A Tiny Little Attempt at a Big Score

nbarclay · October 8, 2002, 08:41

For those who aren't aware of it, one of the best ways to get a gigantic score is to play a tiny-map duel against a single opposing civ and blow them away quickly. Scores obtained in such a manner can't match what folks like Aeson can do with milking on a big map, but they are still spactacular by any lesser standard.

I just played such a game, playing Egypt (industrious with a fast ancient UU) against India (wimps who wouldn't live long enough to even dream of getting their UU). To load the dice farther, I restarted until I got a good starting position (and ended up with an even better one than I'd aimed for). The game was Emperor level, max-ocean Pangea, cold and dry, no barbarians.

The result? Conquest victory in 1025 BC (yes, that's spelled with a B and a C) for a score of well over 15,000. No conventional game I've ever played has even come close.

If anyone else wants to try the same game, here's the 4000 BC autosave.

Nathan

vmxa1 · October 8, 2002, 12:19

Well if liked that, then make a scenario with you and one civ and only one tile that can have a city. You win on first turn and score over 30.000 IIRC.

nbarclay · October 8, 2002, 13:44

Quote:

Originally posted by vmxa1
Well if liked that, then make a scenario with you and one civ and only one tile that can have a city. You win on first turn and score over 30.000 IIRC.

I don't think that's workable without also tampering with the rules, unless I've missed something. (1) A civ is not defeated if it has a settler. (2) A properly designed two-tile island would allow a civ to cross the domination threshold with a single city, but on any level higher than Regent, the AI gets free units that could immediately walk into your undefended city to win. (The editor seems unwilling to create land without adjacent coast or to turn coast into sea or ocean without destroying adjacent land, so separate islands would not work for that.) The closest you could get would probably be a one-tile island for the AI and a slightly larger island with cattle for you, making it possible to cross the domination threshold after ten turns when your culture expands.

But doing something outlandish with the editor seems more like you're playing "How much can I cheat?" than like you're playing Civ 3. I regard that as fundamentally different from restarting, which merely accelerates a process that would have the same outcome (albeit over a longer period of time) if you played out all the games in between. I chose the rules set that I thought would give me the best chance, but nothing I did was outside the rules or parameters Firaxis shipped the game with (and therefore should presumably, at lest in an ideal world, have made sure was play-tested).

Nathan

Chemical Ollie · October 8, 2002, 15:30

I've said it before and I say it again: The scoring system is too much focused on year of victory, giving unproportional advantage to unsophisticated grunt rushers.

My high score of 14500 something was achived like this: I was hoping to finally win an OCC and choosed to play on warlord, as my OCCs on higher levels had failed. I started a tiny archipelago map with no respawning of AI players. Guess what happened: All 4 civs was on the same tiny island! I built 2 regular warriors and 2 regular archers and scored a military win in 2700 BC. Victory achieved in less than 20 minutes.

Guess which of my top 3 highscores I am most proud of, this grunt rush on a tiny map, or the two emperor games where I got 6000 and 5000 score from cultural win after 5900 years of balanced warfare, building, trade and diplomacy?

The scoring system suck!

Zero-Tau · October 8, 2002, 16:15

Quote:

Originally posted by nbarclay

I don't think that's workable without also tampering with the rules, unless I've missed something. (1) A civ is not defeated if it has a settler.

The thing is, if you create a map with only mountains and water, so it's impossible to settle, and then skip your turn, all the AI civs will realize that the settler is useless and, to spare gold, disband it. This will make you win in 3950 BC, and on Deity, this gives a net 36000 points.

CivFanatics screenshot of the histograph

Not that this is any fun, of course...

vmxa1 · October 8, 2002, 16:45

You will win as you get to settle the only vaild tile and the Ai will not be able to create a town and will disband IIRC, it was a long time back.

alexman · October 8, 2002, 17:17

OK, so the scoring system is not that great.
OK, so you've done this before.
OK, so it's possible to get an even easier win.

Well then this thread is not for you. Nathan started this thread for anyone that hasn't tried something similar before. Those that haven't can actually learn some lessons by going through this exercise. For example, you see how the AI reacts to early attack, and how it's easy prey if it hasn't finished expanding. Not to mention the boost to your morale!

Make sure you don't think you're the best player in the World just because you can beat Deity in a game like this though. Ask I-Iz-1337!

Chemical Ollie · October 8, 2002, 18:54

Quote:

Originally posted by alexman
OK, so the scoring system is not that great.
OK, so you've done this before.
OK, so it's possible to get an even easier win.

Well then this thread is not for you. Nathan started this thread for anyone that hasn't tried something similar before. Those that haven't can actually learn some lessons by going through this exercise. For example, you see how the AI reacts to early attack, and how it's easy prey if it hasn't finished expanding. Not to mention the boost to your morale!

Make sure you don't think you're the best player in the World just because you can beat Deity in a game like this though. Ask I-Iz-1337!

My post contained no critics against Nathan. That little trick on a tiny map is something everybody should try at least once, just to see how unfair the scoring system is to epic builder playstyles. I think the score should reflect how well you played, which it doesn't.

tinyp3nis · October 8, 2002, 19:30

Time is one really big factor, if you play worse you need more time to win. But I think they should somehow fix the system, maybe the same bonus if you win in 4000BC-1000AD, descending scores from 1000AD but not from 4000BC. What I'm trying to say is no greater bonus if you win earlier than 1000AD, just the same bonus when you win in 1000AD.

nbarclay · October 8, 2002, 20:57

Quote:

Originally posted by tinyp3nis
Time is one really big factor, if you play worse you need more time to win. But I think they should somehow fix the system, maybe the same bonus if you win in 4000BC-1000AD, descending scores from 1000AD but not from 4000BC. What I'm trying to say is no greater bonus if you win earlier than 1000AD, just the same bonus when you win in 1000AD.

All else being equal, if you play worse, you need more time to win. But a well-balanced nation is strong in size, happiness, culture, science, wealth, production, and relations with other nations. The "year of victory" bonus doesn't distinguish between players who take longer because they can't win quickly and players who take longer because they aren't interested in trying to win quickly at all costs. Instead, it it imposes the same penalty on people who choose not to win quickly because they have other priorities as on those who truly can't win quickly.

Nathan

tinyp3nis · October 9, 2002, 00:24

Quote:

Originally posted by nbarclay

All else being equal, if you play worse, you need more time to win. But a well-balanced nation is strong in size, happiness, culture, science, wealth, production, and relations with other nations. The "year of victory" bonus doesn't distinguish between players who take longer because they can't win quickly and players who take longer because they aren't interested in trying to win quickly at all costs. Instead, it it imposes the same penalty on people who choose not to win quickly because they have other priorities as on those who truly can't win quickly.

Nathan

This is called luck, If you read all what you said carefully you see. Two players from same situation, the better wins faster and the game already has the indicators for other factors, like size and such. Time should always be a factor for scores, except in multiplayer.

FrustratedPoet · October 9, 2002, 02:27

It's not to do with luck in that example. If one person tries to win by Spaceship it will ALWAYS take them a fairly long time to win. They shouldn't be penalised for choosing one victory condition over another, they are supposed to be equally valid.

I don't think a scoring system that satisfies everyone is possible, though.

nbarclay · October 9, 2002, 03:03

Quote:

Originally posted by tinyp3nis

This is called luck, If you read all what you said carefully you see. Two players from same situation, the better wins faster and the game already has the indicators for other factors, like size and such. Time should always be a factor for scores, except in multiplayer.

I agree that time should be a factor. The problem comes when the only factors that come into play are year of victory, size, and and non-unhappy population. That devalues everything else that makes a civilization great, and penalizes players who regard things like science and culture as similarly important.

In the AU 106 game, I could have won at least a century earlier had I been inclined to rush libraries instead of courthouses and marketplaces (and especially if I'd cancelled all scientific research so I'd have more gold for rush buying). But instead, I chose to focus on a style of play that would set my nation up for strong (and accelerating) continued prosperity after the game was officially over. A really good scoring system would have those things I did to make my nation wealthier and more productive count toward the score.

Nathan

tinyp3nis · October 9, 2002, 04:20

Quote:

Originally posted by FrustratedPoet
It's not to do with luck in that example. If one person tries to win by Spaceship it will ALWAYS take them a fairly long time to win. They shouldn't be penalised for choosing one victory condition over another, they are supposed to be equally valid.

I don't think a scoring system that satisfies everyone is possible, though.

I swear I could get more points by going space versus conquering at 1100AD. But yes, it's not perfect system, not even close to it. Was just correcting a wrong and my statement still stands.

Ijuin · October 9, 2002, 05:31

Yeah, what ever happened to civs getting points for building Wonders? I would like to see a civ be awarded fifty points for every Great Wonder it builds (NOT captures!), twenty points for every Small Wonder it builds, and one point for every 100 culture points it generates.

Tiberius · October 9, 2002, 05:37

I don't play for score, I play for fun.

However, I'm not saying that I don't enjoy when I have a big score or that the scoring system is perfect. It could be certainly improved (like adding points for Wonders).

Tuberski · October 9, 2002, 18:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Ijuin
and one point for every 100 culture points it generates.

Your kidding, right? That is at least 1000 points for a cultural victory.

punkbass2000 · October 9, 2002, 19:02

Exactly. The extra points would counteract the relative lateness of that type of victory.