Matt, a fan of this blog, posed the following question:

What are your thoughts on the two scoring systems available on WebDip? I am relatively new and am drawn towards SoS [“Sum-of-Squares”] as I feel it rewards aggression and risk taking vs. turtling to make it into the draw. Ex: Why should Turkey who turtled on 3 SC most of the game get equal points to me when I took risks and grew to ~10 SC.

Why does it seem like most players prefer draw scoring? Is it to encourage smaller powers to try to stay in the game instead of making desperate moves or throwing the game?

Thank you.

Matt, this is an interesting line of questioning, and one that is common for beginners like yourself. You have come to the right place, and your question shall be answered.

My answer is thoughtful and complicated; this article is nearly 8,000 words. However, I promise that if you read this entire article, you will completely understand why most players prefer draw-size scoring — and perhaps come to prefer draw-size scoring yourself.

In Part I, I will review the meaning of “victory” in Diplomacy and how the typical outcome of “draw” affects the way players approach the game in general.

In Part II, I will explain the rules differences between the two systems: draw-size scoring and sum-of-squares scoring.

In Part III, I will explain the strategic implications of those rules differences and why the implications of the draw-size scoring system leads to gameplay that most players prefer. I will also explain my personal opinion that sum-of-squares scoring is so seriously inferior to draw-size scoring that I, personally, refuse to play with sum-of-squares.

In Part IV, I will explain how sum-of-squares scoring does make sense in a tournament context, but that those conditions do not exist for one-off online games.

Part I: The Meaning of “Victory” in Diplomacy

Let me first explain the concept of “success” or “victory” in Diplomacy in general before I get into the particulars of how the scoring systems work on webDiplomacy.

If you purchased a tabletop copy of Diplomacy and played with your friends face-to-face, what would be your goals as players? This is an intriguing question. Diplomacy is rarely played as a “Role Playing Game,” where the fun comes from assuming the identity of a character and telling an improvised story with your friends.^[1]I have, once, played a role-playing round of face-to-face Diplomacy. It wasn’t that much fun and I recommend against it. There are many other tabletop games that are better-suited to facilitating role-playing fun. Instead, Diplomacy is almost always played as a competitive game, where the fun comes from the players striving against each other to achieve victory. But even though Diplomacy is usually played as a competitive game, the gameplay has quirks that make “winning” and “losing” not as straightforward as other free-for-all games (like Scrabble, Poker, The Settlers of Catan, and so on). What makes Diplomacy different?

1. “Master of Europe” is not “The Player with the Most Points”

In Diplomacy, there exists two possible end-states for the game: a “solo win” and a draw. Let’s talk about the former first. A solo win exists when one player controls a majority of the supply centers on the map (18+ out of 34). The victorious player is deemed to have defeated all 6 rivals (out of the starting 7 players).^[2]Some players make a distinction between different levels of defeat, but I’m not going to go deep into that. There is such a concept as “elimination” (where a player ends the game with 0 supply centers), as distinct from “survival” (where a player loses but still has a … Continue reading

In most other board games, whoever “has the most points” (or something similar) is deemed to be the victor. Diplomacy’s rules don’t work that way. The winner needs a majority of the points, not the most points. A player who reaches 17 points, but cannot grind down even one more supply center to reach 18, is not the winner — even if 6 rivals remain, none of whom have more than 3 points individually.

This rule quirk is, to my knowledge, unique to Diplomacy.

2. Because of Stalemate Lines, a Majority of Games End in a Draw

The topic of stalemate lines in Diplomacy is, frankly, enormous. I’ll leave the tactical specifics of stalemate lines for a future post. What I want to bring to your attention, though, is that the possibility of reaching a “stalemate” is unusual for a board game. Of all the board games I’ve ever played, only Diplomacy and Chess commonly end in a stalemate; other games almost always provide for a clear victor.^[3]Even if they have to resort to a “tiebreaker.”

Stalemates are possible in Diplomacy because the board is full of choke points that can be indefinitely defended with a small number of units. These choke points can’t be completely flanked because the literal edges of the game board cannot be traversed by the pieces. Because of this, it is possible to assemble an impenetrable defense of 17 total centers with as few as 13 units — thus making a solo win impossible for any power on the other side of that “stalemate line,” so long as the units maintain their defensive positions.

So in games of Diplomacy with experienced players, a solo win is very difficult. As soon as one power becomes strong enough (and positioned correctly) so as to be a serious solo-win threat, the defending players usually have the sense to join together and form a stalemate line before it is too late (since they all risk defeat if they fail to do so). In my opinion, a solo win is not even possible in Diplomacy unless at least one other player makes a mistake^[4]Like not understanding where they need their units to be to form a stalemate line, or getting backstabbed while being tricked into moving out of the proper location. or throws the game (loses) on purpose. I have more to say about throwing games later on.

Matt, you told me you are relatively new to the hobby, so let me be clear about how I feel about stalemate lines and the difficulty of getting a solo win (vs. drawing): I, like so many players, consider this a feature (not a flaw!) of Diplomacy. The high level of difficulty in attaining a solo win, and the usual requirement that other players be tricked (or persuaded) into helping you win, sets a very high bar to clear. This struggle is interesting, challenging, and fun. To my knowledge, there is no other game like this.

3. Solo Wins are Really Hard. Really!

Let’s assume that 50% of Diplomacy games can end in a solo win.^[5]It’s less than that, but bear with me. Let’s assume that each of the 7 players has an equal shot at a solo win.^[6]They don’t; some countries have a better ability to get a solo win than the others. Let’s assume that draws include 3, 4 or 5 players in equal distribution.^[7]There are such things as 2, 6 or 7 way draws, but those are rare so let’s ignore them. I actually have no idea how common 3, 4 and 5 way draws are compared to each other. What kind of outcomes could you look forward to?

• 64% chance you are defeated^[8]Half the games end in a draw, but on average, 3 players are cut out of the draw. Plus you lose if someone else gets a solo win.
• 29% chance you get into a draw^[9]Half the games end in a draw, and on average that draw will consistent of 4 players.
• 7% chance you get a solo win^[10]1 out of 7, reduced by half because of draws

A one-in-fourteen chance that you will get a solo win is staggering. A face-to-face game of Diplomacy takes 3-6 hours, and can go on for longer. Even if you played every month, there are only 12 months per year; probably at least one of your friend-group would never get a solo win over the course of a year.

Now imagine how difficult the solo-win challenge will be for some people when you consider:

• Some players are much better than others, greatly diminishing the chances of a solo win for their less-skilled opponents.
• Some powers have a poorer ability to get a solo win (e.g., Italy). When you are assigned to play a weaker power, your hope of winning is that much lower.
• High-level games of Diplomacy end in draws more often than 50% of the time.

So with those factors in mind, it could be realistic for you to start off a game of Diplomacy with a belief that your chances of a solo win are somewhere between 1% and 5%.

Let me point to a true story from personal experience: I have been playing online Diplomacy with a close friend every day for two years straight^[11]No breaks; none. I’m not kidding. without this friend getting a solo win. Over the course of 2 years, we’ve managed to play nearly 50 matches together without any solo win for my friend. And to be clear, I’m talking about someone who I consider to be more intelligent than myself and who is a formidable opponent in other board games. I’m trying to emphasize that solo wins are just that hard to come by in high-level games of Diplomacy.

4. Alternatives to Victory

So if you sit down to play a game of Diplomacy with your friends, if each of you understands that a solo win is elusive for any particular player and that the game is likely to end in a draw, what are you even playing for?  Well actually, there are a lot of things players value other than, or in addition to, getting a solo win:

• Care Bears:^[12]I know that the comparison to the “Care Bears” franchise is meant to be an insult, and I generally refrain from insulting others, but this is actually the jargon Diplomacy players use. Also, I’ve never known someone to take offense at this term. It’s kind of cute I guess. … Continue reading Some players take pleasure in not playing for a solo win. Understanding that the game typically ends in a draw anyways, and enjoying gameplay with minimal backstabbing of their allies, these players deliberately play for a draw. Often, this results in an agreed-upon draw between 3 or 4 players who eliminate the rest and then vote draw.^[13]In some games, a solo win becomes out-of-reach for any remaining power. For example, there may be 3 equally-strong big powers, none of whom could ever defeat the other 2. When that happens, those big powers might finish off the smaller powers  and then vote draw. In this situation, it’s not … Continue reading
• Desperados:^[14]My term. Eventually, some powers will start declining (losing). The chances of getting a solo win are already small, and the chances of doing so from a losing position are even more remote. Although it is theoretically possible to recover from a losing position^[15]In my mind, a losing position is 3 or fewer supply centers. and somehow get a solo win, the number of times this has actually happened is so infinitesimal that it should be considered impossible for practical purposes. So once a player is severely in decline (or close to elimination), that player can only really play for a draw.
  • The tried-and-true strategy for worming into a draw as a small power is to supercharge someone else. You help the strongest power get as close to a solo win as possible without causing them to win the game. If you do this correctly, it should force all the other powers to form a defensive coalition that includes you.^[16]I usually call this “sneaking into the draw.” Sneaking into the draw is a realistic strategy, so long as your units (or the non-interference of your units) is necessary to maintain a stalemate line. I’ve gotten into countless draws with a mere single unit remaining in Portugal, … Continue reading
  • Watch out! Desperados might slip-up and accidentally allow a someone to solo win.
  • Watch out! Desperados will throw the game if you try to eliminate them; that’s the only recourse they have. The vast majority of players will throw the game to spite someone who plays for their elimination.
• Revenge-Seekers: Experienced Diplomacy players will only backstab when they know the victim will be crushed by that backstab. Accordingly, most victims of a backstab are so diminished that they no longer have any hope of a solo win (and sometimes, little hope of getting into a draw either). However, it can take several more turns to fully eliminate a player who has been attacked this way. Some backstab victims will try to limp into a draw as best they can (as a Desperado).  However, that might mean helping the traitor who just brutally inflicted the backstab. Some players have too much pride (or something) to do that, and they follow a different plan: R-E-V-E-N-G-E. Revenge-seekers, after they become a victim of a backstab, spend the rest of the game trying to destroy the chances of winning for the player who stabbed them.

These three ways of playing (Care Bear alliance play, desperately seeking a draw, and all-out revenge) are probably the most common responses to the difficulty of attaining a solo win in any particular game of Diplomacy. There are other attitudes that are harder to define, but what they all have in common is that these attitudes value something other than winning. For example, I sometimes meet players who feel proud of themselves for avoiding backstabbing, or who backstab just for the thrill of doing so, even though both of these attitudes are usually counter-productive to getting a solo win.

My preliminary point in a nutshell: “Victory,” in the form of a solo win, is shockingly difficult to attain in Diplomacy compared to other board games. However, players still want to have fun. Therefore, they find the fun in seeking other goals (or “victories”) in addition to or instead of seeking a solo win. It is crucial for you to empathize with these attitudes, or you will struggle to understand my later points on why so many players prefer draw-size scoring.

Part II: How Sum-of-Squares Differs from Draw-Size Scoring

First, let me explain webDiplomacy’s point system. When a player starts a new game of Diplomacy, that player puts down an amount of points that anyone who joins is required to “bet.” Players on webDiplomacy get 100 points automatically, but to obtain more points a player has to win them from games. Obtaining a lot of points can feel like an accomplishment in itself, and it also means that a player can “afford” to join games with other experienced players.

Let me point out that most webDiplomacy players do not really care about the points. They care far more about their “Ghost Rating,” which ranks players by examining who they play against and weighing each match equally (similar to the Elo system in Chess). But to be clear, the Ghost Rating system also takes into account the scoring system used in a given match so that the effect on a player’s point total and Ghost Rating will be the same.

With that aside, let me explain the way that these two scoring systems are the same so that the differences are clear. For solo wins and for eliminations, there are no differences.

In either system, a win is a win; if a player acquires 18 or more centers, that player takes the entire pot of points and is the sole winner. All other players lose. There is no second place.

In either system, elimination is a loss. A player who is eliminated^[17]Which means reduced to zero units, not zero centers — be careful not to vote draw until the builds phase is over and players with zero centers have disbanded all their units! gets nothing.

The difference between these two scoring systems, as far as the actual rules go, only applies when the players have all voted for a draw.

Draw-Size Scoring

Draw-size scoring means that the drawing players split the pot of points evenly. It doesn’t matter if a player has 1 center or 17 centers. The number of centers the player has at the end of the game makes no difference in terms of points awarded to the player.

This is very simple and easy to understand.

Sum-of-Squares Scoring

Sum-of-Squares scoring takes into account the number of supply centers controlled by each player at time of the draw. The number of players sharing the draw does matter for calculating a player’s point-take, but the more important factor is how many centers that player controlled at the end of the game.

Specifically, the players split the pot according to a formula. Each player’s take is calculated by multiplying the pot by a fraction created by squaring their respective scores. This method of calculating points means that each additional supply-center controlled at the end of the game greatly increases that player’s share of the pot, and that players with just 1 center receive very little.

Note: A given player’s point take will NOT be measured by the percentage of the total map that the player controls; that player’s point take will be the percentage of the pot equal to the square of that player’s supply-center count divided by the sum of all the squares of each player’s supply center count.

(Player A’s SC count)^2 / ( (Player A’s SC count)^2 + (Player B’s SC count)^2 [etc…] )

Let’s look at some example results:

Scenario 1: typical 3-way draw

Player A has 16, Player B has 11, Player C has 7.

Player A takes 60.1%. Player B takes 28.4%. Player C takes 11.5%.

Even though Players B and C control more than 50% of the map, they do not take even 50% of the points between them.

Scenario 2: Player A reaches 17 before drawing

Player A has 17, Player B has 10, Player C has 7.

Player A takes 66.0%. Player B takes 22.8%. Player C takes 11.2%.

By capturing even 1 more center from B, Player A has a take that is increased by 6% (which is ten percent more of the pot, relatively speaking, than 60%). And look! Some of the additional percentage that goes to A comes from C’s score (which has decreased 0.3%), even though C has the same number of SCs as scenario 1.

Scenario 3: a 4-power alliance stops a solo win attempt

Player A has 17, Player B has 9, Player C has 5, Player D has 2, Player E has 1.

Player A takes 72.25%. Player B takes 20.25%. Player C takes 6.25%. Player D takes 1.0%. Player E takes 0.25%.

Player A has achieved the same result as scenario 2 (17 supply centers) but has a massively increased take of the pot because these small powers remain (who themselves take next to nothing, despite being a part of the draw).

Take a moment to consider what the different scores of these 3 scenarios means for players’ tactical and strategic decisions, especially compared to how that thinking would be in a draw-size game.

Part III: Comparing the Strategic Implications of the Systems

Have you thought about it for a little while? I hope so. See how your analysis compares to mine.

1. Draw-Size scoring encourages allies to play strategically; Sum-of-Squares scoring encourages greed.

With draw-size scoring, the only supply-center counts that really matter are 0 (elimination), 1 (still in the game), and 18 (solo win). Every supply-center count between 1 and 17 (inclusive) will net you the same result if all the players vote draw.

Collapsing the distinction between 1, 17, and everything in between has many interesting implications:

• The focus of draw-seeking players is on elimination of other players, rather than on increasing their individual supply-center count. This makes it worthwhile to form alliances that may not result in one of the members actually getting any supply centers. For example, Italy can remain a modestly-sized power while playing for a 3-way draw with allies Germany and Austria, because the goal is to eliminate Russia, Turkey, England and France — not to gain supply centers for Italy.
• It’s no big deal to cede centers to your ally, especially if there is a strategic benefit. If the game ends in a draw, there is no tabulation of supply centers. So handing one over to an ally to allow that ally to make a useful build is something most players will not hesitate to do. This can be especially useful when a specific kind of unit (army or fleet) is needed in a specific area of the map in order to accomplish a strategic goal (like breaking a defensive position or establishing a stalemate line).
• A player who is only interested in gaining centers (and ignores finishing off weaker powers) gives away their ambition to achieve a solo win. In draw-size scoring, virtually every player will assert that they are playing for a draw. But a player who is seeking a solo win does not need to spend time and effort finishing off powers — to the contrary, keeping around a lot of half-dead powers lays the foundation for a solo win. This creates a lot of interesting and intriguing gameplay around the politics and tactics of dealing a death blow to small powers.

And there’s one HUGE difference: Draw-Size scoring deters revenge-seeking and nihilism.

Scroll back up and think about my Scenario 3. The difference, in points, between winning and losing for players D and E is next to nothing. Near-dead players, at 1 or 2 centers, get almost none of the points, even if their cooperation was absolutely essential to stopping a solo win. When the results of drawing and losing to a solo win are virtually identical, far more players will choose to throw the game to a solo-win attempt rather than struggle to maintain a stalemate. Remember what I said about “Revenge-Seekers”? Well, revenge (in the form of throwing the game) is greatly incentivized by sum-of-squares scoring. Sum-of-Squares scoring is a scoring system that offers almost zero reward to the “Desperado” attitude I explained earlier, and little consequence (to that player) for the “Revenge-Seeker” attitude.

And, even if a player isn’t motivated to throw the game on purpose out of vengeance, a near-death player has nevertheless at least been disincentivized from caring about the match that they’re in. The difference between winning and losing is very slight, so that player is very likely to stop caring about the quality their orders, responding timely to press, or sending thoughtful messages to other players. High-level Diplomacy gameplay, especially press Diplomacy, involves a great deal of thought and a time commitment. When there’s so little at stake anymore, most players just give up and start a new game.^[18]I am aware that we are talking about completely fictional “points” that do nothing at all in real life, and/or a player’s rank in a very obscure hobby. But that observation is neither here nor there. If the players really don’t care about their points, rank, or result … Continue reading

So this is where I’ll start blatantly editorializing, because frankly I think sum-of-squares scoring is ridiculous and refuse to play by that scoring method whatsoever. This nihilism problem is the main reason.

In draw-size scoring, the only supply center that really matters is your very last one. If you can hold out, hang on for dear life, and get or maintain control of a critical supply center that sits on a stalemate line, you stand a reasonable chance at getting into the draw and having that enormous effort rewarded accordingly.

Remember what I said in Part I about how in 95-99% of games, you’ll be eliminated or wind up playing for a draw anyways? Since your games will, more often than not, be games where you are a small or declining power who is playing for a draw, you should want that experience to be rewarded somehow. Fighting hard, making deals, thinking strategically about how to decline in such a way as to preserve your chance of getting into the draw — such things are all just as interesting and fun to think about and accomplish as trying to get a solo win. Yes, you heard me right: in my personal experience, trying to sneak into a draw is about as much fun as attempting a solo win.^[19]One day, I’ll write a whole article about how to “sneak into draws” with just 1 or 2 points, which is something I try to do (and succeed at) pretty often. It’s so much fun!

Not only do I find that kind of gameplay fun for myself, I enjoy playing with other players who take the same attitude. I enjoy trying to recruit small or near-dead powers into my alliance, and when an equal share in the draw is always on the table for those players, they respond, try to stick around, strike deals, make thoughtful choices with their moves, etc. It’s a lot of fun!

By comparison, playing a game with a nihilistic player is often boring, frustrating, and can ruin what might have been a really fun match. It’s absolutely miserable when you are trying to form a defensive alliance that will prevent a solo win, and one of your fellow players has become indifferent to the match because they’re losing. They won’t respond to your messages, they won’t make good moves, and they may even throw the game. It’s also very un-fun to lose to a solo win that you knew was easily preventable. You won’t feel like the winner “deserved” to win at all.

And if you’re serious about building up your skill at this hobby, you won’t find it very satisfying to win under such circumstances either (more on that later).

“Dotting” neighbors is annoying

Sum-of-Squares scoring encourages you to “dot” your neighbors, which means to capture their supply centers on the Autumn turn without any intention to make follow-up attacks. In any game of Diplomacy, this can be tactically wise: you might want to deny a player a build that they could use again you, or prevent them from building at a home center. But sum-of-squares scoring adds an additional incentive to just take centers all the time because the number of centers you have will matter when the game ends in a draw. In draw-size scoring, the number of centers you have during the draw is irrelevant, so “dotting” someone is not something you would do just to boost your “score” because you don’t really have a score.

In any match of Diplomacy, you have to worry about being backstabbed by your allies, and watching out for that is already a lot of work. In sum-of-squares scoring, your allies have an incentive to “dot” you all the time, even when there’s no realistic way for them to solo win or to eliminate you. Simply put, this greed interferes with the fun of alliance play, which for many players makes the game a little less fun.

Treating more supply centers as more “winning” is un-strategic

Have you ever played the card game Magic: the Gathering? In case you haven’t, I’ll explain the important part.^[20]I have played Magic: the Gathering for more than 15 years and taught dozens of players how to play.

In Magic: the Gathering, each player starts with 20 life. If a player reaches zero life, that player loses. The life itself doesn’t directly do anything; having more or less life usually has no effect on the game state. When I’m teaching new players to play the game, they tend to think of their life total as a “score” and that this “score” going to down constitutes losing (or that bringing down their opponent’s life constitutes winning) — as though Magic: the Gathering were a game like basketball. This warps their thinking and causes them to over-value the importance of life.

Magic: the Gathering is a strategy game where your strategic situation matters for more than the precise life totals of the players. A player who gains a strategic advantage will often win the game, regardless of how the life totals have fluctuated. In many games, allowing your life total to decline is worthwhile if it allows you to gain a strategic advantage on the board. Indeed, it is common for a player to “stabilize” the board after getting as low as 5 or less life (while the opponent still has all 20), and then in just a few turns wipe all out 20 life from their opponent (using the strategic advantage). In Magic: the Gathering, generally speaking, the only point of life that really matters is your very last one.

So when I teach new players to play Magic, I often find them sacrificing their strategic advantages just to keep a few points of life. This is typically poor gameplay that I have to correct if they are to become better players one day. However, the life point values can’t be completely ignored. Therefore, strategy arises: how much is each point of life really worth in a given game? When is it worthwhile to give up a strategic advantage to take away a certain amount of life from the opponent? These questions are difficult to answer, which is part of why Magic: the Gathering is one of the greatest and most popular games ever created.

There is an analogy here to Diplomacy. Draw-size scoring encourages “strategic” thinking in that there’s more going on with the board than just the number of supply centers (points, life) each player has. The players are encouraged to think critically about what each supply center will mean for the overall state of the board, and whether a given supply center is actually worthwhile to conquer. These questions are difficult to answer, which helps make Diplomacy one of the most challenging (and fun!) games ever created.

So what I’m saying here, Matt, is that most players, including myself, do not want to view the supply-center total as a “score” and do not think that a player with 10 is necessarily “better” than a player with 3. Right now, it sounds like you do think of the supply-center total as a “score” and so you think that sum-of-squares scoring more accurately reflects your approach to the game. And for that matter, if you are in a match with sum-of-squares scoring, you better think of your supply-center count as your score, because that’s what it is.

Sum-of-squares scoring encourages simplistic thinking, because the supply centers are per se the goal each player is trying to attain (as opposed to draw-size scoring where the goal is eliminations and not per se the conquest of supply centers). This would kind of be like a (fictional) variant of Magic: the Gathering, where the winner was the player who had the most life by a certain time (like basketball, where the winner is whoever has the most points when the clock runs out). Such a rule would simplify much of the strategic complexity of Magic, as the metagame would disfavor (or even eliminate) strategies that sacrifice life for other advantages.

Sum-of-squares scoring, similarly, has the effect of simplifying the strategy of Diplomacy, an effect that most players do not want.

[Edit—I have written more on the folly of counting supply centers: Solo Win Tip #1: Forget the Numbers Game]

2. Wanting a Higher Frequency of Solo Wins is Fetishistic

In Part I, I explained how solo wins are so rare and difficult. This makes solo wins interesting, prestigious, and makes them feel like a significant accomplishment. A solo win is damn difficult to achieve, and everyone knows it. Some players are so proud of their rare solo wins that webDiplomacy players sometimes write on their player profiles each occasion they achieved a solo win! ^[21]I used to do that, but eventually I got too many games under my belt for that to matter to me anymore.

Sum-of-Squares scoring sort of “changes the rules”^[22]I appreciate that I’m using loaded language by referring to sum-of-squares scoring as a “change” from draw-size scoring, in that it portrays sum-of-squares as somehow deviant. I nevertheless refer to sum-of-squares as a “change” because I do think it is a deviation … Continue reading in order to make solo wins more achievable (sum-of-squares encourages greedy play and “dotting”-style backstabbing, leaving near-dead powers alive, and nihilism/revenge from near-dead powers, all of which facilitate solo wins). Making solo wins easier to attain contradicts the underlying reason why solo wins seem so desirable (they are rare and hard to get). This is why I say this attitude is “fetishistic.”

Fetishistic thinking is why some people are attracted to retail stores that label everything as a “sale,” “discount,” or “deal” even though the prices are the same as everywhere else; these individuals have come to value the label of a “sale” or “discount” more than the actual price — even though the purpose of a sale is to get a lower price! Similarly, it is possible to value the “solo win” label in Diplomacy more than the challenge that makes the win valuable in the first place (resulting in some players desiring a rule-set that makes solo wins easier to get).

3. Sum-of-Squares warps game balance

Now in your email, Matt, you pointed out that you think sum-of-squares is the preferable scoring system because rewards “aggression” and “risk-taking” instead of “turtling.” The starting point of your analysis is true, in the sense that you are correct in saying that sum-of-squares does not reward “turtling” (playing a strong defensive game) and only rewards “aggression” (because you need a huge number of centers at the end of the game to get something out of the draw). But where I, and so many other players (as you noticed) leave you behind, is that we see that as a horrible, game-warping problem for sum-of-squares scoring.

Sum-of-Squares scoring, by drastically lowering the point-take of a player who winds up with a modest or small number of centers by the time of the draw, unbalances the game against defensive and slow strategies, and against the powers that favor such strategies.

In sum-of-squares scoring, the metagame is completely dominated by 1 single strategy: get as many centers as you possibly can, and then if you don’t get a solo win, vote draw. You must pursue this strategy no matter what power you are assigned, because if you don’t acquire a huge number of centers by the end of the game (ideally, the biggest number), you won’t get very much out of the draw.

In draw-size scoring, all-out aggression is still a viable strategy, but there are other viable strategies as well. Let’s look at two such alternative strategies.

Alternative A: A defensive game (“turtling”), where you absolutely refuse to admit defeat.

By making clever defensive guesses for many turns, you might drag the game out long enough to work your way into the draw. As I mentioned earlier, this is often the only viable strategic option for you. E.g, if you are Turkey and you have been attacked by an alliance of Italy and Austria, your only reasonable strategy is to play defense; the same goes for when you are England and you have been attacked by an alliance of France and Germany, and so on. In many games of Diplomacy, if you are attacked by 2 neighbors at the start, unless 1 of them gives up, you will be forced into playing a defensive game from the very beginning to the very end (and playing a strong defensive game is your best chance at getting 1 of them to give up attacking you).

Playing a defensive game can be very fun and challenging. Successfully fighting off your neighbors until you get a place in the draw is an interesting challenge, and “I refuse to lose!” is a fun way to play the game. Furthermore, it is more of a challenge and more interesting to fight against players who take a die-hard attitude and struggle all-out, every turn, for a place in the draw.

With sum-of-squares scoring, getting forced into a defensive game just feels unlucky. If you get attacked by your neighbors early on, the odds are very high that you won’t get many points from the draw, even if you put an immense amount of thought and effort into playing your defensive game. A lot of players, when put into this situation, just sort of give up (the nihilism problem) because, no matter how hard they fight, no matter how clever their defensive guesses are, they will likely never be rewarded by a significant share of the points.

Experienced Diplomacy players understand that they will be forced into playing a defensive game frequently, and therefore want to be rewarded for trying hard to stay alive. And they want their opponents to take the same attitude, so that it is challenging and fun to overcome a desperate player’s thoughtful defense.

Alternative B: A strategic game where increase your share of the draw by helping players get eliminated without getting a huge number of centers for yourself.

With draw-size scoring, it is reasonable to pursue a strategy where you help your allies eliminate other players without gaining control of very many (or any) supply centers for yourself. If you correctly guess that the game will end in a draw, then it doesn’t matter how many centers you have compared to your allies.

Now, if you want, you can still pursue a strategy of trying to maximize your supply-center count (and the possibility of a solo win attempt) in draw-size scoring. What I am saying here is that in addition to a conquest plan, there is this “purely strategic” plan where you focus on getting players eliminated. If the game ends in a draw, the reward is the same, so these two strategies are on equal footing.

For example, this purely-strategic plan is a common goal for Italian players in a draw-size scoring game. Italy has a lot of difficulty in actually conquering centers (compared to most powers), so in a draw-size scoring match it can be a reasonable plan to just help allies finish off your neighbors (e.g., to help Austria or Russia finish off Turkey, or to help England or Germany finish off France).

Another example of this strategy is an England-Germany alliance. In a draw-size scoring game, it is reasonable for England to propose this strategy to Germany: “I will help you take as many centers as possible, provided that you never ever build any fleets; I myself will take very few centers, and I promise not to build any armies.” This is a realistic plan, because if Germany continues to only build armies, Germany cannot threaten England — so England can freely help or allow Germany to conquer a large number of centers. And because England is not asking for very many builds, Germany can be much more aggressive in attacking through the center of the board with armies, because Germany does not need to maintain much of a defense against English builds. In sum-of-squares scoring, this kind of deal is not good for England, because England’s goal must be to get as many centers as possible. Germany should not believe an English player who claims he doesn’t want builds in a sum-of-squares scoring game. And so the far more likely scenario is that England will demand an “equal” number of supply centers to Germany, as a condition for alliance. This is a foolish plan for Germany to agree to, because an England with the same number of SCs as Germany is far, far more powerful than Germany because England is a corner power and Germany is in the middle.^[23]This is a really deep concept and is just too much to get into in this article. One day I’ll come back and write more on this. But the gist of this idea is that corner powers (or perhaps more specifically, England, France and Turkey) attain far more power with each build they get than the … Continue reading

I could go on and on with examples of alliances or strategies that don’t require getting many builds (or even depend on not getting many builds) — all of which are viable for draw-size scoring but unreasonable in sum-of-squares scoring.

So Matt, in your example, you think you deserve an additional reward for ending the game with a lot of centers due to your “aggression” and “risk-taking.” I get you. But I think you’re overlooking how a 3-center power might also deserve to be rewarded for “never giving up” and “playing strategically” — those are attitudes that most players want to be rewarded for having, and want their rivals rewarded for having as well. I think you are also overlooking that there is “risk-taking” when, in draw-size scoring, players deliberately avoid increasing their supply-count count for strategic reasons (e.g., in order to appease or support an ally).

Furthermore, diminishing the value of “defensive” and “strategic” play alters the game balance in terms of the actual powers

In Diplomacy, the powers are not all equally strong. That said, the game balance between the seven powers is fairly close to being equal. One thing that makes the powers almost-equally-balanced is that each power has inherent weaknesses and strengths. Some are better at aggression and solo wins, other are better at defense, and others are well-placed for fighting for a draw. I’m sure you can guess where I’m going with this: if the rules disproportionately reward aggression, then the rules disproportionately reward getting assigned an aggressive power. When you start a new game of Diplomacy, each of the 7 powers is assigned at random. Why would you want the players to be rewarded for something that was random? The lack of randomness in the gameplay is often what attracts people to play Diplomacy in the first place.

For example, Italy is well-known as a power that has a hard time getting a solo win and a hard time expanding, but also a strong ability to play for a draw. This is because Italy is difficult to attack, and because Italy can make clever interventions on the board that tilt the game towards a draw that includes Italy. By contrast, Austria is well-known as a power that can be easily and swiftly destroyed due to its indefensible starting position, but that has a strong ability to get solo wins because of its explosive growth potential (due to its central position and straightforward solo-win plan). In draw-size scoring, Italy and Austria are mostly on equal footing, because playing for draws without growing much (Italy’s forte) is as potentially as rewarding as explosive growth (a strategy Austria is far more suited to pursue than Italy). In sum-of-squares scoring, Italy (like all powers when playing with that scoring system) faces this awkward pressure to grow as much and as fast as possible, even though such a strategy is far easier to pursue with the non-Italian powers.

Part IV: Why have Sum-of-Squares scoring at all?

To be frank, I think sum-of-squares scoring only makes sense in a tournament context. In a tournament, there are two things going on that make sum-of-squares more worthwhile.

First, a tournament usually has turn or time limits on the game, after which there will be a mandatory draw. This means many games will end in a draw by operation of the tournament rules rather than the unanimous vote of the players. Due to this, players can end up in a draw who actually would have been eliminated if the game had proceeded to its logical strategic conclusion. It takes time to whittle down a draw, and that is something that has to be cut out of the game in a tournament setting. Furthermore, there are often players who would have had a solo win if the game had proceeded to its logical strategic conclusion, so it is often fair to reward a player with 15-17 centers with a huge chunk of the points.

Second, a tournament is usually hoping to distinguish the players from each other in a clear ranking system. Considering that there is usually a time or turn limit that results in a mandatory draw, the matches will end up with a disproportionate number of draw-outcomes and number of players included in those draws. In this context, it if everyone just got a “draw” put on their tournament scorecard, the final results of, say, 4 rounds might show an enormous number of players with 3-4 draws and nothing else to distinguish them (which would be disappointing).

The time/turn limits in tournaments also inherently encourage aggression, so it makes sense for the scoring system to reflect the success of that aggression.

Conclusion

So why do most players prefer to play their one-off games of online Diplomacy with draw-size scoring and not sum-of-squares scoring? Matt, you correctly anticipated one of the reasons, but there’s much more to it. Here’s my summary:

• Draw-Size scoring rewards slow, thoughtful, strategic gameplay that most players enjoy and expect from games of online Diplomacy (which usually last 1-3 months). Aggressive, greedy play can be a successful strategy in draw-size scoring, but draw-size scoring rewards many other strategies as well. Sum-of-Squares scoring only rewards aggression, and thus leads to shallower gameplay.
• Draw-Size scoring rewards players who hold out until the bitter end. This has two benefits: it makes defensive, declining games (which are common) more fun to play, and it encourages your opponents to fight like cornered animals against your solo win attempts (which makes a solo win a more prestigious and satisfying achievement).
• Because time limits pressure tournament-players into an aggressive style anyways, it makes sense for the scoring system to reflect the style of play that most players will use. But in isolated games of online Diplomacy (that is, not a tournament), there are no turn limits or time limits that are warping the gameplay. With unlimited time to fight the match down to its logical strategic conclusion, it makes sense for the scoring system to reward players for their overall participation and strategic choices, not just the number of centers they control.

Matt, I hope you find this article a satisfying answer to your question. Whatever method of scoring you use in the games you play, I hope you enjoy your games and continue to participate in this wonderful hobby for years to come. Thank you for showing interest in my blog. Write me again any time!

Edit—Here is Matt’s response to this post:

Thank you for the very detailed response. I enjoyed reading your post. The point that made it “click” with me was the comparison to life points in MTG. My friend Jeff (from your earlier post!) and I are both fans of CCGs.

Edit—a reader of this blog wrote a response to my article here, arguing the other side. He agreed to contribute his piece as a guest post!