Skip to main content

Tournament Scoring - Part 4: Supply Centre Scoring

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?

    Comments

    Popular posts from this blog

    Tournament Scoring - Part 5: Other Scoring Systems

    There are, perhaps, three other types of scoring system: Placement or Rank scoring, hybrid systems that seek to combine DSS and SCS, and Tier scoring systems.  I want to have a look at each system. Placement or Rank systems Essentially, these are Supply Centre Scoring systems with the addition of bonus points.  I'm going to have a look at some more regularly used systems.  Again, here is the map I will use as an example: England  - 12 SCs Russia  - 9 SCs Turkey  - 8 SCs Italy  - 5 SCs France ,  Germany   and  Austria-Hungary   were eliminated, with 0 SCs each. C-Diplo In a drawn game points are awarded for: Participating in the game: 1 (for an online tournament, I'd only award this for participating and not surrendering). Each SC held at the end of the game: 1 . The player that 'tops the board' (has the most SCs): 38 pts. The second placed player (second highest number of SCs): 14 pts. The third placed player: 7 pts. If players are

    The Ethics of Diplomacy - Part 9: Mind Games

    I've separated this from gamesmanship because it is something different.  However, mind games have the same impact on the Dip community as gamesmanship, for very similar reasons. Mind games are anything that you can do to get under the skin of another player.  They can be irritants, impoliteness or meant to simply build paranoia. Silence Sending messages and getting no response is frustrating.  I know - I send a lot of messages and find it annoying if I'm getting nothing back from someone with whom I'm supposed to be working. Now, what happens when that silence is  deliberate ?  When someone decides that they're not going to answer messages, or keep their answers to a minimum?  Why would they do  that ? Well, it is usually to cause some disruption in your thinking.  If you're concerned that she isn't messaging back, you're going to be concerned about what your plans were going to be. I know at least one player who hates this, not becaus

    WHAT IS DIPLOMACY? - Part 5: Variants

    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 adapted to any number