I've been playing Civ3 pretty regularly, and generally I like games in which I build up my CIV to a nice size, and then fight a nice large war or two against other developed Civs. Even though it is off the topic, I think its extremely boring to not fight a later years war, all that is left is micromanagement at that stage. My high score so far is 1800 or so, on warlord, and I've just started playing on regent. The game in which I had my score (space race victory), was one in which I had a large Civ, dominating a continent, with basically a large tech lead, and had a large culture and military. In other words, I was able to choose my type of victory. Yesterday, I played, simply out of curiosity, a game on Regent, as the Zulu's, against one opponent (the French), on a tiny map (pangea). What I did was I only built military units and attacked Paris. I took the city rather quickly, since their capital was right next to mine, and all of a sudden, they restarted in another city near by. I sent all my military units (rushed through Despotism, and increased my happiness rate up to a 100%, no science or money needed), to their new capital, and quickly overtook it, ending the game through conquest. My score was 13800 or so. This score would put me in first place on the hall of fame, yet it doesn't seem fair to do so. And yet, I see other people with scores achieved on tiny maps by conquest. It seems impossible (or extremely difficult) to achieve a score this high by building up your civ, yet it took absolutely no skill to achieve this victory for me. Does this seem fair? Does anyone know which victory types provide higher point totals anyway? If I conquered a large map, would I achieve a higher score? Should this website not allow these types of victories on their hall of fame?