[Tuning] World Congress Resolutions

[Infixo]

Guys, I will be tweaking a bit 2 resolutions, and have a question about Score. Not related to WC but a general one: are you using Score for anything? Does it tell you anything useful? Could it?

If you are interested how exactly the score is calculated, see the post on GH https://github.com/LoneGazebo/Community-Patch-DLL/issues/3906

 

[CrazyG]

Guys, I will be tweaking a bit 2 resolutions, and have a question about Score. Not related to WC but a general one: are you using Score for anything? Does it tell you anything useful? Could it?

The biggest flaws of score is overvaluing land and undervaluing technology. I have less land but I'm 20 techs ahead of the huns; score wise he is blowing me out, but I'm clearly winning.

In your notes, what concerns me is if I could intentionally not create great works to get more from this resolution. Otherwise the changes seem sensible.

 

[Infixo]

The biggest flaws of score is overvaluing land and undervaluing technology.
In your notes, what concerns me is if I could intentionally not create great works to get more from this resolution. Otherwise the changes seem sensible.

You mean population rather? Land is 1 point per tile, it’s reasonable.
Great works - good point, but once policies will be scored more GWs will become secondary. And i don’t think „not creating” will help much. Bulbing GW will give you culture, i.e. eventually policy score will increase, GA will start GA which boosts everything, etc.

 

[CrazyG]

You mean population rather? Land is 1 point per tile, it’s reasonable.

Well population has a clear benefit. Things like empty desert and enormous expanses of coast are basically useless. I know when I look at score (especially when the world congress is newer), civs with lots of land seem to be winning. However, land does fall off in importance later on.

I think what sometimes bothers me is just that the land score itself can become higher than my science score, which is rather silly.

 

[bigcat88]

Guys, I will be tweaking a bit 2 resolutions, and have a question about Score. Not related to WC but a general one: are you using Score for anything? Does it tell you anything useful? Could it?

Sometimes I look at score to look at military power.
But almost all other scores are useless(except population). I look at population when voting for TreasureFleet or other WC projects(plus looking if top AI with population has industry policy or golden age)

 

[Infixo]

@bigcat88 Can you explain why population for WC projects?

 

[Infixo]

I think what sometimes bothers me is just that the land score itself can become higher than my science score, which is rather silly.

Well, 1 tile is 1 point, and wanna keep it simple (no fractions), so probably scoring techs a bit more would be ok.

 

[CrazyG]

Well, 1 tile is 1 point, and wanna keep it simple (no fractions), so probably scoring techs a bit more would be ok.

This reasoning makes sense.

Another weird thing is that your military score drops as you settle more cities. I've had the best military in the world during one city challenges, with like 8 units.

 

[MorphBer]

This reasoning makes sense.

Another weird thing is that your military score drops as you settle more cities. I've had the best military in the world during one city challenges, with like 8 units.

Didn't know military score workedlike that. Wouldnt it be cleary to base it one Number and Strenght (or tech level) of units

 

[Moi Magnus]

This reasoning makes sense.

Another weird thing is that your military score drops as you settle more cities. I've had the best military in the world during one city challenges, with like 8 units.

Didn't know military score workedlike that. Wouldnt it be cleary to base it one Number and Strenght (or tech level) of units

I think it is to represent that if you compare :
1) One civ that has 1 city and 10 units
2) One civ that has 10 cities and 12 units
Then the first civ is definitively stronger than the second.

If I do feel like the military score drop "too quickly" compare to your number of cities, I feel it is normal that it drops.

 

[Infixo]

If I do feel like the military score drop "too quickly" compare to your number of cities, I feel it is normal that it drops.

Yeah, this score tells you more how well you can defend your empire. The only problem is that it starts with 30 "default cities" so it is actually never really high during game. 100-150-200? Compared to thousands from pop, etc.

And going back to resolutions. Art/Science also boost Prod/Food. Can somebody explain why such a configuration? And if those boosts should be the same as respective culture/science boosts? The other problem is that actual level or production/food is not considered when evaluating those resolutions.

 

[Infixo]

Didn't know military score workedlike that. Wouldnt it be cleary to base it one Number and Strenght (or tech level) of units

It is Military Might and this can grow really big. You start with units 5-10 CS but end up with 80+, so it can be really huge.

 

[crdvis16]

Guys, I will be tweaking a bit 2 resolutions, and have a question about Score. Not related to WC but a general one: are you using Score for anything? Does it tell you anything useful? Could it?

If you are interested how exactly the score is calculated, see the post on GH https://github.com/LoneGazebo/Community-Patch-DLL/issues/3906

I usually care more about how many techs and policies everyone has than their score. Oftentimes the AIs with the highest scores have the most techs/policies but not always. I could see a tradition/tall AI having a modest score but being very scary to me if he's ahead of me in tech whereas I might not be afraid of a super wide warmonger AI if I'm ahead of him in tech.

It almost seems like tech/policies should be a multiplier of score after all the other things like land/population/military are added together. It might be more representative of true power then.

One other note - is diplomatic power represented in score in any way other than the passive bonuses you get from CS alliances? The military benefit of CS alliance can be formidable as well as the power they give in the world congress.

 

[Stalker0]

Fundamentally score should be based on the ways in which you win the game:

Domination: military power
Science: techs
Cultural; tourism or maybe percentage to culture
Diplomatic: votes and/or cs alliances

Everything else is simply a means to achieve those ends

 

[Ziad]

I agree.

The current score system could stand to be made more representative.

That way you wouldn't have to overhaul all the systems attached to it.

 

[Moi Magnus]

Fundamentally score should be based on the ways in which you win the game:

Domination: military power
Science: techs
Cultural; tourism or maybe percentage to culture
Diplomatic: votes and/or cs alliances

Everything else is simply a means to achieve those ends

You could agree at the contrary that score should be based only on economic power (number of buildings, population, cities, and possibly improvements) because in the long run everything else come from it.
Moreover, player already look at the number of techs, policies, votes when needed. It would make the score be a redondant information.

However, I agree with one point: religion is overvaluated in the score system, and ancient era wonders should no longer be relevant for the score in information era.

The score was always a strange thing. The hall of fame say to you that the objective should be to win with the highest possible score, which is not at all the case ingame since early victories are made with absurdly low scores, and postponning your victory increase it.

 

[Stalker0]

I was thinking about sanction again. It bothers me that I don't use it because often the civ I want to weaken is the civ I need to trade with to take advantage of the rubber band mechanics.

Throwing this out there, what if it worked this way.

Sanction: Target civ cannot make trade routes with other civs, and gains no benefits from the trade routes going to it.

So it sort of turns them into a CS. The CS doesn't get any yields from your trade routes when you make it to them. This way you still can trade with them for what you need, and they are still penalized.

 

[tu_79]

I was thinking about sanction again. It bothers me that I don't use it because often the civ I want to weaken is the civ I need to trade with to take advantage of the rubber band mechanics.

Throwing this out there, what if it worked this way.

Sanction: Target civ cannot make trade routes with other civs, and gains no benefits from the trade routes going to it.

So it sort of turns them into a CS. The CS doesn't get any yields from your trade routes when you make it to them. This way you still can trade with them for what you need, and they are still penalized.

The spirit of this enactment is also getting incoming trade routes for yourself. They don't trade with X, so the others now trade more with you. More gold to you.

 

[Stalker0]

The spirit of this enactment is also getting incoming trade routes for yourself. They don't trade with X, so the others now trade more with you. More gold to you.

Maybe I'm alone in this, but sanction generally looks like a resolution to try and weaken the leader by denying them trade. However, when I'm not the leader, I often rely on the culture/science boosts from trade with the leader in order to keep up. Sanction denies you this, which is a bit backwards.

Heck, I've actually thought "can I sanction myself?", when I was the leader in a game just to prevent people from using me as a springboard to catch back up.

 

[crdvis16]

I try to use sanction on either tourism run-aways or warmongers.

If they are nearing a tourism win then denying them the trade route modifier and trade route completion bonuses outweighs any culture/science I may get from trading with them.

If they are a warmonger then they are often not a science/culture leader and I often don't trade with them anyway cause they might DoW me. But they do have high maintenance costs so cutting their routes can hurt them.