Post Your Winning Stats!

lol. yeah, that sounds about right. I'm not really sure how that's figured. Maybe 78 is really high?

Using selfmade mods that affect balance makes scorecomparisons invalid. You'd think that would be a given....

I don't see that it adversely affects balance since the modded buildings were made available to the other factions.  in fact, I took over cities where my new mods had been built by the AI.  the balance may be different than it was before, but, it is still balance.  also, upgrading a workshop to a factory is the same as upgrading a study to a library (which is part of the  base game).  it required research and city level to achieve and had a comparable cost to build and maintain.  what's imbalanced about that?

as far as the public square is concerned I felt that the .2 prestige of a new settlement was just way too small and the Inn requires lvl 2 city.  so I designed an improvement for a level 1 city that gave half the prestige of the Inn with a compatible cost and maintenance value.   it added .5 prestige to a city, only build-able once per city.  all kingdom factions had access to it (and they used it) and the empire factions have their unlimited monument which adds .5 each, which they seem to spam so balance was not adversely affected there either.

as for the capes, I see no balance issues with allowing a female NPC to wear a cape that adds +1 movement.  In fact, I think it is a bug, and I just fixed it.

custom factions and custom leaders are part of the base game.  if those are unbalanced then you can't blame me for it (well you could, but, I didn't do it, I swear!)

If you're actually trying to put together a high score list, then obviously mods would be out of the question. This is just a little fun like "look what I accomplished" sort of topic, isn't it? I rarely seem to get more than 11-12 points in games I play (and they are always, always modded). Then again, I rarely finish a game since I often reach a point where I will win in 30-60 minutes, but can't be arsed to actually play it out (the AI is rubbish late-game).

everyone is all so

"this game sucks, this game isn't fun, i can't play this game...blah blah blah"

I started this post to show that the game can be fun and there are those of us out here than enjoy it enough to play a long game, get high scores and want to share it with the community.  I don't give a small rodents tush about WHAT my score is, I was just sharing the statistics, nothing more.

my "WTF?" comment was just me being funny that I had accomplished so much and yet I still only had a double digit score.  its like that old show on comedy central with Drew Carey, "Who's Line Is It Anyway?" where The Points Don't Matter!  perhaps my 78 points are Super Ultra Mega points, in which case I did quite well!

I am a little curious to hear from one of the devs though to find out what the score is supposed to mean and how it is calculated.  perhaps 100 is the max and score is actually a percentage of game completion.  78 makes sense since I did not do any magic or diplomacy research.

Honestly, I am more interested in the final statistics of peoples games like how many seasons did it take you, what was your victory condition, how much of X resource did you end up with?  that sort of thing.  the score is the least interesting statistic because it has no meaning.  I just included it at the end because it was in such contrast to the other statistics.  it made me laugh.

When and if I ever manage to actually finsih a game, my score is in the 30's...

what size of maps do you like to play?  what kind of winning conditions do you normally go for?

Im thinking of doing a magic win next.  I figure that when I have all four shards I can terraform myself into an impregnable valley surrounded by terraformed mountains and just turtle my way to the ultimate spell.

I've won with the magic condition. I felt it anticlimactic--same with the master quest. Other than the fun factor, terraforming a wall around you isn't really necessary. You can easily win with out it.

I don't play these games to "win" I play to play.  I might spend an entire game terraform the landscape to make a funny shape, or leveling a hero I like.  I play these games to experience the world itself and to see how it develops.  And once I get tired of it, I start a new game.  I am playing a game of Galciv now that I am building ships and simply supplying different sides of wars, just for the fun of it. 

I must be strange... I play to win when I play strategy games and I play them all the way through to the bitter end.  That's why one of my biggest gripes has been the AI.  I actually want to lose so that I can rehone my strategy and try again.  I was only able to win about 50% of my Civ IV games on emperor.  That was great!  I loved the challenge.  Speaking of Civ IV, I really liked its HOF scoring system.  EWOM's scoring system needs work... I hope they fix that in FE.

P.S.  Anybody notice Brad's rage today?  He's locked 4 threads in one day.  Lord Xia should send him a cookie bouquet.  We'll pay you back the next time we see you.

I'm kinda on Xia's side. Right now the game is more for fun than to actually win...IMO. I find that most AI's are limited but have to agree the the AI Civ can hand out an ass whipping every now and again. Isn't GalCiv kinda the same way? There were times when I really had to struggle. Seems like an opposing faction leveled up faster than Iand came after me hard. Of course, it seemed far more tactical that strategic. I guess that is my one point of contention. The AI should be able to adjust to evolving strategies---like Daystrom's M-V for example. It is not much of a challenge if the AI beefs up but cannot employ the most rudimentary of military tactics to win.

Yeah, the Civ scoring system seems to make more sense but in the end, I just want to play the game--preferably without the OOM crashes;)