Quick guestion to the masters beyond Prince

[Palayer]

Hey!

Hope this doesn't annoy too many, kind a useless but...

I was just wondering can you guys and girls ofc. keep yourself on top of the score board through the whole game? This definitely depends on the situation and tactics of course but I lost my will to continue if I drop too much behind. I think I can make domination victory if I push it but that's not how I like my civ. I like to balance things and that could be my problem.

Thank you all! Nothing more to add... uh wait. Thank you all allso who bothered to make these great guides and articles for other players to read and learn! Me like you a lot

 

[Kesshi]

Hello Palayer,

Your score is very misleading. AFAIK, your score only takes into account your population, your wonders, and your technology. Compare the two situations to eachother:

Bill has a 1500 score with 5 cities, all size 14-18, and 2 longbowmen in each city, and a lot of wonders.
Fred has a 1100 score with 15 cities, all size 4-6 from slavery, and a stack of military units that would make Monty cringe and no wonders.

Who would you be more afraid of?

I find that with my early expansive behaviour I fall behind in score early on, as I try to setup and establish a large empire as quickly as possible. I also fall behind in score, a lot, when I fight a war due to constant whipping of my cities. Not to mention the research slider drops when I have to support all my military units outside of my cultural boarders.

Score is only important if you know everything that it represents, and everything that it doesn't.

 

[Palayer]

Hey Kesshi!

Thank you for your answer. OK, so I think that I just hide the score table and that way I can finish my games. I'm having a hard time just looking at it when I'm falling at the bottom, lack of motivation. But great to hear that it happens and that doesn't really mean anything.

 

[xanadux]

You can very easily be destroying the AI in the game and be behind in score something like 1500-1000.

Another example along Kesshi's line:

Human player has 6 cities around size 10, has enough military to not be afraid of the other civ on his continent, and will be able to build infantry in about 20 turns and have the production at that time to build 2 per turn. Human player has not built any wonders yet.

AIs 1-6 have 12 cities each, some as big as size 16, with large armies and lots of wonders, but can't build anything better than a longbow or knight, and are 40 turns or more from optics.

The AI will have far higher scores. The human can take them down any time he wants.

 

[Kesshi]

Hey Kesshi!

Thank you for your answer. OK, so I think that I just hide the score table and that way I can finish my games. I'm having a hard time just looking at it when I'm falling at the bottom, lack of motivation. But great to hear that it happens and that doesn't really mean anything.

Palayer,

If you prefer to hide the score tab, that is okay. I prefer to keep it on for many reasons. The score tab provides quick access for communication with the other civilizations, and very quick access to the trade table (ctrl+click). The score tab is useful for other things too, but like I said, you need to know what the score tab does and does not represents. For example, if you have a 2000 score, and a civilization with a score of 500 comes along demanding tribute is someone you can [usually] tell to shove off. Where as if you have a 2000 score and a civilization with a score of 4000 comes along demanding tribute, you had better obey or mobilize!

Another example would be if you oracled some expensive technology, like Theology. The Civ at the bottom of the score probably won't have anything you need, or if they do, it isn't worth trading for. Where as the top scoring Civ might have something very useful for you to trade.

Computer opponents tend to build bigger cities than me (due to my slavery-happy whippings) so even if the computer and I are equal in # of cities and neck-and-neck in the tech tree, I always show up with a lower score than them. However if I were to let my cities grow to the maximum population available, I would be equal (though with far less military.)

I said this already, but it bears repeating: Score is only important if you know everything that it represents, and everything that it doesn't.

 

[Speedy36]

You can very easily be destroying the AI in the game and be behind in score something like 1500-1000.

Another example along Kesshi's line:

Human player has 6 cities around size 10, has enough military to not be afraid of the other civ on his continent, and will be able to build infantry in about 20 turns and have the production at that time to build 2 per turn. Human player has not built any wonders yet.

AIs 1-6 have 12 cities each, some as big as size 16, with large armies and lots of wonders, but can't build anything better than a longbow or knight, and are 40 turns or more from optics.

The AI will have far higher scores. The human can take them down any time he wants.

Is it even possible to accomplish this at Noble or higher?
If it is, can someone explain how to accomplish this or direct me toward a guide?

 

[MrFelony]

many games on emperor i play the AI starts off in the lead unless you have an amazing start or if you are able to expand faster than the AI which is pretty hard. I used to think that domination victories on emperor and higher were "impossible" until i actually got them

 

[Kesshi]

Is it even possible to accomplish this at Noble or higher?
If it is, can someone explain how to accomplish this or direct me toward a guide?

Speedy36,

It is definitely possible. It is sometimes easier to build military units and capture wonders than it is to build the wonders yourself.

If you are looking for some help, Orion071 has two threads that were helpful to me (a Monarch+ player) that targeted people just getting to Noble:

Orion's Home School: Winning at Noble and Orion's Home School 2: Nobles in Space.

The 2nd one is currently ongoing and incomplete, so you can see how the game progresses as Orion makes updates and if you wish, ask plenty of questions. Orion seems to encourage that sort of thing.

Good luck!

many games on emperor i play the AI starts off in the lead unless you have an amazing start or if you are able to expand faster than the AI which is pretty hard. I used to think that domination victories on emperor and higher were "impossible" until i actually got them

MrFelony,

One thing you are experiencing is one of my biggest pet peeves I have with CivIV. Once you start getting to monarch/emperor and beyond, the computer starts with Archery, and I've seen as many as 3 Archers! This is in addition to their normal scout unit and free worker! Not to mention reduced fees for maintenance and lower beaker costs for researching technologies, AND a higher +happy and healthy threshold. With all these free perks, it is of little wonder the computer starts off well ahead of the player at and progresses quicker at the later difficulties.

 

[Underdawg]

<snip>

Actually, if I remember correctly, the AI maintenance reduction/bonus is uniform across all difficulty levels (They pay half the normal cost) barring settler. What changes is the rise in maintenance costs for the Human.

Why is it a pet peeve? It's a higher difficulty for a reason.

To the OP, score doesn't matter, on Emperor+ (I play Emperor), the human will be around the middle of the pack in score for at least half the game, unless you had a mega-conquest spree that went so smoothly you didn't even have to stop to consolidate your gains in order to battle maintenance costs.

Learn to live without the scoreboard... most Noble/Prince players tend to think that if they aren't on top of the scoreboard, they aren't playing well, truth is, most players play 1 to 2 levels below their real skill levels. If you are constantly, or mostly on top of the scoreboard, you are too good for the difficulty you currently play at. Or, if you win over 75% of your games, the difficulty is too easy for you. I think a 50/50 win/loss ratio is a good indicator that one is playing at an adequate difficulty level for himself (Though personally, I win less than half my games and am content, since most of them (the losses) are quite close, my wins are usually blowouts and thus, tend to be boring )

Lastly, I think the scoreboard doesn't count military strength enough, some civs will be 300-450 points higher than the next just because of 4 techs and a bunch of wonders, when the next civ with the lower score may have three times the military strength and just crush the higher scoring civ (provided his units are up-to-date enough).

 

[Palayer]

Very good point of views from all of you. I think that I don't have done that wrong in my games after all, based on what you said I don't mind to be on top of the score board but not the last one either, maybe this can be tolerated from now on (if it's just temporarily). Thank you guys!

 

[Kesshi]

Actually, if I remember correctly, the AI maintenance reduction/bonus is uniform across all difficulty levels (They pay half the normal cost) barring settler. What changes is the rise in maintenance costs for the Human.

Why is it a pet peeve? It's a higher difficulty for a reason.

Underdawg,

Uniform across all difficulty levels? Really? Interesting. I always thought that the bonus the AI received gradually increased over difficulty levels, not just the hindrance on the human player. With that in mind, I'll have a bit more confidence going into the next level (Emperor is next, but I've been toying around in noble trying to hone in on some new skills I've picked up recently.)

Thanks for that info. By the way, do you have more information? Such as the exact percentages of extra tech and/or hammers that humans have to research and/or produce vs the AI at different levels?

Why is it a pet peeve?

Because I want equal playing field. I want the balance. An AI should still be able to beat most human players on an equal playing field. It just requires a more adaptive AI. I think I've just always disliked handicaps.

 

[DaveMcW]

Because I want equal playing field. I want the balance. An AI should still be able to beat most human players on an equal playing field. It just requires a more adaptive AI. I think I've just always disliked handicaps.

The AI is able to beat most humans on an equal playing field. The problem is it's helpless against true civfanatics.

 

[MrFelony]

^ agreed. look at how many people are having trouble beating noble, let alone prince. and these are people who are learning how to get better at the game. imagine how many people out there who haven't come to this website that can't get past warlord. I wasnt able to beat monarch until i came to this website and got some advice and i sure as hell wasn't able to beat emperor or compete on immortal without some studying of the game and strategy.

best piece of advice from this article, when you first move up in difficulty, realize that you won't be the top of the score board and that's fine. you may not even be at the top when you win. it isn't about being the best, it's about winning and having fun.


and keshi, deity AI's also start with 2 settlers

 

[Kesshi]

and keshi, deity AI's also start with 2 settlers

MrFelony,

That's alarming. Two settlers? That's surely a lot to compete with. Though it should definitely be a challenge.

I think I'm going to try some deity and/or immortal team games before I go solo vs the computer on the respective difficulties. Me + 2 computers vs 3 computers, and see what happens.

 

[brades]

In monarch difficulty it is not uncommon for me to be behind until the industrial revolution or modern age. Score is only an indicator of how well you are doing, as long as you are close to the leader you are probably doing fine, if youre behind by 1000+ points the game is probably over unless you can get a large scale war against the leader and win.

 

[AlessioCerci]

Score seems to rely quite a lot on land. If you have a big tech lead and a decent military but a smallish empire you will be set up for an easy space win but may not be anywhere near 1st in score.

PS score is not affected at all by military power.

 

[The-Hawk]

if youre behind by 1000+ points the game is probably over unless you can get a large scale war against the leader and win.

I respectfully disagree. Take a look at this screenshot. It is from the winning turn of a game I recently submitted to HOF... Immortal level, huge map, 1575 AD. In fact, it currently holds a number 1 spot on the HOF at Immortal level... not a bad win, eh? But, check the score... at the time of my win, I was 1141 points behind! And... dead last versus all AIs.



Score is based on land, techs, population, and wonders. I believe it is usually a very poor indicator of how well you are doing.

• In pursuit of culture (the above was a culture win), you will not do well in any of these four categories.
• In pursuit of space, you will score high on techs, but low on land, pop, and wonders.
• In pursuit of domination, you will score well on land and pop, but low on techs and wonders.
• In pursuit of conquest, you will score low on techs and wonders (and maybe land and pop as well).
• In pursuit of diplomacy, you might score well on land and population if you are going for a "vote yourself in" strategy, but otherwise will score low in all four.
• I think the only victory condition where score matters is time victory.

 

[KMadCandy]

Score is based on land, techs, population, and wonders.[/LIST]

The-Hawk is right (as usual). i play a lot of OCC games and those score very low! no land, no population *giggle*. it's fun being in last place and winning anyway. for the curious, the score you see ingame is run thru a magic formula based on the number of turns spent out of total turns in the game to give the final score you see on your hall of fame. finish date is a huge factor in your final winning score. you don't see that factor on the ingame scoreboard, since everybody in the game is on the same turn of course.

and keshi, deity AI's also start with 2 settlers

the only way i ever try deity is OCC. takes away a big part of that advantage, since i don't ever have to expand in a landgrab

 

[MrFelony]

I think it was Obsolete's thread where he buddied up with napolean and won a space race something like 2k behind in points. took me forever to find. at the worst he was losing by around 2500 points. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=233901&page=2

 

[InFlux5]

Hello Palayer,

Your score is very misleading. AFAIK, your score only takes into account your population, your wonders, and your technology. Compare the two situations to eachother:

Bill has a 1500 score with 5 cities, all size 14-18, and 2 longbowmen in each city, and a lot of wonders.
Fred has a 1100 score with 15 cities, all size 4-6 from slavery, and a stack of military units that would make Monty cringe and no wonders.

Who would you be more afraid of?

I find that with my early expansive behaviour I fall behind in score early on, as I try to setup and establish a large empire as quickly as possible. I also fall behind in score, a lot, when I fight a war due to constant whipping of my cities. Not to mention the research slider drops when I have to support all my military units outside of my cultural boarders.

Score is only important if you know everything that it represents, and everything that it doesn't.

Another tip here is to super-charge your many, small cities through micromanagement. If you have good city sites with lots of resources you can flip-flop tiles in order to quickly hit the happiness cap, then switch to all production - or sometimes all commerce.

Much later in the game you will have larger cities and convert mines to windmills, and do other things to support large populations. But in the early stages the computer just has bigger cities than you.

Computer opponents tend to build bigger cities than me

This pretty much sums up the score issue.