Should score be based on firepower?

[raynor]

Consider this:

If you build tons and tons of empty bases and ships, your score climbs very rapidly, and it is easy to convince the AI that they should surrender to you because you are so much more powerful. Of course, you aren't. But what does the AI know?

On the other hand, if you build tons and tons of fighters and other units, you can soon amass enough firepower to rule the entire galaxy. But since units have only a minimal (if any) effect on your score, you are never perceived as a threat. By the time, you *are* perceived as a threat, you are so powerful, the AI doesn't stand a chance.

What a crazy, crazy game!

How many of you think that units should have a greater impact on the score?

Maybe the calculation of the score should be based on firepower instead of on the mass of ships and bases. For example, the ship/base/unit component of the score could be calculated as the ratio of offensive firepower divided by the amount of damage which all of the bases/ships/fighters can take. I suppose to be completely accurate, this firepower estimate would have to include various to-hit modifiers based on Combat Sensors, ECM, Stealth Armor, ship/fighter size, etc.

But in general, don't you think that the score would be much, much more accurate if it were based on offensive capability divided by defensive capability instead of just the number/mass of ships and bases?