The VP tally is what I'm calling the current faction points table that you see when you mouse over "End turn". I really have no _solid_ idea of just what the numbers are showing. Empire population? Number of cities? Points for having built certain structures? Military might? Number of city hexes in the empire? In short, just what specific actions can a player take to maximize his score?

All of the above. Plus killing units and taking enemy cities I think.

That can't be entirely correct. For example, I tracked values over several turns: +37, +117, +30. At the time, I had 26 cities and a total population of several hundred. So if population is a factor, it would be only a one-time point for a new population addition. And if there is a factor for enemy units killed, then I would imagine that a 6th level unit _should_ be worth more than a 1st-level unit. Add to that whatever benefit is gained by killing an enemy Hero.

In the game files :

It means :

2 x SumOfAllUnitsLevels

+ 5 x SumOfAllHeroesLevels

+ 5 x NumberOfCities

+ 2 x NumberOfDistricts

+ 5 x NumberOfLevel1Districts

+ 10 x NumberOfLevel2Districts

+ 3 x TotalPopulation

+ 1 x NumberOfImprovements

+ 5 x NumberOfTechnologies



In the end game, you can get new units easily. Just create a barebone unit with nothing and crank it out. They'll have level 6, so they'll give you 12 VP (Victory Points). More than a Level 2 district. You can enhance further that effect with improvements that give XP at creation, and letting as many units in garrison as you can while they earn xp in cities.

Hmm. Using my example from above (+37, +117, +30), on a given turn I have 4 Heroes with an average level of 10 = 40 points all by themselves. So these things don't have a per turn accumulation, but rather a running total that fluctuates by additions (or subtractions). For example, building a new 4th level unit adds 4 points. But losing a 4th level unit in combat would cause the loss of 4 points. Number of improvements seems odd for scoring because it looks like building a Seed Storage adds one point, just like a MUCH more advanced structure like, say, an Arena of Champions (one to an empire). Same goes for technologies; 1st era techs are just as valuable as 6th era techs.

Yep, I, too, think the score isn't perfect at the moment.

I like the fact that it's addition/substraction and not bucket filling.



I think the score miss some things, like how many fights ?

How many big fights (10+ units in a single battle) won ?

How many fights did you won when being with less military power ?

How many times did you injured an enemy hero ?

What's the most Dust you spent in one turn ?

Technologies should give twice their EraLevel.

How long you empire did stay at an exctatic level ? How long did your empire stay at a happy level ?

How many agreements did you got ? (Warning/compliments don't count, When you make an agreement you get 1 point, then you get 1 point each turn for keeping that agreement to avoid "gaming" the score. It can be 0.01 point instead of 1)

How many units did you sell to the market ? How many units you sold were bought on the market ?

How many quests did you suceed ?

How many villages were assimilated ?

How many weapons/armors/trinkets did you unlocked (thus you'll be rewarded twice for the quests that gives you items you can't research) ?

Buildings should give Victory Points according to their cost.

I like the idea of adding more stuff to the score count. It seems that score is intended as the fallback Victory and really rewards building stuff more than doing stuff.



One challenge is to make sure you don't double dip. An example is rewarding output and also rewarding the stuff you build.



I won a MP game (we agreed to cut off the game by turn 75) with the method VieuxChat described. I was cranking out stripped down units at the end of the game. You can see more info -> http://forums.amplitude-studios.com/entry.php?831-Tuesday-Night-Fights-After-Action-Report-10-21-2014

Propbuddha wrote:
I like the idea of adding more stuff to the score count. It seems that score is intended as the fallback Victory and really rewards building stuff more than doing stuff.



One challenge is to make sure you don't double dip. An example is rewarding output and also rewarding the stuff you build.



I won a MP game (we agreed to cut off the game by turn 75) with the method VieuxChat described. I was cranking out stripped down units at the end of the game. You can see more info -> http://forums.amplitude-studios.com/entry.php?831-Tuesday-Night-Fights-After-Action-Report-10-21-2014

I'd say that adding FIDSI output to score wouldn't really be double dipping, if only because buildings are only worth a point.



I'd say add FIDSI to score, and the nnaturally buildings are worth an amount based on their power (and smart city placement results in free points). That essentially translates economy into points rather than the current "you have X buildings, gain X points" system. It's a good compromise between smart settlement and building spam for players looking for a score victory.

Well, "Score" or "Victory Points" in this case is more of a valuation of an empire's assets: by extension, a measure of anything currently held by the empire, that was either produced by the empire or seized from another empire; so I don't think VieuxChat's suggestions make sense in that context.



The weighting being given to each probably should be adjusted though - it's all up to what you think should be more valued though. I don't like that you can cheese your way to victory by smashing out units for example...



And by the "assets" definition, there are certainly things that are missing, such as strategic resource stockpiles, luxury resource stockpiles, dust stockpiles, "stockpiles", and any non-district expansions (watchtowers, resource extractors).



Speaking of double dipping, you have number of districts, number of level 1 districts, number of level 2 districts

A couple thoughts here:



1. Score is actually kinda important to me in 4x games. Like someone above notes, I like that it's not a bucket-filling victory condition. Fighting for high score could end up being the best way to play quick Multiplayer games. Most importantly to me, I want a "hall of fame" where I can record my scores and try to best myself over time.



2. You shouldn't be able to "cheese" your score by spamming anything: units, cities, etc. Being able to do so invalidates multiplayer and high-score chasing.



3. Score should reflect the overall health/strength/stability of your empire. It should reflect military strength, economic power, technological prowess, and happiness primarily. I know this isn't super helpful or specific, but in terms of broad concept.



4. Score shouldn't be biased against any one particular empire or strategy. The single-city Cultists should be able to compete for score victory. A purely peaceful and diplomatic empire should be able to compete for score victory, even if it only produces a minimal number of military units. So while many variables should contribute to score (see #3), you shouldn't be forced into pursuing a "balanced" strategy every time.

That's a good idea about doing quick score bsed multiplayer matches. Would solve a lot of problems.

Which file has that information?