Score calculation

[catweazle]

Almost everyone here's agreed that the score as shown is only a rough indication on how you are doing.
What would be a more correct calculation of that score, any suggestions of a formula?
I think that military strength (number of units and their individual power) at least should be taken into account.

 

[pilot00]

As well as kills IMHO, in my current game I have killed the Swedish population thrice over in units. Surely I deserve something for this
Also religious spread perhaps?

 

[Lorf Yimzo]

I disagree with OP. North Korea, Libya, Egypt, and other middle eastern countries have large armies, but they aren't super powers of the world. Military conquest of enemy units however, should give a very small bonus to score IMO, like 1 or 2 points.

 

[pilot00]

I disagree with OP. North Korea, Libya, Egypt, and other middle eastern countries have large armies, but they aren't super powers of the world. Military conquest of enemy units however, should give a very small bonus to score IMO, like 1 or 2 points.

All three you list however use antiquated equipment (with the supposed nuclear weapons of Korea been the exception). Therefore they are 'two eras behind', thereby their score is reduced

 

[catweazle]

Maybe only the number of militairy units should be taken into account, the strength is somewhat reflected bij the amount of technologies researched.

BTW, where is the Statistics-page from Civ 4?

 

[General Tso]

F9 bring up the panel that shows the leaders in various areas. If you want more detailed information I'd recommend the Info Addict mod. It comes in two versions one for vanilla Civ 5 and one for Gods & Kings.

 

[Walter R]

Maybe only the number of militairy units should be taken into account, the strength is somewhat reflected bij the amount of technologies researched.

BTW, where is the Statistics-page from Civ 4?

Well IMO this would be less than useful as the AI often runs with a massive deficit but lots of units; in any case you can get that from the demog screen.
I suggest that the key measure of military power is specifically what you have and where it is, and the second is difficult to cover with standard metrics. A flawed but perhaps more usable criterion could be based around pointy sticks total divided by number of cities?

 

[pilot00]

You already get score for the number of cities. It would be best to have a units own score. Each unit giving you a bit of score depending on its tech level and promotions. If you loose it the enemy gets some extra points.

 

[Walter R]

You already get score for the number of cities. It would be best to have a units own score. Each unit giving you a bit of score depending on its tech level and promotions. If you loose it the enemy gets some extra points.

Perhaps so, it depends what the point of this thread was:
If it was to get a better feeling for how you are progressing within the game I think (IMHO) that you need to look at the size of your nation/empire in relation to your ability to defend it and/or make war if necessary to further your aims.
If it was a new tally for a points/score victory then it's probably moot, as I doubt any of us has a strategy based on going the distance and seeing what the score is.

If I have utterly missed the point I can only apologise!

 

[pilot00]

Perhaps so, it depends what the point of this thread was:
If it was to get a better feeling for how you are progressing within the game I think (IMHO) that you need to look at the size of your nation/empire in relation to your ability to defend it and/or make war if necessary to further your aims.
If it was a new tally for a points/score victory then it's probably moot, as I doubt any of us has a strategy based on going the distance and seeing what the score is.

If I have utterly missed the point I can only apologise!

Well not exactly but a vast gap in score will most certainly make you check out the demographics screen in order to see in what area you are lagging behind. By making the score count more complex you will have more info me thinks.

 

[Browd]

Not necessarily more info, since you still just have a single number for a score. Does this civ have a high score because it has a lot of territory and/or population, built a bunch of wonders, or has the tech lead, or has more troops? Agree that adding more detail to the demographics tables would be much more informative than adding more components to a single-number score.

 

[migalhone]

AFAIK, military strenght is already taken into account. Population and technologies are, IIRC, the biggest contributors to your score.

 

[Unresolved]

AFAIK, military strenght is already taken into account. Population and technologies are, IIRC, the biggest contributors to your score.

I think the number of cities is the biggest factor. I don't think technology is a huge factor in score calculation.

 

[Slowpoked]

Wonders are big too aren't they? I've seen guys with ridiculous scores in multiplayer because they cheesed Wonders, only to get rolled when a military shows up.

 

[Unresolved]

Wonders are 25 points each I believe.

 

[Traejun]

Number of cities and tech level seem to be major factors for score. Every time Catherine or Hiawatha go city spamming, their scores shoot through the roof. At one point, in a recent game (Deity, Large, Pangaea, Epic), Hiawatha had 12 cities by ~100 A.D., only 1 of which was conquered (CS). At that point, he'd doubled up every other civ in score.

 

[pilot00]

Not necessarily more info, since you still just have a single number for a score. Does this civ have a high score because it has a lot of territory and/or population, built a bunch of wonders, or has the tech lead, or has more troops? Agree that adding more detail to the demographics tables would be much more informative than adding more components to a single-number score.

Pardon me for not expressing myself the right way, I wanted to say exactly that

Wonders are 25 points each I believe.

Wonders are big in the score, in a recent game I took first place from 5th or so after capturing a wonder heavy capital.

 

[joncnunn]

Almost everyone here's agreed that the score as shown is only a rough indication on how you are doing.
What would be a more correct calculation of that score, any suggestions of a formula?
I think that military strength (number of units and their individual power) at least should be taken into account.

Actually in Civ V; the shown score has NOTHING AT ALL to do with who's leading.
It's instead mostly about whichever civ has spammed the most cities and wonders.

No adding troops to the score at all times wouldn't help; if anything it be even less indicative of who is likely to win the peaceful forms of victory.

A score board for Civ V that showed actually showed who was closest to winning would be as follows:

1. Primarily based on total beaker count of techs researched.

2. Bonus points for each space ship part completed.

3. Bonus points for each full policy tree completed but only starting with the 3rd. (Vanilla and G&K only as BNW has changed culture victory)

4. Some sort of bonus points indicating Diplomatic victory likeyhood, but only after UN has been built. (In Vanilla, this had everything to do with cash & city state allies; but in G&K whichever civ each AI would vote for is a factor)

5. If 50%+ of all civs have lost their capital; then bonus points for all civs who still have their capital based on military could be given.

 

[pilot00]

I have to say on the above that usually the one who has most pop/cities is the leader in research therefore the tech leader. Exceptions exist though as always.

 

[joncnunn]

I have to say on the above that usually the one who has most pop/cities is the leader in research therefore the tech leader. Exceptions exist though as always.

In Single player games, this is only true among the AIs (NOT comparing the human's score with the AIs); and that's only because most of the AIs have an insufficient Science flavor along with the AI's high expansion rate (combined with inability to cash rush buildings) means its not being the national wonders.

The human playing tall strategy currently dominates the AI, and has done so since it was developed following the patch in vanilla six to eights months after game release that made it really painful (in terms of happiness) for the human to city spam.