THIS is bull!

dainbramaged13 · December 6, 2001, 23:26

i think the scoring system might be messed up!

I played this one game, on chieftan, admittedly, ever since I got the game. It was an incredibly successful game, i thought. I was constantly expanding and gradually taking over more and more of the world, alternating short, very sweet wars, eliminating one civ at a time, with periods of very rapid money-fed cultural and technological expansion. I eventually won a domination victory after i bought temples AND libraries in every single counquered english and german city to fill in the gaps. (no i didn't use the 99999 gold bug, i just sacrafoiced some scinece the last 10 turns and gained 2000 per turn)

I ended up with around 50-70 cities, and there was only one civ left, whom i had left alone the entire game, the persians.

My score? 760, less than i got playing a ****ing occ on the apolyton tournament which took me about 5 hours. this game took me many many more than that, close to 30 accumulated over many days of thinking and planning evern when i wasn't playing.
THIS SUCKS!

sorry firaxis, but i was wondering if anyone had an explanation for this.

dainbramaged13 · December 6, 2001, 23:28

if anyones interested i'll post the endgame file, and maybe some mid-game files if you want

N. Machiavelli · December 6, 2001, 23:30

What size was the map you are playing on? How large were these 50-70 cities? Was your culture the dominant one? What year did it end? A great many things contribute to your score. Play more than 1 or 2 games before you make a comparison to the system.

dainbramaged13 · December 6, 2001, 23:45

i have played a bunch of games but this was ridiculus.

anyway, all of my home cities (around 20-30) were around size 30.
I was playing on a normal size map, great location, good 2 countinents. My culture was so dominant, it was funny. Actualyl, it did end rather late, 1954

Kc7mxo · December 7, 2001, 00:04

You got a low score cause you're playing on a lower difficulty. You want a higher score, move up the difficulty.

There's a penalty for playing on "dirt poor easy" not that chieftain is as easy as it used to be.

Frugal_Gourmet · December 7, 2001, 00:08

The easier the level, the lower the score.. just like prevoius Civ's. Don't expect to get a high score on the easiest level.

Rasputin · December 7, 2001, 00:18

do peopel actually look at their score, i dont, i either won or i didint, score is irrelevant !!!

dainbramaged13 · December 8, 2001, 18:07

well, i know that i have a lower score on chieftaiin, but really, under a thousand in a game where i so dominant the whole time? anyway, it just pissed me off cuz i had spent so much time on it.. i dont really mind THAT much.. i was wondering if people had simlar experiences.

Xentropy · December 8, 2001, 18:48

Getting over 1k points on Chieftan level is nigh-on-impossible.. Getting 1k points on Regent is almost guaranteed. If it's EASY to dominate so well the entire time, you really don't deserve the points. That's how the scoring system is set up, anyway.

Libertarian · December 8, 2001, 18:50

Makes sense to me. If you beat up a two-year-old, where's the glory (or the high score) in that?

Asharak · December 8, 2001, 19:02

I've crushed the AI on Chieftan and gotten a lower score than that... but what do you expect?

Chieftan is intended really to be a warm-up game, to help you get used to game mechanics, or for the fun of crushing the AI without a challenge...

The scoring system reflects what you accomplished in relation to hard it was to accomplish it. On Chieftan, you SHOULD be able to do what you did, so it's not very impressive. Hence, the low score.

Not that I have a problem with playing on Chieftan, dain, I do it a lot (hey, crushing helpless people is fun sometimes, so sue me) -- but I do it for the fun of crushing them, not the high score at the end.

I want a high score, I play on Regent or higher.

- Ash