[EPIC - ADVANCED PLAYERS] RFC: Optional Fixed-End-Year Scoring Games

[JorenC]

RFC: Optional Fixed-End-Year Scoring Games

Context

Most online Diplomacy games today continue until a solo victory (18 SCs) or a draw is agreed by the remaining players.

However, many tournament and competitive Diplomacy formats do not work this way. Instead, games have a predefined end date (for example, Fall 1910). When that phase completes, the game ends automatically and the player with the highest supply center count is declared the winner.

This is how the majority of face-to-face and tournament Diplomacy is played. The objective is not necessarily to force a solo victory, but to maximize your position by a known endpoint.
Example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5fh3IMR-1U&t=9050s

For example:

• Game ends after Fall 1910 adjustments.
• Player A has 14 SCs.
• Player B has 12 SCs.
• Player C has 8 SCs.

Player A wins the game.

This differs from the traditional online Diplomacy experience, where players often continue playing long after the strategic outcome is effectively decided, waiting for a draw vote or a solo.

Proposal: Add Optional Fixed-End-Year Games

Add a game creation option that allows hosts to specify a phase where the game automatically ends.

Examples:

• End after Fall 1908
• End after Fall 1910
• End after Spring 1912

When the specified phase completes:

1. The game immediately ends.
2. The player with the highest SC count is declared the winner.
3. If multiple players tie for the highest SC count, the game is recorded as a draw between those players.

This would be entirely optional and disabled by default.

Traditional "play until solo or draw" games would continue to function exactly as they do today.

Why

Supports the Most Common Tournament Format

Many tournament organizers already run games with fixed endpoints.

Currently, these formats require manual administration or external scorekeeping.

Supporting them natively would make the platform more attractive for competitive and organized play.

Reduces Late-Game Fatigue

Many games reach a point where the likely outcome is already apparent, but players must continue for many more years before a solo or draw becomes possible.

A fixed endpoint creates a clear objective and allows players to focus on maximizing their final position rather than grinding through an increasingly static board state.

Better Experience for Newer Players

A common issue is that newer players abandon games once they feel they are losing.

Examples:

• "I only have 3 centers left."
• "There's no way I can win."
• "This game is going to take weeks more."

A known endpoint changes the psychology considerably.

Even a weaker position can remain meaningful if there are only a few game years remaining and every center matters.

This may reduce abandonment and keep players engaged longer.
This might even become a default options, to keep games from being stale. I would definitely want to try that for a while, to see how it changes the game dynamic - but for now, I'm just discussing HAVING it.

Encourages More Dynamic Play

Knowing the game will end on a specific year often creates:

• More tactical races for centers.
• More aggressive diplomacy.
• More meaningful mid-game decisions.
• Fewer endless stalemates.

The strategic question becomes:

"How many centers can I have when the clock runs out?"

rather than

"Can I eventually force a solo in twenty more turns?"

Similar to Other Competitive Games

Many strategy games effectively end before the losing side is completely eliminated.

Examples:

• In StarCraft, the goal is to get other players to typically resign once the outcome is clear rather than destroying the last unit (which is hiding somewhere on the map).
• In Chess, most (professional) games end in resignation rather than checkmate.

Fixed-end Diplomacy follows a similar philosophy: determine a winner at a meaningful competitive endpoint rather than requiring every game to be played to its absolute conclusion.

Proposed UI

Create Game

Add a new optional setting:

Game End Condition

• Fixed End Phase
  (Solo or Draw are always in effect - regardless of fixed end phase.

If "Fixed End Phase" is selected, show:

• End Year selector
• End Phase selector

Example:

• Fall 1908
• Fall 1910
• Spring 1912

Variant Support

This should work for custom variants as well as standard maps.

Rather than hardcoding years or phases, the selector should be generated from the variant definition of phase progression.

Possible display format:

1901 Spring 
1901 Fall 
1902 Spring
...
1910 Fall 

The available options would be based on:

• Variant start year
• Variant phase name

This ensures compatibility with custom calendars and non-standard variants.

Scoring

At the end phase:

Winner

The player with the highest SC count wins.

Ties

If multiple players are tied for the highest SC count:

• The game is recorded as a draw between those players.

No additional countback or tiebreak systems are proposed (although variants exist like 'countback' which on draw looks one turn before, if still drawn on emore, etc etc until one player has an SC more than the other - for now, let's not implement).

This keeps the system simple and opinionated while matching player expectations.

Open Quesions:

End of Which Phase?

The game should end, I think when an adjustment phase is reached - then SCs change ownership, and the 'final' score is calculated. This might impact the selector above (but depends on dymanic games where there are multiple adjustments per year - in this case, I think we should only allow ADJUSTMENT selectors.

Default Suggestions

For Classical, Fall 1910 is a common standaard. I think we can use a similar logic to have a similar number of turns for variants, but it would need to be calculated?

Visibility

How prominently should the end condition be displayed?

My inclination is that it should appear:

• In game listings
• In game details
• In-game header/status information

so players always know the target endpoint.

Summary

This proposal introduces an optional fixed-end-year victory condition where games automatically end at a selected phase and the player with the highest supply center count wins.

Benefits include:

• Better tournament support
• Reduced late-game fatigue
• Potential reduction in player abandonment
• More dynamic strategic play
• Compatibility with existing competitive Diplomacy formats

Traditional solo/draw games remain unchanged and continue to be the default experience.

Would love to hear thoughts, especially from tournament players and organizers who regularly use fixed-end scoring formats.

[johnpooch]

I like this idea. The gotchas to consider are how we produce the selector based on the phase progression. Phase progression for a variant is a little state machine object, so it feels a little bit finicky to use it for this. But I can't really think of any better way of doing it. The other small gotcha to consider is that I believe we allow for variants to have a final year baked into the variant definition itself. If that's the case, then this needs to be reflected in the available options.

I think this should appear on the advanced screen during game creation.

I agree that the game should end after the fall retreat phase of the selected year.

What I'd like to do before signing off on this is have Claude propose where the changes would need to be made for this feature to be supported. Specifically, I'd like to understand which parts of the proposed feature exist in the service versus the adjudicator. I'd also like to understand what UI changes would be required.

[JorenC]

Agreed, these would be good questions for Claude. I feel it should ALWAYS end at an adjustment phase - before building, but after updating SCs. That makes it a bit easier. If the final year is baked in the variant, that is obviously the upper limit, but good catch. Also here. Does not need to be now, but i see a phase where we focus on advanced/tournament users.

…

On Wed, 24 Jun 2026, 01:14 John McDowell, ***@***.***> wrote: I like this idea. The gotchas to consider are how we produce the selector based on the phase progression. Phase progression for a variant is a little state machine object, so it feels a little bit finicky to use it for this. But I can't really think of any better way of doing it. The other small gotcha to consider is that I believe we allow for variants to have a final year baked into the variant definition itself. If that's the case, then this needs to be reflected in the available options. I think this should appear on the advanced screen during game creation. I agree that the game should end after the fall retreat phase of the selected year. What I'd like to do before signing off on this is have Claude propose where the changes would need to be made for this feature to be supported. Specifically, I'd like to understand which parts of the proposed feature exist in the service versus the adjudicator. I'd also like to understand what UI changes would be required. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#856?email_source=notifications&email_token=ABXURGO6XQ3AF372534IQIL5BMFLVA5CNFSNUABIM5UWIORPF5TWS5BNNB2WEL2ENFZWG5LTONUW63SDN5WW2ZLOOQXTCNZUGEZTINRWUZZGKYLTN5XKMYLVORUG64VFMV3GK3TUVRTG633UMVZF6Y3MNFRWW#discussioncomment-17413466>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABXURGOCNHX4H2AG5ZXLRTD5BMFLVAVCNFSNUABIKJSXA33TNF2G64TZHM4TAMRZGA4DMMRQHNCGS43DOVZXG2LPNY5TCMBTGA4DONRZUF3AE> . You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.*** com>