Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
So, sure, getting rid of Babylon is always an attractive option if practical, but the numbers you report suggest that the low emphasis on science was the problem here. Unless Babylon had done as much conquest as you managed, he must have fewer cities in which to build campuses, yet clearly he has more campuses. What I think of as a normal emphasis on science results in campuses in most cities, as a default, campuses in every city except those for which I have a specific reason not to build campuses.
If you'd been on track throughout the game you would have been in close pursuit when they reached that point, and easily passed them before they could reach the Science Victory.
Relative Score is the least useful metric for figuring out who is winning. Scoring under-rewards progress on most non-combat Victory Conditions, and is a lagging indicator for who is close to winning.
It truly pays to regularly monitor all victory conditions and world rankings once you've begun to industrialize, if not sooner. This is the kind of thing that shouldn't sneak up on you. Once you see an AI hit that second step of the Science Victory and have some research for the third, you should be heavily preparing to counter them somehow. Either with your own rush, Spies, or Open War (or all three).
Just wanted to say, this took me a moment to figure out based on context. In years on the boards for two different Civ games I've seen almost no one refer to them as Research Points, and abbreviating without using the full term at least once assumes the term is common knowledge or lingo for the game.
As I said, I figured it out from context, but if you want to be best understood by players of all ability levels, stating your terms is common courtesy.
Good for you, but I was always taught it's the duty of the writer to make themselves clear to their reader, not force them to figure out what you meant. Not using unexplained abbreviations is a pretty common rule of technical writing.
You write a lot of posts explaining things here, so I thought you'd be interested in making sure you were best understood. My bad.
You prove me wrong ! Kudo to you.
(@PP : Just joking eh ^_^ don't take offense)
*snicker* normally I don't, that one was short.
(also kidding- though most of the time true, I just skim them or skip them since they generally seem correct, if longwinded. No harm in that, just not something I have time to dig into).
They rarely fix them, so it's pretty easy to lock them down indefinitely.
Daniel.