Proposed DipCon Scoring System: A Sketch
By Jim
Burgess
(From
Diplomacy World #60)
Goals of the System:
1. Reward Winning and Taking Risks
to Try to Win
2. Penalize the Largest Power in
Large Draws for Failing to Play
3. Credit to Small Survivors with
Incentives to Keep Playing
Master Scoring System: Don't use
averages of any kind, reward people for playing as many games as possible. The
total score is the simple sum of game scores from all of the games played. If
you must, count only three scores or the three highest scores.
Game Scoring System: Modified 100
Point System (100 points for a win, 50 points for each player in a two way, 33
1/ 3 for each player in a three way, 25 for a four way, 20 for a five way, 16
2/3 for a six way, and 14 2/7 for a seven way ((leave the 2/7 in as a mark of
shame...))
Modification 1: Subtract the
difference between your supply center count and the count of the smallest member
of the draw from the "100 Point System" score to get your score if you are a
member of the draw.
Modification 2: Eliminated players
get no points, but survivals get triple their final supply center count as
their score.
Example: England defeats and
eliminates France and Germany while a Russia/Turkey alliance defeats an
Austria/Italy alliance. Italy is eliminated as well (all three eliminated
players get a zero score and are properly chastised for abysmal play, especially
on a strategic level). Austria teams up with RT to set up a stalemate line at
the usual place with the final supply center counts and scores (four way draw):
AUSTRIA: 2 Supply Centers =25 -(2-2) =25 points as a score. ENGLAND: 17 Supply Centers =25
-(17-2) =10 points as a score. RUSSIA: 10 Supply
Centers =25 -(10-2) =17 points as a score. TURKEY: 5
Supply Centers =25 -(52) =22 points as a
score.
What? Unfair you say?? England and
Russia have some pretty mighty incentives to do something other than agree to
this draw; however, if Austria can make himself or herself absolutely essential
to the stalemate line they might have to do so. I argue that Austria is the
"winner" if this· can be accomplished and the game will be far better for the
attempt
There are other draw possibilities
though, let's look at them...here's the three way where
Austria agrees to the survival as an alternative to being eliminated:
AUSTRIA: 2x3 =6points as a score.
ENGLAND: 33 1/3 - (17-5) =21 1/3 points as a score. RUSSIA: 33 1/3 -(10-5) = 28 1/3 points as a score. TURKEY: 33 1/3 -(5-5) =33 1/3 points
as a score.
England doesn't like this result
too much either. Diplomacy is the way out, isn't it? We all can think of some
options or England might just have to veto draws for awhile until the other
three powers decide to do something. This is a cutthroat system and makes
no apologies for it. It's time to get serious about the idea of a national
champion. The two way results illustrate the more likely outcomes of this
situation and the idea of this system is that it encourages the big powers to
prove their worth (ER two way):
AUSTRIA: 2 x 3 = 6points as a
score. ENGLAND: 50- (17-10) =43 points as a score. RUSSIA: 50 -(10-10) =50 points as a score. TURKEY: 5 x 3 =15 points as a
score.
Eliminating Austria and Turkey in
this situation helps England's score but not Russia's, so if it is a locked up
position where Austria and Turkey are vulnerable to stabs they probably would
agree to this draw, but the temptation for Russia to stab them is not SO great
that they have no chance to survive. What about the win from this situation?
Russia would stab if there was some chance of getting the win over England,
since the downside risk is not too large as long as Russia can get all but a
couple of the centers. For example, the win is worth 100 points (to whichever
power can achieve it), but if Russia can get to 16 centers then England would
get the 100 points, but Russia would get 48, only slightly less than the two way
result Of course, the incentive to go for the win in this kind of situation
would be stronger if England were not so close to victory (a more likely
occurrence). I strongly urge that some sort of system like this be used to get
around problems that I've observed in other scoring systems. I'd appreciate
feedback of any kind.
Send Feedback On This Site or Any Diplomacy World Issues
