Poll: Modify awards and ranking system?

[da_Vinci]

Forgot to put a poll in my overhaul thead, so here is one.

The thread with my idea:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=230422

dV

 

[Aborigen]

Just use "fastest" as "best" for every victory type ;-)

 

[Ramzes XIII]

Fastest agreed, but any definite victory type as "bonus victory" would be more interesting.

 

[MarkM]

Just use "fastest" as "best" for every victory type ;-)

I'm mystified by this attitude, which I see all the time in the results thread. I don't want to knock fastest victory achievements -- they're impressive results I probably never will match -- but an insistence that these should be much more highly rewarded in the generic raw score (what people mean when they say the game score doesn't mean anything in those threads) puzzles me. It's called "Civilization," the main focus is civilization building, and the primary component of score should reflect that IMO: how large/advanced the civilization is at the point the game ends, not WHEN the game ends, with less emphasis on the state of the civ. The linked thread talks about scoring mixing styles (some conquest, some expansion, some teching) as a flaw in the game, but I see it 180 degrees different. Not to insist the game mimic real life too much, but is a Visigoth type leader that just razes cities, leaving most of the world completely uncivilized (overrun with barbarians) except a few small Sparta-like (not too advanced) cities cranking out warriors, really the greatest achievement of civilization building, vs. the obvious counterpoint model to Sparta, classical Athens, whose successes militarily/territorially were less, but achieved so much more elsewhere ?

Yes, the other 3x game out there evaluate you on basis of speed of conquest, that is the "norm." But I relish that Civ is different, I don't feel it needs to be a me-too.

Ultimately I don't care what's done with the scoring system (it's not like I'm gonna win many awards anyway!) But for the same reason I don't care what is done, I also won't stop playing the game the way I think it is intended to be played (emphasis on improving my civ, not destroying the AIs') because of a change to GOTM scoring.

 

[Harbourboy]

vs. the obvious counterpoint model to Sparta, classical Athens, whose successes militarily/territorially were less, but achieved so much more elsewhere ?

Isn't that covered by Cultural victory and Time victory?

 

[MarkM]

Isn't that covered by Cultural victory and Time victory?

I'm saying what people are criticizing in the other thread (so-called "impure" playing where a player maximizes overall progress instead of pursuing one angle of victory conditions almost simplemindedly) is actually the point of civ IMO, not a bad thing. I LIKE that the score system measures your "overall" civilization building skills, which seems to me to be the real measure of a ruler, finding balance in all aspects of rule.

Don't' misinterpret me, I'm not criticizing that play style at all, I admire the skill it takes. And I don't want to lose sight of that this is just a game. I just thought someone should defend the Firaxis scoring, since it gets so criticized. Lets face it, if real history had played out that Sparta had won the Peloponnesian War, salted the ground of Attica, Egypt, the budding Rome, etc, as it encountered them over the next thousands of years, and left those lands to the barbarians, that would have really sucked, it would not have been achievement we (as residents of that world) would celebrate. Genghis Khan is fascinating, but I'm glad he choked on his vomit and left us early. Aristotle's writings did more to further civilization than the conquests of his pupil, Alexander.

I guess in short I like that civ scoring encourages more of a "SimCity" approach (how economically and culturally vibrant is your city in an absolute sense, not how fast did you populate it or throw up buildings, or how much better your city is than neighboring ones) than a "StarCraft" one (conqest of opposition, and all development oriented towards that), if that makes any sense to you, because i think that's what sets it apart from most other 3x games. Since I see that as the point of civ, I guess I'm saying I don't agree with a new GOTM scoring system that mostly ignores it. Like I said I'm not gonna whine if it does get changed, I just wanted to explain why I don't think the Firaxis scoring is so broken, like so many others feel.

p.s., mostly unrelated to scoring: I've often thought it would be cool if there would be an option in civ where new civs would spontaneously appear in barbarian lands. It would be easy to do, a leader & a national identity would suddenly emerge in some barbarian city or city groups, with some reasonable set of techs, buildings, etc, behind in some areas but maybe with some specific tech edge that explains the sudden emergence. This would probably eliminate the the conquest victory option, but it could be an option that could be turned off & ignored for people who want to keep playing the fastest-finish style. I think it would make the later game a lot more fun. BTS takes a small step there with the colony revolt option, but it would have been cool to see it go farther, I think it would have been easy to program.

 

[Thrallia]

They used to have civ slots respawn elsewhere in the world in Civ1 and Civ2...but they pretty much started over from scratch.

The Rhye's and Fall of Civilization mod does what you referred to, and does it pretty well. I'd check it out, if I were you...I've only played one game, as the Roman Empire, but it was pretty cool...until I got killed by the Spanish when they emerged and tried to take over my entire Iberian empire...I refused, they got my cities anyway, and then got the French and Germans to help kill me off as the others spawned and took other cities of mine...if I'd known it was coming, I'd have had more Praetorians lol.

 

[MarkM]

They used to have civ slots respawn elsewhere in the world in Civ1 and Civ2...but they pretty much started over from scratch.

I think I remember that from civ1, but yeah, I mean a serious competitve rival, not a patsy.

The Rhye's and Fall of Civilization mod does what you referred to, and does it pretty well.

That's a single scenario, rigidly structured, and much more elaborate (different victory conditions, etc). Unless it's evolved? I'd like to see it an option in the random (generic) game. But thanks for the pointer!

 

[Thrallia]

true, it'd be nice if it was adaptable to the epic game

 

[Half Nelson]

I share the viewpoint of Mark M:- Civilization over Barbarism every time!
With regard to the scoring system, in Civ1 (at least) you scored more highly for happy citizens than others. Could this once again be incorporated into base score as a "civilising" modifier, with perhaps an additional score bonus for peaceful turns and/or a penalty for city-raising?

With regard to the Cow award:- although there is an obvious temptation to milk, high base score also reflects a particular style where the main aim is to promote health, wealth and happiness and "build an empire to stand the test of time". As an average player who is staggered every month by the amazing performances of the experten, I can at least aim for that!