Diplomacy is a complicated game. Now, there's an understatement! However, when learning how to play it, there is one source which can't be ignored: the creator of the game, Allan B Calhamer.
 |
| http://englishharmony.com/ |
Calhamer's article Objectives other than Winning (first published in IDA Diplomacy Handbook, 1974) was mainly written to correct the aberrant ideas about scoring systems in Diplomacy. The system he was writing mainly about is known as the 'Strong Second' system, but it also tells us about play when any scoring system is being used.
Calhamer's Design
Diplomacy was designed to be played as a one-off event. It was designed to be played face-to-face, around a table with all players present at the board. As such, when the Hobby diversified with play-by-mail games, then play-by-email and websites, as well as when it was played as a tournament or league, the game became something different.
Setting the game in these scenarios makes games variants - something different from the way it was designed to be played. There are different types of variants of Diplomacy: these are format variants. Others include rules variants (where the rules of the game change to, for instance, restrict communication), and map variants (where the game is played on different boards or map designs). There are many versions - and combinations - of these last two variant classes of games.
As such, the rules of Diplomacy have nothing to say - or a very limited say - about how format variants should be organised. It is common for these variants to include scoring systems, as they are about comparing a large player-base across a number of games, rather than a group of seven friends sat around a table playing a single game of Dip.
Scoring Diplomacy
It isn't surprising that, with tournaments, player groups and organised series of games, scoring systems were introduced. In this context, playing a game of Diplomacy that may end in a solo or a draw isn't enough to compare players who were playing in a different game, possibly at a different time. And human competitiveness being what it is, scoring systems allow for this comparison.
Tournaments
Tournaments tend to involve an early end to games. This is for practical reasons, primarily: tournaments tend to be played at organised, large gatherings of players, over a given period of time (often a weekend or an extended weekend). Were each game, in each round, played to a finish, with a solo victory, it wouldn't be unusual to have one game still being played come Sunday night that was started one or two days before!
So tournament games will have a set time when they end. Often this is a set game-date; when a game reaches the end of a given game-year, the game is over (the game end date). All survivors when the GED is reached score points.
With tournament scoring the difficulty is in differentiating scores in drawn games, simply because the vast majority of games will end in a draw; there simply isn't time for a player to solo in most games. There have arisen two types of scoring systems, then: one is based on draws and the outcome of games, the other on positions in a game when it ends, usually based on supply centre count - powers with more SCs being scored more highly.
Neither of these systems is great. With draw-based scoring, players will play negatively, aiming simply to survive. Achieving this goal is enough to score points. With SC-count systems, players will play more naturally but will also tend to be opportunistic and grab SCs when they can, especially towards the end of the game. The latter can be more exciting but is no less a poor reflection of how the game ought to be played.
Series of games
There are two main types of series: a league-like format, which is finite; it will start at a given point and end at a given point, allowing a victor to be proclaimed at the end or, perhaps, a final game to be played between the top seven players. The other is an on-going series; here there is no end point: games continue to be played and players ranked over a continually extending period.
If the games are played face-to-face, then there are still time constraints. Games still need to end while players can play them! If the games are played remotely, by email or on a website, time constraints shouldn't be a problem, although in a game that goes on indefinitely, possibly extended by a 'Mule', people will eventually have to drop out, either through real-life considerations or a perceived advantage in leaving a game to start a new one.
There is also still the need to differentiate between games that end in a draw. Whilst time constraints may affect the game, they are less of an issue in remote play and should mean games can be played to a finish. However, this isn't always the situation.
One reason for this is that a game may break down into a form of stalemate. One alliance structure may be facing another and be equally matched. A Grand Alliance of players formed to stop a potential solo victory may mean that a game can't be won. In both these situations players may perceive no way to end an alliance without losing.
It may also be that a game reaches the point were players recognise that it won't end in a solo, regardless of fixed alliance structures. In this situation, a draw may be the only reasonable outcome.
Less acceptably, and more to do with the fact that a scoring system is being used, a game may reach the point where one or more players recognise that they are in a good position to maximise their result(s) from the game, with regard to the scoring system being used, and propose a draw which is accepted.
Scoring systems and the metagame
There are lots of issues with scoring systems, therefore. They have a major impact on how players approach a game, what I call the player's philosophy. Once scoring is introduced, if you aim to do well in the tournament or series you will play to that system.
There is also the recognised problem of what we can call the 'metagame'. This is where the way you play in a game of Diplomacy is affected by outside forces. In this context, the scoring system: the game you are playing is part of a bigger series and so you play with regard to the series, not to the game as a separate entity.
Meta-gaming, in Dip, has many meanings. It may be playing with an ally who you know from outside the game - a friend, relative or work colleague - to maximise your result from the game. For instance, friends may ally regularly simply because they know each other, making the game unbalanced. It may be that you are playing, simultaneously, in two (or more) games with the same player and you promise actions in one game if the other player performs actions in the other.
The 'metagame', however, is something different. This is playing towards objectives in a game to further objectives in a wider series of games. It may be something as simple as showing yourself to be trustworthy, encouraging players to trust you, by maintaining alliances in games. It could also be playing simply to maximise your result with regard to the scoring system.
Other Than Winning
Calhamer's article was about the 'Strong Second' scoring system that had emerged from scoring systems used in Diplomacy. Let's start, then, with this scoring system.
The 'Strong Second' scoring system
Let's start with Calhamer's explanation of why he wrote the article. There was a debate about how games should be scored and Calhamer identifies two distinct 'schools' of thought: the 'Win Only' school and the 'Strong Second' school.
The "Win Only" school believes that the secondary objective should be to draw the game; the "Strong Second" believes in rating performances other than wins and draws.
I have selected the part of Calhamer's opening paragraph which relates to scoring; however, he also makes it clear that this reflects a bigger question about how the game is played:
The long argument ... is really an argument over what the player’s objectives should be in cases in which he has little or no hope of winning, or in which he is playing to win but wishes to keep a second objective in reserve.
Just to be clear, although Calhamer gives two scenarios where this debate has an impact, these two scenarios are the whole of the game, as far as objectives are concerned (although I'm assuming, here, that no player would enter a game with the objective of losing).
When you play a game - any game - you enter it to win or do the best that you can. In the rules of Diplomacy, there are two objectives, as Calhamer states in his article:
It is not wholly clear why the draw is not an adequate secondary objective. ... The draw, of course, is the only objective other than victory that is recognised by the Rulebook.
There is, of course, the lovely objective of enjoying the game. This is the only reason for playing any game, however, in doing anything with your leisure time. So this isn't an objective which has any impact on the specific objectives of playing Dip. (As you'll see in this series, it is the objective most often quoted by those who believe that getting the best result you can from the game isn't an objective that they want to play towards.)
So, what was the Strong Second system?
Some players have regarded "second place", "third place", and so forth as suitable objectives other than victory, sometimes regarding them as better than a draw. Some have regarded only "strong Second", second place with, say, 10 units or more, as an appropriate object other than victory. Some have credited "survival" - but by this term they have meant survival until another player achieved victory, not indefinite survival through win or draw.
In other words, it's complicated.
Calhamer identified two schools; there were - as always - multiple schools where different variations of the big idea live. However, the main idea behind the Strong Second philosophy was that places on the board, based on the number of SCs held, was more important than preventing someone winning outright. If you don't have a chance of winning, play to improve your position.
If you read Calhamer's article, you'll see that he pulls out some distinct examples of why this isn't a good system. If you're in second place, and the leader is within reach of victory, you would be able to help the leader win and get the credit for finishing second. Alternatively, the leader could offer this deal to you.
Why not the Strong Second System?
When you consider Diplomacy, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with this system. To win, you need to collect supply centres until you own 18+ SCs, when the game ends. The Strong Second system simply reflects that the more SCs you control, the better you have done in approaching this objective. In short, Diplomacy is about collecting SCs.
Well, this is true up to a point but that point is the winning point. In other words, the only reason to collect SCs is to win the game. If you don't actually win, what good is collecting SCs? After all, the objective is to win, or do the best you can - and the only other result than a win is a draw.
Calhamer gives this argument. Rather than quoting him verbatim, I'll summarise it. He says that a winner has achieved the objective of Diplomacy which, in game terms, is to own 18 SCs; in the historical context, to achieve hegemony over Europe.
Assuming one player achieves this, what is the position of everyone else in the game? 18 SCs is the majority of SCs on the board - hegemony. Combining all the SCs controlled by every other player results in a lesser number than those controlled by the victor. In the historical context, Europe may not be under direct rule of one power, but it is under the control of that power.
Calhamer accepts that, if the game where to continue, it is feasible that the lesser powers may be able to recapture one or more SCs. The point is, the game doesn't continue; it has been won; it is over. One player has one - yay! - and the others have lost - boo! It's over.
So, you've finished on 16 SCs, which means there are only two survivors - you and the winner. You lost. You gained more SCs than five players, who were all eliminated. Still, you lost.
You've finished on 15 SCs, with the only other survivor, other than the victor, who finished on just 1 SC. You did much better than him, didn't you? In terms of owning SCs. But you - and the player who finished on just the single SC - lost.
There is no scenario in which one player wins the game where any other player did anything other than lose. It doesn't matter whether you were eliminated, or finished second (on SC count): you all lost because someone else won.
Calhamer hammers this home with a more nuanced argument. If you finished second, but lost, the question has got to be, why did you lose? There are some situations where it couldn't have been helped. Perhaps the victor established herself a position where she couldn't be stopped no matter what; her strategic position had become unbeatable. However, the question should be asked: why didn't the other players recognise this position being established early enough to prevent it?
The usual reasons a victory is achieved (given a game where nobody drops from the game, giving one player a distinct advantage which is unstoppable) are that there was an Armoured Duck in the game who just kept doing what he was doing idiotically, that there was a Kingmaker in the game who played deliberately to help the eventual victor, or that the other players were simply too mulish and therefore couldn't form an effective opposition.
Where does the fault lie? In the first two examples given above, with the mules who took the roles of Armoured Duck or Kingmaker. In the latter example, it lies squarely with the players who lost - every one of them. You finished second? You were in the best position to obstruct the winner; you were the player who ought to have been merging the opposition into a Grand Alliance.
Or perhaps you were playing to finish second? Well, congratulations, you lost. And you lost just as much as the players who survived but controlled fewer SCs than you, and those who were eliminated.
Lessons
Today, I am not aware of a scoring system that recognises the Strong Second system, as such. Even with a scoring system that involves SC count, a victory will award points to the victor alone. Well, almost; there is the odd system that doesn't take this view completely, awarding 'bonus points' for achievements at stages of the game. These, in themselves, are ridiculous: the point of the game is to win; what on earth is going on when a player can gain points for something she's achieved before the game ends?
However, the issue today is what happens when a game ends in a draw? I discussed tournaments earlier. Scoring systems in tournaments often use SC count when a game ends in a draw. This is somewhat understandable as the vast majority of tournament games will end in a draw; simply scoring the draw will mean that a lot of players will finish the tournament on equal points, making differentiation between players almost impossible. In this situation, there needs to be some way to differentiate further, and SC count is one way to do it.
My problem with most scoring systems, however, is that they seem to throw away the idea Calhamer had for the game, the way it was designed. Looking back at the second post in this series, I pointed out that his idea was that players should play to win but, failing that, to play to prevent someone else from winning.
This also comes through in this article. In fact, he says:
This final attempt to contain the leader is sometimes one of the most dramatic and exciting parts of the game. Co-operation must be created among players who have been fighting one another ...; they must admit that goal[s] they have pursued all game long, which are now within their grasp, have just lost their value, and may even be destructive. Frequently, they are out of position for the new encounter, and are better positioned to fight each other. They must form a line together, exposing their territories to each other. This is not the co-operation of merely being assigned to the same team. This co-operation is hard won over difficulties. This is Verdun.
Most scoring systems used in tournaments place emphasis on winning but a more important emphasis - given that most games don't result in a victory - on SC count. Given that this can mean achieving a moderately-sized 'empire' and then playing to hold onto this, the latter stages of a game are about preventing SC loss or grabbing SCs opportunistically.
Perhaps this is a realistic solution to the problem of games ending before they've finished in tournaments, but it is unimaginative. No matter how complicated some of these systems seem, they come down to how many SCs you can collect. That isn't Diplomacy.
Heathley Baines (Nibbler)
Editor
The Series "How to Play Diplomacy"
Part 1: "Introduction"
Part 2: "Origins"
Part 3: "Corrections"
Part 4: "Deceptions and Betrayals"
Comments
Post a Comment