Skip to main content

Tournament Scoring - Part 4: Supply Centre Scoring

Image
By
The thing with tournaments is that a lot of games end in a draw.  This means that DSS systems aren't necessarily going to produce a great result because a lot of players could well finish on the same score.  An alternative to DSS is a Supply Centre Scoring (SCS) system.


I'm going to use the game above as an example to explain SCS systems.  (The game is from Playdiplomacy and so the colours are different from those I use for my maps.)  The game ended with the following outcome:

  1. England - 12 SCs
  2. Russia - 9 SCs
  3. Turkey - 8 SCs
  4. Italy - 5 SCs
France, Germany and Austria-Hungary were eliminated, with 0 SCs each.

Supply Centre Scoring systems are based on the number of SCs the players owned at the end of the game.  The basic pattern is:
  • A solo results in all the points available.  No other player scores points.
  • A draw will be scored using the number of SCs the players hold at the end of the game.  In the above game, on a pure SCS system, England would have 12 pts; Russia 9; Turkey 8; Italy 5; France, Germany & Austria 0.
  • Points are usually converted to percentages so that England would have 35.29 pts, Russia 26.47 pts, Turkey 23.52 pts, and Italy 14.71 pts.

Sum of Squares


Often, SCS is changed so that it isn't just the basic number of SCs held that generates the number of points awarded.  Perhaps the most popular system is the Sum of Squares system.


This system squares the number of SCs owned at the end of the game and then standardises them as a percentage.  This means that if a player solos she scores 100 pts.  Using our example game:

    1. England - 12 SCs; 144 raw pts; Score = 45.86
    2. Russia - 9 SCs; 81 raw pts; Score = 25.8
    3. Turkey - 8 SCs; 64 raw pts; Score = 20.38
    4. Italy - 5 SCs; 25 raw pts; Score = 7.96
    The game score is 314 points, so each power's score is the power's raw score as a percnetage of 314.

    The difference in points between England and Russia is 20.  What would have happened if England had taken one more SC from Russia?
    1. England - 13 SCs; 169 raw pts; Score = 52.48
    2. Russia - 8 SCs; 64 raw pts; Score = 19.88
    3. Turkey - 8 SCs; 64 raw pts; Score = 19.88
    4. Italy - 5 SCs; 25 raw pts; Score = 7.76
    That single SC meant that the difference between England and Russia (& Turkey) is now 32.6 points, more than 50% greater.  It also meant that England scored more than 50 pts, so two such results would be better than if England had soloed a game.

    If Russia had taken one SC from Turkey..?
    1. England - 12 SCs; 144 raw pts; Score = 45.28
    2. Russia - 10 SCs; 100 raw pts; Score = 31.45
    3. Turkey - 7 SCs; 49 raw pts; Score = 15.41
    4. Italy - 5 SCs; 25 raw pts; Score = 7.86
    Russia's score is now double Turkey's score.

    Evaluation based on objectives

    In a previous post I identified what objectives a scoring system should meet.  Let's have a look at how SCS meets these objectives.  Green objectives are achieved, orange objectives are partially achieved, and red objectives are not achieved.
    • Players should be aiming to win the game.  Winning the game is still the objective, and 100 points is going to give a player a significant advantage.  However, the scoring system means that the most important aspect is the number of SCs players can get at the end of the game.
    • If unable to win, players should be playing to (be included in the) draw.  Again, this isn't the case.  It isn't just about playing to survive, it's about the number of SCs you have for surviving.  Surviving on 1 SC is going to make very little difference as compared to being eliminated.
    • As far as possible, being able to play each game as you would a stand alone game.  The aim in a stand alone game is very different from in a game with an SCS system.  SCS means the game is more about collecting as many SCs as possible, and about increasing the gap between you and the player behind you in the scores.
    • Within the practicalities of the tournament, games should be played to a natural finish.  Because of the SCS system, it may be better to give a player a victory than to end the game in a draw.  By doing this, you prevent other players scoring and may not lose too many points yourself while other players lose a lot of points.
    • Games should be fun and interesting, not predictable.  Risky strategies are more likely in this kind of game.  When it becomes about grabbing SCs then anything else, then this can make for exciting games.
    • Players being able to play a game which allows them to play to the scoring system.  Basically, while the system is about who gets most SCs, it is also about judging the gap between players, increasing that gap or reducing it.

    Practical Considerations

    Generally, unlike DSS, you're more likely to get results using SCS.  There is a smaller probability that players will finish tied on points and therefore less of a need to differentiate.  Personally, I find the definitive nature of the Sum of Squares system satisfying, even though I think it exaggerates small gaps between powers.

    And, if nothing else, games are less likely to be dull affairs.

    TOURNAMENT SCORING series:

    1. Tournament Games are Variants
    2. What should a good scoring system do?
    3. Draw Size Scoring (DSS)
    4. Supply Centre Scoring (SCS)
    5. Other Scoring Systems
    6. Summarising the Problem with Scoring Systems
    7. The Mystery Scoring System Explained
    8. Does Mystery Scoring meet the objectives?
    Labels:

    Comments

    Post a Comment

    What do you think?

    Popular posts from this blog

    WHAT IS DIPLOMACY? - Part 5: Variants

    By
    A variant is a game of Diplomacy where the rules or context are different from the standard game as designed by Allan B Calhamer.  There are three types of variants: context variants, map variants and rules variants. Context Variants Context variants are those games that are played with a wider context.  They may be tournament games, other scored games, or remote format  games.  These aren't often recognised as variants as such, as variants tend to be within the other two types discussed below.  But the context the game is being played in will have an impact on how some players will play the game, and so they are certainly a variation of Dip. Maybe they should be called "variations" rather than variants but does it really matter? Map Variants Diplomacy has been adapted to different maps, or boards.  Not surprising as the general idea of the game, pitting competing powers against each other in a localised region and time in history, can be adapte...
    Post a Comment
    Read more

    Tournament Scoring - Part 3: Draw Size Scoring (DSS)

    By
    If we're looking to score Diplomacy games based on the rules of the game, there are just three outcomes: a win, a draw, and a loss.  A scoring system based on these outcomes would therefore be based on whether the game was won, or whether it ended in a draw.  These systems are called Draw Size Scoring systems (DSS). The basic model for DSS systems is: The result is based on how the game ends only. If you win the game outright (solo), you take all the points in the game. If you are part of the draw at the end of the game, you receive the points avaialble in the game divided by the number of players in the draw. If you lose the game, you receive 0 (zero) points. The most basic version of this is the Calhamer Point system, designed by the great and good ABC himself.  If you soloed, you earned a point.  If you drew the game, you scored a number of points based on how many people you drew with.  So a 4-way draw would provide 0.25 points, a 5-way draw 0....
    Post a Comment
    Read more

    Tournament Scoring - Part 2: What should a good scoring system do?

    By
    As I mentioned in the first post in this series , if you're playing in a tournament, you're playing a variant of Diplomacy.  This must be kept in mind when we're evaluating scoring systems.  The games are already variants so having them scored just means the variant aspect is increased. However, the scoring system should change the nature of the game as minimally as possible.  Ideally, even in the context of the variant you are playing - whether that variant is that the game is part of a tournament only, or whether it's being played online - the scoring system should try to meet the objectives of Diplomacy, not alter them. Objectives of Diplomacy The objective of the game is to win.  This means owning 18 SCs. If the game is unlikely to end in a solo victory, then the surviving players can end the game in a draw.  This means that players should be looking to survive in most cases, and certainly to be in a position to be part of the draw. Draws Inc...
    Post a Comment
    Read more