So recently I've been looking over a few Diplomacy articles
here, and it got me thinking.
I think it's important we be more clear in using a system for how we score games, so people understand what to expect and how they will be rewarded.
Specifically, I was thinking of using the Calhamer Points system. A win is worth 1 point. A draw gives (1/n) --where n is the number of players alive for the draw-- points to each survivor. A loss is 0 points. For the purposes of this system, having 16 supply centers to another power's 18 counts as a loss and 0 points.
I think this system favors winning if at all possible, and drawing if that's your only other option.
I might want to edit the Calhamer Points system slightly, to give more points to the single player with the most supply centers that gets forced to a draw. Considering a draw tends to be everyone versus one, I think a player should be rewarded for, if not securing an outright victory, at least being the dominant country in Europe. I'm thinking of making it (3/2) * (1/n) points for the winner, and the standard 1/n points for the others in the draw. This means the dominant player in a 3 way draw gets 1/2 points (same as if he were the equal share in a 2 way draw), while the others get 1/3. From there the points would decrease for everyone, but the dominant player would be the one with the most points.
Such an edit would still favor winning if at all possible, and drawing if that's your only other option, but then it would also provide more incentive for players to try and get to a point where they can stand on their own. I also don't think it's fair for a system to reward a 1 province minor the same as a 17 province behemoth.
What do you guys think? How should we score the game in the event of draws?