Ratings and Artillery

[braclayrab]

Hey,
I was just wondering what influences your 'rating' at the end of the game. I can't seem to get it to be very high, despite that I feel as if I'm doing very well...
TIA

PS, I recently began using artillery(ie catapult, cannon, artillery, etc.), probably my 15th or 20th game, and now value them immensely. I was just wondering what everyone else's opinion is.

 

[IbnSina]

If by rating you mean the "Alexander the Magnificent" stuff at the end of the game, I think the only thing that matters much in that is the level at which you play.

As for artillery, you'll find that everyone here uses it all the time. It is one of the most important ingredients in defeating the AI at higher levels.

 

[Tomoyo]

Score is the factor in the rankings. High levels make it go up.

I love artillery! They are so valuable for reducing my casualty rate.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

Rating is influenced by score and difficulty level, I think (I'm pretty sure about score, not so sure about difficulty level).

Like IbnSina said, artillery is great. I find it best with Artillery and Radar Artillery, when it has two tile's range, but even without it, it's great. Defensive and offensive bombard is very handy, especially if you have a small stack of units. A 4/4 Cavalry has a better chance against even a 3/4 Rifleman than a 4/4 Rifleman. It makes a huge difference.

 

[braclayrab]

I thought possibly that the difficulty had an influence, that's why I was very disappointed when I won my first game on monarch recently, a game in which artillery helped me very much, but only recieved a decent rating, somewhere in the middle.

Edit: What influences your score? number of citizens...? happiness...?

 

[wilbill]

I can't remember the exact formula, but number of happy & content citizens, wealth, and a multiplier for difficulty level. Did I forget anything?

 

[Tomoyo]

It's only population, happiness, and territory. Early finish and difficulty level are the multipliers.

 

[braclayrab]

Ah, perhaps I need an earlier finish. I'm a builder and am not a war-monger, so I usually have late finishes. Also, due to a recent post I read on Corruption and the 'optimal city number' i restricted the size of my civ some. I was also playing on a small sized map, i don't know if civilization size is modified to be fair for different map sizes when calculating score.

 

[Tomoyo]

It hasn't, but it is generally easier to finish fast on smaller maps, so that is where it balances out.

 

[smeggo]

I thought possibly that the difficulty had an influence, that's why I was very disappointed when I won my first game on monarch recently, a game in which artillery helped me very much, but only recieved a decent rating, somewhere in the middle.

Edit: What influences your score? number of citizens...? happiness...?

In my last Monarch game in which I won in 1010ad via a domination victory my points were around 6,000 I think but when the bloke at the end hit the "test your strength" machine it went right up to the second from top rung.
The random civ starter meant I was religious civ. I Kept the peasantry reasonably happy throughout with temples, cathedrals, Bach's cathedral and lots of luxuries gained mainly through conquering adjacent civs.

 

[braclayrab]

sheesh, I think my score was below 2000... Standard size map. I usually keep my citizen happy too... Does the victory itself actually add points to your score? I'm don't war-monger enough, I think.

 

[Ginger_Ale]

No, only indirectly.

If you go for Domination, you'll conquer more cities (population) and land (territory). Therefore, you'll get more points.

What was your score? I score anywhere from 2500 to 4000 (broke 4000 twice ) on Emperor, with varying win conditions.

 

[Tomoyo]

Once I scored higher than 20000 on Emperor, a long time ago, when I got really lucky. I lost the file, and it was against HoF rules anyway. (One AI)

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

I normally have a mediocore power rating, but my culture is second to none. EVER!!!!!

 

[smeggo]

sheesh, I think my score was below 2000... Standard size map. I usually keep my citizen happy too... Does the victory itself actually add points to your score? I'm don't war-monger enough, I think.

I play CIV III with the Conquests CD, don't know if the final scores would be different playing with the Civ III disc.
Play on a Pangea standard size map with accelerated production.
Build most of the buildings as if it were the real world and you're trying to build an empire and get to the next star. Helps stop culture flips as well I think.
Always used to go for Space Race wins as that seemed to be more in keeping with the spirit of the game. Lately domination victories have become more common as on Monarch I find myself slipping behind in the tech race and need to wreck the civ romping away from me.
I think an early victory gives you more points e.g. a victory in 1160ad would get less points than in 1150ad with ALL other things being equal.
What year is your game usually over by?
The domination victories in my Hall of Fame do seem to score higher than the Space Race victory. Could be pure luck, but probably it's because of the points gained by having so much land.

 

[braclayrab]

My games typically last very long. I'm trying to do some more war-mongering in my current game, but since I'm building knights and swordsman I'm getting culture flipping problems.

 

[alamo]

Cats and even cannons are a waste of time, since mounted units are strong enough to rush any defence.

When infantry hits, all bets are off. Coincidentally, you get arty, too. Then a slow slog with a tide of inf+arty can clear the map.

The game ranking is pretty weak. That is why GOTM uses a derivative score.

It's mostly about happy faces, which penalizes the warlords who don't build all the happiness improvements and wonders.

 

[Lennon]

Cats and even cannons are a waste of time, since mounted units are strong enough to rush any defence.

When infantry hits, all bets are off. Coincidentally, you get arty, too. Then a slow slog with a tide of inf+arty can clear the map.

Partially true. But if you find yourself with an enemy city that is quickly accessible, you can just as easily grind up to the city gates with speed 1 units and catapults/trebuchets/cannons and reduce the city to rubble before attacking. This allows for you cavalry to be used elsewhere, taking cities further away.

 

[Roso]

Cats and even cannons are a waste of time, since mounted units are strong enough to rush any defence.

To be honest I can't use them, but I think it's a lot harder to attack or defense with damaged unit. Usually I don't make any, but I really hate when attacking AI to be damaged before the battle. As most of you I really love artillery, even I haven't learned yet to attack with it. Maybe that's because I prefer fast attacks and artileries slow me down.
For the other question I can't say much. Even though I think smeggo is right - one game I won very early (we were only 2 civs) and didn't have a lot less then some other games (sorry for can't saying the exact score).

 

[Prince David]

Mmmmmmmmmmm, artillary . . .