4 base skirmishing BGs

[benos]

interesting suggestion martin. However i would be tempted to bulid an army designed to lose while taking some enemy with it.
Which could boost my score (then again i don't expect to get anywhere near winning and turn up to get games against new opponents so doubt my style of play is the problem) any scoring system will be subject to exploitation when the competition result is seen to be that important.
Ben

[lawrenceg]

Of course, if there was not a big VP bonus for breaking the oponent's army, there would be much less reason to complain about unbreakable armies.

And there would be more incentive to draw as you can get a relatively better placing in a tournament by drawing all four games

No, you get a relatively better placing by winning all four games.



However, the real problem is that when an army enters the Benny Hill phase, it is for all practical purposes defeated, but the definition of army rout does not recognise this.

By "for all practical purposes defeated" I mean all its BGs are dedicating all their effort to self-preservation by running away or hiding.

[hammy]

Of course, if there was not a big VP bonus for breaking the oponent's army, there would be much less reason to complain about unbreakable armies.

And there would be more incentive to draw as you can get a relatively better placing in a tournament by drawing all four games

No, you get a relatively better placing by winning all four games.

Err, how?
If you don't have a bonus for winning a game then the total points per game is fixed so a player getting a flat draw in every game will get half the potential points. If there is a win bonus then the default placing for drawing all four games will be below half way.

However, the real problem is that when an army enters the Benny Hill phase, it is for all practical purposes defeated, but the definition of army rout does not recognise this.

By "for all practical purposes defeated" I mean all its BGs are dedicating all their effort to self-preservation by running away or hiding.

True but this is nothing new to wargaming. I have played many a game of DBM where my opponent was desperately running away to preserve the last fraction of their army.

[hammy]

I think the major issue is that people don't like being unable to complete games and there are a number of reasons why games are not completed. The scoring system rewards players who win games with an extra 5 points. Perhaps what is needed is a system that rewards both players that complete a game, with the winner getting more points than the loser (maybe 10 for the win 5 for the loss). This would make both players in a game more keen to bring the game to a conclusion.

I am not convinced that the "looney tunes" phase when an opponent deperately tries to suicide their army to get more points would be any better than the "benny hill" phase when they try to run away.

To be honest there has not been much in the way of benny hill in my FoG games to date. Yes I have had uncompleted games but I don't see a problem with uncompleted games. I do have a problem with uncompleted non-games where my opponent simply doesn't try to play the game.

[ShrubMiK]

I think lawrence was just pointing out that, whatever the scoring system, 4 wins will always place you better than 4 draws

(Well - any even remotely sensible scoring system anyway!!!)

At the risk of stating the bleedin' obvious...Ideally you need a scoring system that doesn't reward a player who is currently losing for running away. Whilst still rewarding going for a win - on average - more than playing it safe.

Dealing with a situation where a player doesn't come out fighting to start with, perhaps because they are convinced that if they do so they will lose, is going to be a problem. with any scoring system, I imagine.

Something like 3-1-0 scoring should at least encourage players to set out for a win. This is only part of the problem solved.

If part way through they find they are already losing (i.e. such that the score would be 3-0 at this point) there is no point in them going Benny Hill...or if they do, the opponent can just ignore it and collect the points.

If the score would still be 1-1 if assessed at a given point in time but one player thinks that continuing to play "normally" will lead to them losing 3-0, then they may try to disengage and stay out of trouble. The assymetrical points scoring does still help a bit here - if the player estimates they have a 25% chance of winning, 25% chance of drawing, and 50% chance of losing by playing "normally" from the current position, they should probably do so, since their expected number of points will end up as 1. Increasing the win bonus to 4-1-0 means the chance of losing has to be even higher to make it worth running away.

Making the width of the "draw" result fairly narrow should help. That minimise the possibility of somebody who is extremely disadvantaged on the table, i.e. has miniscule chance of turning it round and winning, or even hanging onto a draw, if continuing to play "normally" trying to avoid the one more attrition point that would drop them to a loss. If "draw" really does represent roughly equal chances, even just 3-1-0 assymmetry in the scoring should be sufficient to make running away an unattractive choice.

Reducing the number of draws also helps to achieve decisive results in the tournament. If there were no draws at all, a 4 round Swiss system would produce a clear winner from 16 players, 2 joint winners from 32, etc.

A possible downside is that, just as you'd end up with 1 or a small number of players on maximum points, you would also end up with the same number on zero points!

Of course, as has been pointed out by others, if somebody really wants to play Benny Hill regardless of the fact that it disadvantages them in terms of tournament points socred and hence standing, because "not losing" is a more important aim for them - there's not much any sort of scoring system will do to change that behaviour.

[lawrenceg]

No, you get a relatively better placing by winning all four games.

Err, how?
If you don't have a bonus for winning a game then the total points per game is fixed so a player getting a flat draw in every game will get half the potential points. If there is a win bonus then the default placing for drawing all four games will be below half way.

If you win all four games you will get more than half the potential points in all the games.

However, the real problem is that when an army enters the Benny Hill phase, it is for all practical purposes defeated, but the definition of army rout does not recognise this.

By "for all practical purposes defeated" I mean all its BGs are dedicating all their effort to self-preservation by running away or hiding.

True but this is nothing new to wargaming. I have played many a game of DBM where my opponent was desperately running away to preserve the last fraction of their army.

Last century, smallpox was nothing new either, but that does not mean it wasn't a problem worth solving.

If the opponent is desperately running away to preserve the last fraction of their army then you have won. It doesn't matter if it is FOG, DBM or real life.

[david53]

I think the major issue is that people don't like being unable to complete games and there are a number of reasons why games are not completed. The scoring system rewards players who win games with an extra 5 points. Perhaps what is needed is a system that rewards both players that complete a game, with the winner getting more points than the loser (maybe 10 for the win 5 for the loss). This would make both players in a game more keen to bring the game to a conclusion.

I am not convinced that the "looney tunes" phase when an opponent deperately tries to suicide their army to get more points would be any better than the "benny hill" phase when they try to run away.

To be honest there has not been much in the way of benny hill in my FoG games to date. Yes I have had uncompleted games but I don't see a problem with uncompleted games. I do have a problem with uncompleted non-games where my opponent simply doesn't try to play the game.

To get to the bottom of this idea that Benny Hill seems to be taking over in FOG, the simple thing people need to do is keep a check on all there games in a compition and place there outcomes on the forum. Then with proper research it can be decided if there is a problum instead of people just saying it is happening and leaving it at that. Of course it would need to be worked out the percentage of compation games to friendly and club games as a total. Having it as a year long piece of research should give an average result overall. I would be more than willing to get people to PM the results thus keeping this confidential and work out the figures.

[rbodleyscott]

If the opponent is desperately running away to preserve the last fraction of their army then you have won. It doesn't matter if it is FOG, DBM or real life.

Very true, Lawrence - on the other hand Benny-Hilling can be regarded in that light as conducting a controlled withdrawal with the rest of the army, which is surely historically better than an out-an-out rout.

Also how do you represent this in terms of useable victory conditions?

How do you determine what constitutes "desperately running away to preserve the last fraction of their army"and what constitutes falling back with skirmishers in one area while advancing in another.

It is easy enough to spot the difference in most cases, but opinions may differ on the particular situation in a game, and how does that translate into a workable set of rules that do not require the intervention of a Kriegspiel type umpire to adjudicate?

I suspect that rather than attempt to adjudicate whether one side is Benny-Hilling or not, we might need to come back to something more similar to the victory conditions in the back of the rules, where AP difference is more important than whether the enemy army is broken in the time limit.

e.g. Using the system in the rules book:

Decisive Victory = 25:0
Major Victory = 20:0
Moderate Victory = 15:5
Minor Victory = 12:8
Draw = 10:10

Note that the losing player gains no extra points for Benny-Hilling if the enemy already reaches the threshold for Major victory. He still has an incentive to Benny Hill to deny that enemy the 5 point bonus, but that can reasonably regarded as performing a controlled retreat by the remnants of the army rather than an out and out rout.

This does give less spread of scores than the current system, but something based on the current proportional system could be used for tie-breaks.

[hammy]

No, you get a relatively better placing by winning all four games.

Err, how?
If you don't have a bonus for winning a game then the total points per game is fixed so a player getting a flat draw in every game will get half the potential points. If there is a win bonus then the default placing for drawing all four games will be below half way.

If you win all four games you will get more than half the potential points in all the games.

I am not sure how you interpreted my comments as anything to do with players who win games (OK I might have not presented it well but...). My point was that if you have no bonus for a win then a player who deliberately plays for four draws will end up placing higher in the tournament than they would if there is a 5 point win bonus.

The problem IMO is non-games, most of us go to tournaments to play games not to sit and be bored out of our skulls by someone who is happy to place half way in the comp by refusing to play the game.

[lawrenceg]

If the opponent is desperately running away to preserve the last fraction of their army then you have won. It doesn't matter if it is FOG, DBM or real life.

Very true, Lawrence - on the other hand Benny-Hilling can be regarded in that light as conducting a controlled withdrawal with the rest of the army, which is surely historically better than an out-an-out rout.

Also how do you represent this in terms of useable victory conditions?

How do you determine what constitutes "desperately running away to preserve the last fraction of their army"and what constitutes falling back with skirmishers in one area while advancing in another.

Easier said than done, or it would have been done.

One way would be to impose CTs on any BG that ends any move (except a charge or pursuit) further from the enemy, if your army is close to army rout. However, I don't expect a rule change.

It is easy enough to spot the difference in most cases, but opinions may differ on the particular situation in a game, and how does that translate into a workable set of rules that do not require the intervention of a Kriegspiel type umpire to adjudicate?

Well in boxing the referee can penalise you for not being aggressive enough, or stop the fight when it is clear who has won. I agree this is not practical for wargame comps. It might be interesting to call umpires to adjudicate Benny Hilling for research purposes, but again not practical if they are playing games themselves.

I suspect that rather than attempt to adjudicate whether one side is Benny-Hilling or not, we might need to come back to something more similar to the victory conditions in the back of the rules, where AP difference is more important than whether the enemy army is broken in the time limit.

e.g. Using the system in the rules book:

Decisive Victory = 25:0
Major Victory = 20:0
Moderate Victory = 15:5
Minor Victory = 12:8
Draw = 10:10

Note that the losing player gains no extra points for Benny-Hilling if the enemy already reaches the threshold for Major victory. He still has an incentive to Benny Hill to deny that enemy the 5 point bonus, but that can reasonably regarded as performing a controlled retreat by the remnants of the army rather than an out and out rout.

This does give less spread of scores than the current system, but something based on the current proportional system could be used for tie-breaks.

Simpler to make the 5 point bonus threshold within 10% or 20% of the AP needed for an army rout. So it's a "close enough" bonus. Then Benny Hilling only affects the score by 1 or two VP instead of 5 that can put you out of the running for prizes.

e.g.

+5 points if:

enemy 10 BG or less, within 2 AP of army rout
11-15 BG, within 3 AP of army rout
16-20 BG, within 4 AP of army rout
21+ BG, within 5 AP of army rout

If the opponent starts Benny Hilling earlier, you have more time to catch him and he has more BGs to try to keep safe.


Alternatively, just scrap the 5 point army rout bonus.

[lawrenceg]

The problem IMO is non-games, most of us go to tournaments to play games not to sit and be bored out of our skulls by someone who is happy to place half way in the comp by refusing to play the game.

What makes you think they would be any less happy to finish at the 40% mark by refusing to play the game?

The way I look at it,

With a special win bonus:

Both players try to win at risk of losing - good game even if it’s a draw.
One player tries to win, the other tries not to lose but loses - good game, winner satisfied, defensive player punished (he lost).
One player tries to win, the other tries not to lose and succeeds - near winner annoyed at missing out on his bonus, potential schadenfreude for the near loser but not many points.
One player tries to win but the risk goes wrong, the other tries not to lose and somehow wins - good game, the loser knew the risks and had fun taking them, the winner gets a big reward for defensive play.
Both players try not to lose and succeed - both satisfied.

Without special win bonus:

Both players try to win at risk of losing - good game even if it’s a draw.
One player tries to win, the other tries not to lose but loses - good game, winner satisfied, defensive player punished (he lost).
One player tries to win, the other tries not to lose and succeeds - near winner has consolation of nearly as many points as if he had won, near loser satisfied but not many points.
One player tries to win but the risk goes wrong, the other tries not to lose and somehow wins - good game, the loser knew the risks and had fun taking them, the winner gets a small reward for defensive play.
Both players try not to lose and succeed - both satisfied.

[grahambriggs]

If the opponent is desperately running away to preserve the last fraction of their army then you have won. It doesn't matter if it is FOG, DBM or real life.

Very true, Lawrence - on the other hand Benny-Hilling can be regarded in that light as conducting a controlled withdrawal with the rest of the army, which is surely historically better than an out-an-out rout.

Also how do you represent this in terms of useable victory conditions?

How do you determine what constitutes "desperately running away to preserve the last fraction of their army"and what constitutes falling back with skirmishers in one area while advancing in another.

It seems we need something that will cover the "last fraction of the army" bit with "running away to preserve it". And not a rules change but a change for competition scoring. And fairly simple to do. Hmm.

An idea would be to use the table edges. How about: minus half an AP for each steady or disrupted BG within 6MU of own base edge or (mebbe) own half of the side edges.

So, if your army is 15BGs and you've already lost 13 VPs you might currently be in the mode of run away everywhere. In which case you won't have licence to run everyone away to the extremities of the table as that would break your army.

If you're pushing in one area to break the enemy and falling back elsewhere it might help your strike force if the enemy has to think twice about running into the 6MU zone. And your falling back might also be limited. So it might cut down on that half hour Benny Hill scrample.

I've suggested 6MUs as that's the distance of the CHT penalty. There's also the fact that BGs evading off table give a 1AP penalty, so it might feel fright to have a smaller penalty if it's clear they're going to get pushed off in a couple of bounds time.

[chubooga]

another option would be to introduce some objectives onto the tables, each worth a set number of AP's, holding them takes that number of AP's off the enemy.....


e.g. a hill is designated as being worth 2AP's..... you stick some HF onto it and its yours, counting as 2 AP's 'lost' to my army until my boring LH / MF swarm shoot or manourver you off the hill.....

added benefit is that if all objectives are placed in the central 3' x 1' of the table then armies are encouraged to 'compete' in the centre..............

Number of objectives AP's to be a set value against the size of the enemies army or something similar.....

As you can tell, I havent thought this out completely, Im sure there bigger brains than my own to spot pros and cons of it all............

jon

[peterrjohnston]

I suspect that rather than attempt to adjudicate whether one side is Benny-Hilling or not, we might need to come back to something more similar to the victory conditions in the back of the rules, where AP difference is more important than whether the enemy army is broken in the time limit.

e.g. Using the system in the rules book:

Glad you agree!

This does give less spread of scores than the current system, but something based on the current proportional system could be used for tie-breaks.

The French were running big competitions in DBM with 310, I don't think they had any problems... IIRC they used losses as a countback, but getting 12 points was hard work anyway.

[philqw78]

e.g. Using the system in the rules book:

Glad you agree!

Does this mean I have to read some more rules. Or can I just fill the score sheet in as normal and the pixies will make the bad maths go away? Providing it means no effort to me I don't really care.

Which ever system you use people will change their games and their armies to cope with it.

AND I THINK 4 BASE SKIRMISH BG ARE REALLY USEFUL

[hammy]

I suspect that rather than attempt to adjudicate whether one side is Benny-Hilling or not, we might need to come back to something more similar to the victory conditions in the back of the rules, where AP difference is more important than whether the enemy army is broken in the time limit.

e.g. Using the system in the rules book:

I have played in a couple of comps that used the system in the rules and everyone (or at least anyone who had read the rules) was aiming to 'win' by inflicting 6 AP on the enemy for the loss of no more than 2 AP or 4AP for no loss then running for the hills. It was IMO deeply unsatisfactory.

[Ghaznavid]

I suspect that rather than attempt to adjudicate whether one side is Benny-Hilling or not, we might need to come back to something more similar to the victory conditions in the back of the rules, where AP difference is more important than whether the enemy army is broken in the time limit.

e.g. Using the system in the rules book:

I have played in a couple of comps that used the system in the rules and everyone (or at least anyone who had read the rules) was aiming to 'win' by inflicting 6 AP on the enemy for the loss of no more than 2 AP or 4AP for no loss then running for the hills. It was IMO deeply unsatisfactory.

Well that is partly caused by the rather granular nature and the simplicity of the system (everyone knows instantly where he stands right now).
It might be possible to use the full range of the 20-0+5 system for some finer gradings that might help here, something like:
10:10 = Draw
11:9 = 1 more
12:8 = 2 more
13:7 = 3 more
14:6 = 4 more and 2:1
15:5 = 5 more and 2:1
16:4 = 6 more and 3:1 or 8 more and 2:1
17:3 = 7 more and 3:1 or 10 more and 2:1
18:2 = 8 more and 4:1 or 12 more and 3:1 or 16 more and 2:1
19:1 = 9 more and 4:1 or 13 more and 3:1 or 17 more and 2:1
20:0 = 10 more and 4:1 or 15 more and 3:1 or 20 more and 2:1
+5 Bonus VP if you inflicted an Army rout (or possibly something close like Lawrence suggested).

Note: I just threw this together on the fly. I didn't think it fully through yet. So it might contain unnecessary or conflicting conditions or require tweaking to prevent possible abuse.

[gozerius]

Personally I think that the loss of a general should have more effect on an army than a one time CT for nearby BGs. Perhaps generals should count as 1 AP for TCs 2AP for FCs and 5AP for ICs. Because loss of commanders did have a dramatic effect on army morale which is in my opinion not well represented in the game. I have conceded more than one game (non-tournament) after losing a CinC because it just seemed the right thing to do.

By the way, I really like 4 stand BGs of skirmishers.

[Ghaznavid]

Personally I think that the loss of a general should have more effect on an army than a one time CT for nearby BGs. Perhaps generals should count as 1 AP for TCs 2AP for FCs and 5AP for ICs. Because loss of commanders did have a dramatic effect on army morale which is in my opinion not well represented in the game. I have conceded more than one game (non-tournament) after losing a CinC because it just seemed the right thing to do.

I disagree, while the loss of a commander could cause a collapse in moral this wasn't usually instant and there are also examples where it caused the opposite or no real effect (Theodoric's death at the Catalaunian Plains springs to mind, depending on how you read it his death either drove the Visigoths into frenzy or at least had no negative effect on them). The immediate test for all units that are likely to notice the commander being beaten (loss of a commander must not necessarily mean his death, just him being incapacitated for the remainder of the battle) and the loss of his ability to support and bolster troops is sufficient in my opinion and actually a good way to show the gradual loss of moral as the news spreads, if it doesn't happen it is obviously one of those cases where the loss had no effect on the army.

[philqw78]

I disagree, while the loss of a commander could cause a collapse in moral this wasn't usually instant and there are also examples where it caused the opposite or no real effect

This can even be seen in more modern battles. Also in battalion size actions the commander would be more well known to the troops and the news would spread a lot faster. Sunray is down. Instant.