Any changes to the scoring system is welcome. The leader cap is particularly good, although I don't believe leaders should affect score at all. IMHO, score should be based on accomplishments as well as your position in the world. So, for most of the big nations, you can get yourself to #1 in all three categories pretty quickly, and maintain it without doing much if anything significant (i.e. conquer territory, win big in a war, etc). This means the guy that comes close to conquering the world has the same score as the guy who just grew pretty large and stopped with 300 years left to play. There is nothing to note how well I did vs. others besides comparing maps. Second, because the score itself in each cat are capped, the fact that my military rating may be 20 points higher and double the next guy, but I still only get the capped value that #1 gets. It would seem that removing the cap would be a good way to reward those for doing more.