Scoring System

[AlanCutner]

I thought there was already a thread for this, but can't find it.

The current scoring system encourages larger and larger numbers of BG's - as has been pointed out by others. This could be partially combatted by weighting BG's, ie. poor BG counts 0.75, superior 1.5 and elites 2.0. Not a new idea as many will notice.

Comments?

[david53]

I thought there was already a thread for this, but can't find it.

The current scoring system encourages larger and larger numbers of BG's - as has been pointed out by others. This could be partially combatted by weighting BG's, ie. poor BG counts 0.75, superior 1.5 and elites 2.0. Not a new idea as many will notice.

Comments?

There was a long thread on this IIRC it fell into two sort of groups well three really

1. One group says nothing wrong your just using the points as they should be used.

2. Another said its down to the event organisers to limit BGs numbers.

3. Another group wanted the rules changed to stop large swarm armies.

I am sure someone can find the thread I can't.

Dave

[peterrjohnston]

http://slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15054

and mixed in with

http://slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15592

http://slitherine.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14853

Only 833 posts, happy reading!

[DavidT]

This type of proposal with different values for better quality troops is really a counter to the old DBM trick of using large amounts of tat filler on the baseline to bulk out commands, enabling the high quality troops to go out and fight without risking the command breaking if they all died. This problem doesn't really seem to occur in FoG.
The problem with a swarm army is the sheer number of BGs and the inability to kill enough of them in the usual time available for a tournament game. A swarm army of 20 average BGs will take just as long to kill using this system so it is not a good solution to this problem. It does improve the survivability of some smaller high quality armies where it is currently possible to break the army by killing all the tat support troops and ignoring the core of the army (e.g. my son's LRR army at the Celtic Cup where he lost at least one game without a losing a single BG of his legionaries).
There are other alternatives which are simpler and more effective solutions to the swarm issue (e.g. if you have 12 or fewer BGs, you break on the number of APs equal to the number of BGs, if 13-14, on 13 AP, if 15-16, on 14AP, 17-19, on 15 AP, 20-22 on 16 AP, 23-26, on 17 AP etc.).

[hammy]

I thought there was already a thread for this, but can't find it.

The current scoring system encourages larger and larger numbers of BG's - as has been pointed out by others. This could be partially combatted by weighting BG's, ie. poor BG counts 0.75, superior 1.5 and elites 2.0. Not a new idea as many will notice.

Comments?

But whatever you do with a scoring system people will find a way to exploit it. What about BGs of 4 superior light foot as 'filler' ?

Of the various ideas mooted in the long threads mentioned above the one I personally favour is simplifying scoring so that you score 10 + 1 point for each AP you inflict on your opponent (to a maximum of 10) minus 1 point for each AP you lose (to a maximum of 10) plus 5 for a win. It will have the effect of reducing the score for swarm armies that take damage along the way which will change the meta-game.

I have yet to see any sign of swarm armies dominating tournaments but I have seen signs of certain players doing so. FWIW at the Celtic Cup the other week the army with by far the most BG (22 in total) finished flat last being broken in every game.

[peterrjohnston]

I have yet to see any sign of swarm armies dominating tournaments but I have seen signs of certain players doing so. FWIW at the Celtic Cup the other week the army with by far the most BG (22 in total) finished flat last being broken in every game.

So Graham was using legionaries in BGs of 12 in Athens? Dave came third with, let me guess, 18 or 19 BGs?

The winning team in Faenza last weekend had two armies with 20 and 26 BGs...

Unless you get unlucky or have a mismatch (like Christian Nubians for a LH army), even getting close to beating a large BG army used by a competent player is very hard to impossible at 800AP in a tournament time-frame. Your solution, or Richard's limit of army break-point at 1 attrition point for each 60AP would help avoid this.

[dave_r]

I have yet to see any sign of swarm armies dominating tournaments but I have seen signs of certain players doing so. FWIW at the Celtic Cup the other week the army with by far the most BG (22 in total) finished flat last being broken in every game.

So Graham was using legionaries in BGs of 12 in Athens? Dave came third with, let me guess, 18 or 19 BGs?

The winning team in Faenza last weekend had two armies with 20 and 26 BGs...

Unless you get unlucky or have a mismatch (like Christian Nubians for a LH army), even getting close to beating a large BG army used by a competent player is very hard to impossible at 800AP in a tournament time-frame. Your solution, or Richard's limit of army break-point at 1 attrition point for each 60AP would help avoid this.

I had 17 actually

How many BG's were in Grahams Western Han that finished fourth at the Challenge? I suspect it wasn't many. As Hammy states - it is players not armies.

[kevinj]

Maybe when organisers post results, they could include the number of BGs with the army that each player used.

[peterrjohnston]

How many BG's were in Grahams Western Han that finished fourth at the Challenge? I suspect it wasn't many. As Hammy states - it is players not armies.

So your counter example to swarm armies winning is Graham not winning with a non-swarm army? Think about it...

And the winner at the Challenge was Parthian, usually an army with a high number of BGs. Unless Simon took 26 cataphracts or something ridiculous, you need a better example...

[dave_r]

We kind of do that in the Northern Doubles.

The way it works is that if you beat a higher class army you get bonus points (2 or 5pts). Your class is determined by the number of superior troops (IC's count as superior in this perspective) you have into 1, 2 and 3, such that:

0-225 pts of Superior = Class 3
226-450 pts of Superior = Class 2
451-900 pts of Superior = Class 1

If you have more than 15 BG's in your army you move into the class above. Bearing in mind that the this is a 900pt doubles competition then on average the number of armies with 14 or 15 BG's is around 50%

It would seem that a potentially small bonus in the number of points scored is worth much more to players than an alleged advantage with army design

[hammy]

How many BG's were in Grahams Western Han that finished fourth at the Challenge? I suspect it wasn't many. As Hammy states - it is players not armies.

So your counter example to swarm armies winning is Graham not winning with a non-swarm army? Think about it...

And the winner at the Challenge was Parthian, usually an army with a high number of BGs. Unless Simon took 26 cataphracts or something ridiculous, you need a better example...

Simon had a decent number of cataphracts but I don't know how many BGs.

At the Celtic Cup I won with 14 BGs (Middle Hungarian), at the Derby Teams I won with 14 BGs (SHNC).
At Britcon Phil Powell won with 12 BGs having played Graham along the way. Pete Dalby won in Alexandria and at Britcon with IIRC 13 BGs.

IMO a normal range for an 800 point army is 12-14 BGs. I don't subscribe to throwing in a BG of dross just to add a BG as if said BG of dross gets into trouble then it costs 2 AP when it dies.

[grahambriggs]

How many BG's were in Grahams Western Han that finished fourth at the Challenge? I suspect it wasn't many. As Hammy states - it is players not armies.

So your counter example to swarm armies winning is Graham not winning with a non-swarm army? Think about it...

And the winner at the Challenge was Parthian, usually an army with a high number of BGs. Unless Simon took 26 cataphracts or something ridiculous, you need a better example...

Simon's Parthian was a bit swarmy - lots of skirmisher BGs and a decent number of cats. However, he very nearly lost the last game against a decidedly unswarmy French Ordonnance. A nip and tuck 11-9 as I recall.

The problem with clipping the wings of swarms is "swarms of what?". Lots of small, very manouverable BGs can win, or if they dont can be different to beat. Swarms of most other things aren't too problematical. I think every army I own would like to face the 33 BG Tarascan army with lots of undrilled, poor MF bow BGs.

Which is why I have a slight concern re the "BG scoring system" solution - though on the whole I like it.

[david53]

I have yet to see any sign of swarm armies dominating tournaments but I have seen signs of certain players doing so. FWIW at the Celtic Cup the other week the army with by far the most BG (22 in total) finished flat last being broken in every game.

So Graham was using legionaries in BGs of 12 in Athens? Dave came third with, let me guess, 18 or 19 BGs?

The winning team in Faenza last weekend had two armies with 20 and 26 BGs...

Unless you get unlucky or have a mismatch (like Christian Nubians for a LH army), even getting close to beating a large BG army used by a competent player is very hard to impossible at 800AP in a tournament time-frame. Your solution, or Richard's limit of army break-point at 1 attrition point for each 60AP would help avoid this.

True if you take a army of 12BG against an army of 18 BG if both players are simular large will always win IMO I am starting to see large BG armies ie the winner of the 650 points event last weekend run by Hammy had if I remember correctly 15 BGs were as the avarage was around 10 BGs. I fear that in the future we will see a large increase in the numbers of drilled small BG size large BG number armies. An amendment to the lists would stop a lot of this happening.

[pease1]

I think the crux of the issue is the points system for building your army doesn't appear to have a base cost for each unit, that you then add the cost per base to. A lot of systems do have this to limit a historical swarm builds. It wouldn't have to be a large penalty, 5 points per BG would probably suffice. Of course in this case the genie is already out of the bottle I guess.

I suppose tournament directors could impose a 5 point per BG penalty and allow army builds of say 840 points (assuming an average of 8 BGs per army) or something like that.

Just trying to think out of the box. Theoretically the VP for a unit should be it's point costs, but then the swarm benefits even MORE. With the per-BG additional cost things start to balance out more.

[philqw78]

IMO a normal range for an 800 point army is 12-14 BGs. I don't subscribe to throwing in a BG of dross just to add a BG as if said BG of dross gets into trouble then it costs 2 AP when it dies.

But if you have 14+ BG losing one is not a problem. If you have 12 or less every loss is a problem.

I cannot see any army I take to competition beating (getting the +5) against decent player with a dom rom swarm. I may see a big draw. Against a poor player I may have time to get the +5. Against one of the good players, not a chance. I may swing it 14-6 at best (if I am lucky). They can keep out of the way far better after it starts to go wrong.
The problem is even against average armd MF it will take 1 of my BG about 2 turns, if lucky, to break it. I have 7 good BG, some LH and LF. He takes 10 average (armoured) manouverable battle troops and lots of LH and LF. I'm on a loser.

God is on the side of the big battalions. Not in this game. Its the big number of BG.

But perhaps I should change my army.

[hammy]

IMO I am starting to see large BG armies ie the winner of the 650 points event last weekend run by Hammy had if I remember correctly 15 BGs were as the avarage was around 10 BGs. I fear that in the future we will see a large increase in the numbers of drilled small BG size large BG number armies. An amendment to the lists would stop a lot of this happening.

Well as the armies that finished 2nd and 3rd both within 1 VP of the winning army had 9 BGs, what does that say???

Armies with lots of BGs win games but then so do armies with not so many.

If you personally believe that lots of BGs is the way to go then by all means try it and see how it happens.

I seem to remember that under DBM everyone thought that the Patrician Roman army was a world beater. They were not correct, a Patrician Roman army in the hands of a skilled player is a world beater.... The same can be said of FoG.

When I post the results of the games Expo I will add the number of BGs per player. I will see if I can retrofit that information to some of the other tournaments I have run.

[philqw78]

Well as the armies that finished 2nd and 3rd both within 1 VP of the winning army had 9 BGs, what does that say???

15 is better than 9

Armies with lots of BGs win games but then so do armies with not so many.
If you personally believe that lots of BGs is the way to go then by all means try it and see how it happens.

Dominate Roman is by far the most used army in competition, and is in the top 10 of the army rankings. Which means it is either a good army or hard to lose with, even if a poor player, or both. 15 wins, 5 second, 8 third places. Average BG size 17

[philqw78]

Bosporan, the, allegedly, most successful army uses on average 16 BG. 4 wins, 2 second, 5 third

[hazelbark]

I would repeat the issue is not top players.

SCREW THEM.

They will do well under any system.

The question is what system gives the middle level (and most number of) players an enjoyable game that does seem filled with oddities and exploitations. And also give s a middle level playerr having a good day a chance to beat a top players having a bad day.

The swarm is insurance against defeat as well as a playing style.

[BlackPrince]

Is there a difference between swarm armies and armies with filler? If a player spends 100pts on poor LF to pad out his army surely that means they are only spending 700pts on combat effective BGs. So if it goes up against an English HYW with 800pts spent of 11 combat effective BGs + one filler LF BG the English army should win assume simular level players has more points worth of effective troops?