I have largely enjoyed seeing players who fester with a territory or three in a corner punished with negative dominca scores. I've just finished a game, however, that shows a flaw in that system. I was spread out all over the map, one four stack and three threes, with others' fives all around me. There was no hope of connecting, so I just waited and dodged around some of the bigger stacks until I wound up fighting in a peninsula against another color (this is the SE peninsula on the Babyboo map). I never had more than three territories, but was surprised to have even one, considering I needed to win while outnumbered more than three time to get there. I managed to claw my way into second place and got +10 for my finish, but -15 for "dominance". Well, I was never going to be dominant in that game. Why should nations who attack and scrap and manage to survive to the end be punished just because they can't amass a huge empire? Perhaps the system should base "dominance" on the number of attacks instead of just occupying lots of territory. Someone with better game-design skills can correct me or make a better suggestion. I just don't see the fairness in getting points taken away for managing to live to the end against the odds.