Poor scoring balance?

[PatriotPlayer]

Ok I just finished my first CivIII game and I am a long time CivII and Civ player.

I like to go for Research and Wonders early and have technological superiority by the end of the game, then I go to war or make a spaceship in the last several decades. Nuking the other Civs that gave me trouble during the game is a favorite of mine.

Now I don't expect CivIII to play like II, one thing I noticed that research goes slower and units are much more mixed between ages and of course from reading here and playing I saw bowman take down rifles or infantry. I'll live with that.

I lost my first game played on Chieftain it ended on time and I lost on score, 3 races, Americans (me), Romans and Iroquois, The Iroquois won 390 to 360 (me) 330 (Rome), that's close enough.

I had EVERY Wonder to Space except the Great Library and researched up to Space Research (Seti). He was fighting with spearman , bows, cavs muskets and a few wooden ships at the end. I had Mech Inf, Tanks, Bombers, Battleships, Arty and Fighters at the end. I had several 28+ cities and a 30 city, his biggest was 12, he didn't even have Sanitation yet. He had a more color on the map till the end but they were all trash cities. I had 4 luxury resources and all strategic up to Aluminum. I took out half his cities at the end in a massive blitz with tanks, bombers and mechs, including several armies of tanks and mechs.

So basically I played the game like a civilized country would do, had very superior tech, had a massive, impressive army and cooked his butt in the end but because I play slow and deliberate and didn't own large areas and had a small military in the early game the averaging of the score went against me.

Well, that's my say, I guess the slow deliberate game is no more.

[Grumbold]

The lack of credit for owning wonders and knowing techs seems a disappointment.

[PatriotPlayer]

It also seems that the game averages your score, I started slow and I didn't have a lot of land or a big military at the start but became a steamroller at the end but by then I was too far in the hole.

The game rewards QUANTITY over QUALITY in it's scoring system.

[chazmyrr]

Actually the game rewards culture and trade. The big scoring item is the number of happy citizens, followed by the number of content/specialist citizens. Land area is typically third unless you have a huge area. Finally, future tech is worth some points.

If you have overwhelming military superiority, it is better to go for a conquest/domination victorysince you get huge bonus points for that type of victory. Domination is very possible on tiny maps. You take on massive corruption, but if you're planning on winning the game in a few turns, what does it matter?

I have yet to win a space or diplomatic since the one time I've made it into the modern age before winning militarily, I ended up with a culture victory when my capitol hit 20k. The cultural victory didn't net me any bonus.

I think the scoring is pretty well balanced with respect to risk/reward. You take a big risk in attempting conquest, but it can really pay off in score. Building a lot of improvements/wonders in your capitol and waiting for it to hit 20k doesn't score very well.

[Gaius Marius]

cahzmyrr is right re: the breakdown of scoring, but it is important also to note that the score is an average of the whole game - I don't know the formula to this, but it's probably based on relative strength over the entire time period. In other words, you have to lead on culture and tech as well as power early, middle, and late to guarantee victory. You can catch up, but taking over/nuking your rival and/or boosting luxuries on the last turn won't cut it anymore.

[PatriotPlayer]

chazmyrr ....

I had most cities with almost all happy citizens, my big cities had all extras as entertainers. My culture at the end was equal to both other cultures combined.

I can't imagine a better Civ at the end NO unhappy at all, all war weariness wore off. Since I was isolated and built up slow I think I got penalized in the scoring at the beginning and couldn't catch up.

Gotta go to work now, thanks all for the suggestions.

[Grunthex]

Basically, you were the superior civilization at the end, but taken over the scope of 6000 years, he was a more influential civ. The old methods of walling yourself up for the first 5500 and then taking over no longer make you a great civ. With that style of play, you need to go for a more decisive victory.

[PatriotPlayer]

Basically, you were the superior civilization at the end, but taken over the scope of 6000 years, he was a more influential civ.

I see that is so but to me that seems to be getting away from Sid's original concept of making a "Civilization that will stand the Test of Time", those others Civs were trashy and had no depth or quality and they would fall at the least bit disturbance.

I liked Civ and CivII because they were basically a history simulator in game form. You could develop a timeline similar to the real world with discoveries in the game paralleling the real world. There was a strategic flow to the game. Having a superior technology made you a superior power if you used it correctly but also it could be your downfall. Pondering the placement of your cities was important but you could make an inferior city great through technology. Each city carried the weight that a real world city would.

CivIII seems to have changed that, cities placement is more tactical than strategic and each city takes on less importance of it's own. There is no more GREAT CITY with many Wonders that because of perfect placement is the jewel of your empire, at least not if you want to win. It is now a game of tactical placement with cities used more as blockers than showpieces.

The World of CIVILIZATION seems to have turned into a world of Ghettos and Gang Wars rather than Megalopolis' and Great World Wars. Instead of carving a great empire out of a block of granite you are now like the fungus in SMAC, filling in every gap so something doesn't grow there first.

I suppose I'll learn to like this game but it is not the same Civilization and those that haven't played Civilization or CivII owe it to yourselves to play them and see what made this series great, some of the things are there but some things are missing,the greatest of these being the sense of history and the flow of time and actually loving your empire because you built it to your specifications rather than building it in reaction to the game AI.

The game has it's charm and is fun to play but to me it is not 100% true to the overall scope of the Civ series. What's missing from CivIII is not something you can touch as much as something you can feel.