesting to play than most domination victories.

 

[Uberfrog]

Yes, I wouldn't worry too much about score. It seems to me heavily weighted towards ultra-expansive technological victories. A cultural OCC victory will score relatively poorly.

If you are interested though, you can see a breakdown of your score in game along with the other victory conditions in the Victory Progress screen. Off the top of my head it's tied to number of cities, population, wonders, techs, etc.

 

[Rpger29]

Yeah relative score is somewhat irrelevant. You can easily win OCC cultural on many maps, but you'll usually only top the score if that map is Archipelago and you're at King or lower difficulty.

If you do want to maximize score, a late game domination victory with a large puppet empire seems to do best. If you have enough gold, you can substitute annexing + rushbuying courthouses for puppeting.

 

[BlueBaron777]

I was just wondering for my own high scores, I do just enjoy the game trying different civs and combination of enemies. Which is another issue, I believe inciv 1 and AC you could set each opponents difficulty but on civ 5 you can't. But I still love Civ 5.

 

[basta]

I was just wondering for my own high scores, I do just enjoy the game trying different civs and combination of enemies. Which is another issue, I believe inciv 1 and AC you could set each opponents difficulty but on civ 5 you can't. But I still love Civ 5.

As others have said, your final score has little resemblance to the difficulties you actually face. For example, you could win a science (spaceship) game with 4 cities on Diety/pangea at turn 240 and get a weak score, because you didn't have much population, land, happiness, etc., even though this is extremely hard to do.

As for difficulty level, it is set globally when you begin the game and you can't tweak each AI opponent, which makes sense.

 

[Becomedeath]

Civ scores have always used very odd factors to do thier maths.

I've played games where I've had a massive sprawling empire with other civs contained and neutralised against my might and those who might oppose me are wiped from the earth, I've had cities with nothing to do but sit back and make even more gold for our massive reserves and am loved by all city states across the globe and still I've been classed as a little above Dan Quayle on my vitory.

Equally, I've played a dirty warrior rush duel and scored so high that numbers barely explain how happy the game was was with me.

Score, is a silly way of viewing your development as a player. It's simply not based on criteria that make any sense. What you think is your best game the game itself might class as mediocre because it doesn't tick the right boxes.

I tend to score my games by satisfaction. It's a far more accurate scale.

 

[wannabewarlord]

I tend to score my games by satisfaction. It's a far more accurate scale.

This.