Why is territory the end all for scoring? I played a game this weekend on a huge map with 16 civs, monarch level and had to nearly exterminate the English in the BCs just to have a reasonable amount of territory. Once I got a decent world map, I realized I was still possibly the smallest civ on the map. Funny thing was, for all intents and purposes, I was winning by the mid-middle ages until the late industrial, where I had to leave off for the time being. Playing the Greeks, I remained constantly two techs ahead of everybody, five or six ahead of most, built a large army (enough that my advisor said I was on par with all but the largest civs), and had a culture rating higher than all but a few. My score reflected none of this, as I was a thousand points out of the lead, and third to last. The only civs behind me were the Iroquios (exterminated), and the English (one city). My population was actually third, but my territory was so small that my score was insignificant. I figure I should be rewarded for building such an impressive civilization with so little to work with. I will eventually win a cultural victory around 1950 (Athens produces 72 culture points a turn), but this will most likely not even get me close to the leader. Why have so many different victory conditions, when in reality, only one seems to matter?