Arqade Asked on March 13, 2021
I my first playtrough Civ VI I’ve finished with cultural victory around year 2000 and to be honest it was a close one – I had to attack and conquer Russia, that was close to achieving it before me. While I don’t remember my exact final score, in the leaders Hall of Fame I was at about 8-9th place.
In the second playtrough I’ve won around year 1920, again with cultural victory. This time my country was leading in all fields and (if I’d want to) I could achieve the domination victory many rounds earlier. Yet this time my score was much lower and in the Hall of Fame I’ve landed on 16th place.
Does it mean that longer game would always bring a higher score? It would be more logical if a quicker victory would rank you higher, not lower.
Both games were played on the same difficulty levels
To clarify: in example if I can achieve a victory in one round (i.e. only one city to conquer) but I’d instead wait few more rounds gathering culture, science etc, before conquering the final city, will my score be lower or higher?
Yes, at least indirectly.
Score is derived from a variety of factors, including number of cities, number of technologies, population, and wonders built. Many of these factors are things that you can and often will do more of if you are given more turns.
However, unlike some earlier Civ games, there is no score bonus for winning or ending the game early. This means that the longer you play without actually winning, the more chance you have to earn points and the higher your score will be.
If your goal is getting the highest score possible, you should subjugate your opponents, then spend as many turns as possible building an empire without winning.
Correct answer by Studoku on March 13, 2021
Get help from others!
Recent Answers
Recent Questions
© 2024 TransWikia.com. All rights reserved. Sites we Love: PCI Database, UKBizDB, Menu Kuliner, Sharing RPP