Newbie Question: Final Ranking (Dan Quayle)

[Sreyas73]

Hello,

I'm a new civ4 player and up until now I have only played a couple of games, both on "chieftain" difficulty level.

I won both games (one was a time victory and the other, domination), but after winning both games I was ranked as "Dan Quayle"

Why was my ranking so low (does this have to do with difficulty?)?

Also, how are the final rankings determined?

Thanks
Srey

 

[Shurdus]

There of probably some guides on how to manipulate the final score, but do not know the ways to do that by heart.

Be sure to get enough workers out. There is a beginners guide that details pretty much what you need to do and know in order to learn this game and pick up the basics. If you will give me one moment I will edit this post and provide a link.

Edit:Sisuitil's basic strategy guide.

 

[Cusanus]

Get more population, win earlier, your score goes up.

But nobody really cares about these rankings anyway. For good reason.

 

[Orzio]

Get bigger citys get more land play on a higher difficulty and win earlier are the major ways to increase score.

 

[Sreyas73]

Hey guys,

Thanks for your replies.
I grew up playing Pirates! on my commodore 64 in the eighties and am somewhat obsessed with end rankings (for posterity I guess).

Srey

 

[Dirk1302]

Get more population, win earlier, your score goes up.

But nobody really cares about these rankings anyway. For good reason.

Agree 100%. Not everyone looks at this way though, there's a lot of map rigging going on in HOF games for example. I'd say we need a better scoring system before we can take the score seriously.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Agree 100%. Not everyone looks at this way though, there's a lot of map rigging going on in HOF games for example. I'd say we need a better scoring system before we can take the score seriously.

HoF runs a separate category for score. Every singe other objective than score and time (which is basically just score at 2050) is about completing a given victory condition as rapidly as possible.

Of course all the maps are rolled as many times as possible until someone gets a "perfect start", but then that's reasonably uniform between participants and thus irrelevant when comparing between HoF submissions (just don't compare them to NORMAL games).

Map variance and luck can vary difficulty wildly even withing the same difficulty setting, and as such it would be very difficult to impossible to score objectively (much like scoring an olympic ice skating event is impossible to score objectively).

For the most part score is just a rough estimate of land/pop/tech of a given civ, but those only correlate with the eventual winner loosely until near the end of the game.

 

[Dirk1302]

I was indeed referring to the maps they use. What irks me most in the current score system is that time is so important, some idiot ap wins scores more than a polished spacerace win. At least detract from early diplo wins and add for very early spacerace wins. Space 1750 AD is probably harder than domination 1750 AD but that's very map dependent.

 

[DaveMcW]

1. More cities
2. More population
3. Earlier victory date
4. Higher difficulty level

 

[bestsss]

more land

 

[mjf200]

Hey guys,

Thanks for your replies.
I grew up playing Pirates! on my commodore 64 in the eighties and am somewhat obsessed with end rankings (for posterity I guess).

Srey

Ahh, such memories. I always enjoyed that as well. Did you ever play Railroad Tycoon? It had the same kind of list with pres of US the highest I think.

Did you ever play the new Pirates! game? it came out a few years back, same basic game with much improved graphics.

To get higher on Civ4 I found you have to play at higher difficulty levels. It seems even the perfect game on cheiftan will be ranked low. When winning on the higher levels though it seems you always finish with the highest rank, if you retire before winning you can find yourself in the middle.

 

[Sreyas73]

Yes MJF,

I played railroad tycoon II as well which is also a great game. No, haven't tried the new Pirates! but one thing is for certain--(to restate the obvious)--sid meier is a genius.
The other games I've really enjoyed outside of his creations are fallout 1 & 2, baldur's gate 1 & 2, longbow and lords of the realm (the original).

I really have to say: even though I have not tried everything in Civ 4, it is one of the best games I have played (and I have played many--commodore 64, macintosh, PC).

Srey

 

[mjf200]

yep, my very PC game or games was actually a Sid Meier 3 game pack, I only had a C64 up until then and I recently got an IBM PS/1. It had the original Railroad Tycoon, Covert Action and Pirates. I got it in Radio Shack while shopping with my mom. I just thought the games looked cool because of the pictures. How lucky was I! I've been hooked ever since. I actually really liked Covert Action even though it wasn't very popular, I've even played it recently using dosbox. I think that old box the games came in is still at my parents house.
I can still remember reading the advertisement for the first civ game that was in the box along with other microprose games. It was about a paragraph long and the idea of the game seemed so cool, and the box had the coolest art with the ancient mummy with modern city on top.
I begged my mom and she finally let me order it, I spent that whole summer playing civ after it arrived.

By far Civ4 is the best of them and my favorite game in general. I like FPS also.

 

[Sreyas73]

I realize that this may be a topic for another forum, but to stay with "mjf200" for a little bit:
Isn't it amazing how engrossing/addictive the commodore 64 games were given the extremely low memory and graphics capability? Maybe we expect too much in this modern age...

anyway, civ 4 is a great game...

I had to play Asoka (Indian Empire) first (a nod to my indian heritage)...
Who knew they'd include the Kashi Viswanath?