Questions About Scores During Game

[Eunomiac]

I find myself agonizing more and more over the scores of each Civ while playing through a game. Low score doesn't bother me as much as having a higher score than everyone else... I get bored long before the late game because my score is higher than the other Civs and I figure the rest of the game will be eight hours of tedious mopping up.

I know these can't be accurate observations, but I can't shake them because I don't know enough about what the score actually means throughout the game with respect to ultimate victory. I mean, I know how it's calculated (techs + land mass + population... or something like that), but how does it relate to predicting the final outcome? Hopefully someone can help clear things up, perhaps by giving me some benchmarks?

1) How much of a score lead should I consider determinative of the final outcome of the game? Obviously things like diplomatic victory can interrupt things regardless of score, but I mean relative to more 'point-related' conditions like Space Race, Domination, etc.
2) Early on, if I get caught in an axe crawl* against, say, Isabella... who's penned me into a tiny peninsula twice now with her &@$%! Buddhist-holy-shrined-60%-defense-capital-on-a-@#$%!-hill while I'm playing Saladin and thus can't even get that psycho religious fanatic to open her borders to me .... err, ahem. Anyway. When I'm throwing everything into an early war, how far behind should I let myself get in score before I start to worry?

Any anecdotes about big turn-arounds in score would also help me shake this fixation I have with those little numbers. Thanks!

* As opposed to an "axe rush." Heh, you heard it here first... or maybe not...

 

[xanadux]

Score doesn't matter all that much.

I've had games where I was last in score and knew the game was won for sure by 500 AD. I've had games where I was first in score at 1500AD and knew it would be a struggle to win.

Score is mostly a function of land area and population, with wonders and tech also contributing. In the games I am behind in score, but know I have a huge lead, are games with a relatively small land area but such a great economy and tech lead that winning will be easy. Alternatively, games when ahead, but I know it will be difficult, are when I have a huge hammer producing empire, but have a so-so economy with several opponents nearly equal or ahead in tech on other land masses.

I'm similar to you ... when I know I have won, I usually quit and start another game. But score doesn't tell me if I have won.

If you have a score lead, and you have a very strong economy and tech lead, you are probably correct that it will be an easy win (if tedious). The score lead is not the most important. If you are way ahead in score, but don't have the tech lead or a strong economy, it may not be an easy win.

 

[eewallace]

For cultural or diplomatic wins, the running score in the lower right hand corner is virtually meaningless (except to the extent that it is a fairly accurate predictor of whether you will be perceived as so weak you are vulnerable to attack). Even if that score is Low, if you pull of a fairly early cultural or diplomatic win you can get a great "final" score.

 

[Shoot the Moon]

I think it makes more sense to base "imminent" victory off the graphs. If you are running away with both GNP and Power, it is probably a pretty safe victory. Really, score is meaningless (especially in the early game, like you asked), it is tech rate, hammer production, and military that matter.

To be more specific on your second question, I wouldn't be concerned with the score, I would be concerned if the AI are running away from you with tech and from bankrupting yourself.