Scoring System

[david53]

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?

Yes there is a difference

A swarm ie Dom Roms have BGs of 4 bases who are drilled armoured with Light Spear not filler there light troops are two BGs of 4 base superior bows?.

So highly manourable quite tough and who don't have to test to not charge.

On average a Dom Rom army will have 17+ BGs that are quite happy to fight in terrain or out.

Now take the average army of 12 or 13 BGs you will be outnumbered by at least 4BG in FOG that counts.

Last week at the club I took after a hard fight 8 points from a swarm army after 3 and half hours that left still 9 points to get my opponent was a good player of simular skills as myself it comes down to numbers and it counts.

I will still say if a lot of people click on to using a swarm army it will get a bit difficult in the future.

[philqw78]

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?

The difference between swarm and filler? IMO a swarm has lots of OK stuff. So can afford to lose lots of it. A "Mist and Grit" (lots of filler) has a few very good BG and lots of fast moving rubbish. It can afford to lose all its battle troops and still hide the rest, not losing. Both have the same effect against things with 12 BG. 12 BG cannot kill them all fast enough. And if the small army loses 1 or 2 BG it has nothing to fill the hole. Therefore it goes down very quickly.

[grahambriggs]

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.

I think there is a problem in the middle levels. That's where you find quite a lot of 'mist and grit' armies played by decent players who know the rules. They are frustrating armies to play against if you have an army that is mostly grit.

I fear that we might get the situation other rule sets have suffered from. Competant if inexperienced player rolls up with Alexander/Caesar/Hannibal. Plays a mixture of Bosporans, Parthians, Dominate Romans, etc. Goes home with a feeling of frustation having chased smoke for a few games while being defeated elsewhere.

I agree top players aren't the issue. They can use swarms well or work out counters to swarms, even if that is to just play for a draw. They'll work out what's the best result they can expect and take that.

[hammy]

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.

You are correct Dan, good players will generally do quite well whatever the game.

I still do not think that pure number of BGs is an indication of how good an army is though. As I said earlier in this thread the army that places flat last at the Celtic Cup had by far the most BGs (it had 22 BGs FWIW).

A change could be made to the way the scoring system works which might encourage mid level players to do something different but if as you are saying the issue is in the middle then what exactly is the problem that needs fixing? I have experience of the top and the bottom of the pile but very little of the middle for some reason.

When I have done analysis of number of BGs in armies it seems that they are reasonably evenly distributed throughout the final placings so there seems little if any correlation there.

If the 'problem' is that players take armies of mist and grit you could change the break point so that grit troops are more significant and mist is less significant but that will just lead to players using grit as filler and fighting wit their mist.

First define the problem. Then consider potential solutions and any side effects they will have.

[grahambriggs]

Re any fixes to scoring systems it might be good to think of the timescales for any fixes:


1. Tournament scoring systems. The current, common, system used - players share 20 points with 5 points for an army break - is not in the rules. So tournament organisers are free to change it as they wish. You need a bit of notice so players know what the scoring will be before they write their army lists. However, three months is plenty.

2. Changing the rules in the main rule book. The authors are discussing changes at the moment but have lives to lead and other stuff aghead of it in the queue: FoGR, FoGN, list for both, etc. Plus, there's Osprey publication scheduling and the printing cycle. At least a year away I'd say.

3. Changing the army lists. There are 14 books, which punters have paid a lot of money for. And the aiuthors won't look at this until version 2 of the rules are done. And it still needs to make commercial sense, which is unlikely IMHO. So guesstimate as to the earliest this is likely to happen would be 2002, and even then it seems unlikely to me.


The authors I've spoken to seem to be aware of the concerns on topics like this, though that doesn't mean changes will be made. But nevertheless they'll be under consideration. List changes are far enough away and unlikely enough to not be a practical consideration.

So I would suggest that the best approach for this forum might be to focus on tournament scoring systems, which have the benefits that they can be changed quickly and easily.

In that regard, I do like RBS' suggestion that every 60 points of troops counts 1 to the maximum number of attrition points needed to finish the game. i.e. at 800 point the maximum number of attrition points needed would be 13. Do that much damage to the enemy and the game ends with you getting a 5 point bonus. If the enemy has , say, only 11 BGs you'd still only need 11 attrition to break them. But if they have 17 BGs you'd only need 13 points to break the army.

[philqw78]

So guesstimate as to the earliest this is likely to happen would be 2002, and even then it seems unlikely to me..

I didn't know Richard was that kind of Doctor

[kevinj]

Richard Who?

[philqw78]

In that regard, I do like RBS' suggestion that every 60 points of troops counts 1 to the maximum number of attrition points needed to finish the game. i.e. at 800 point the maximum number of attrition points needed would be 13. Do that much damage to the enemy and the game ends with you getting a 5 point bonus. If the enemy has , say, only 11 BGs you'd still only need 11 attrition to break them. But if they have 17 BGs you'd only need 13 points to break the army.

I like that as poorer quality armies would break, in effect, sooner.

[philqw78]

Richard Who?

Nearly

[peterrjohnston]

In that regard, I do like RBS' suggestion that every 60 points of troops counts 1 to the maximum number of attrition points needed to finish the game. i.e. at 800 point the maximum number of attrition points needed would be 13. Do that much damage to the enemy and the game ends with you getting a 5 point bonus. If the enemy has , say, only 11 BGs you'd still only need 11 attrition to break them. But if they have 17 BGs you'd only need 13 points to break the army.

One could probably justify it either historically or from a battle point of view as:
1. If one side has reached the "defeat level" (I think break point has the wrong sense), for "normal" armies it's likely to be a good proportion of their core combat troops, so the winner has scored a major victory, +5
2. If one side has reached the "defeat level", but only by losing lots of filler BGs like LF poor, they were either avoiding battle or incompetent, so the winner has scored a "moral" major victory, +5.
3. If one side has reached the "defeat level" by having BGs driven from the table (thinking of skirmisher armies here), then the winner has driven them from the field of battle where the loser committed to stand*, so has a major victory, +5

* The tactical decision to stand and fight, rather than the strategic harassment along the route of march, which is not being simulated in a FoG game.

[philqw78]

[1. If one side has reached the "defeat level" (I think break point has the wrong sense), for "normal" armies it's likely to be a good proportion of their core combat troops, so the winner has scored a major victory, +5
2. If one side has reached the "defeat level", but only by losing lots of filler BGs like LF poor, they were either avoiding battle or incompetent, so the winner has scored a "moral" major victory, +5.
3. If one side has reached the "defeat level" by having BGs driven from the table (thinking of skirmisher armies here), then the winner has driven them from the field of battle where the loser committed to stand*, so has a major victory, +5

* The tactical decision to stand and fight, rather than the strategic harassment along the route of march, which is not being simulated in a FoG game.

Or an army full of average troops would break after less casualties than a smaller army with more above average troops

[petedalby]

In that regard, I do like RBS' suggestion that every 60 points of troops counts 1 to the maximum number of attrition points needed to finish the game. i.e. at 800 point the maximum number of attrition points needed would be 13. Do that much damage to the enemy and the game ends with you getting a 5 point bonus. If the enemy has , say, only 11 BGs you'd still only need 11 attrition to break them. But if they have 17 BGs you'd only need 13 points to break the army.

I liked this proposal when RBS first made it and I still like it now.

Come on tournament organisers - can we adopt this please?!!

[MatthewP]

I liked this proposal when RBS first made it and I still like it now.

Come on tournament organisers - can we adopt this please?!!

I agree. I am definately drifting towards armies with more and more bgs. I know several competitions have been won by armies with less than 12 bg's but these are all highly mobile armies specifically chosen by the top players for manouverability. Not all of us a) have such armies to choose from b) have the skill to play such armies or c) want to use them anyway. A cap on attrtion points would open up tournaments to a greater variety of armies were both players have a chance of winning.

As someone who end up in the middle at most tournamnets what I really want is a good fight with loads of dice and a chance to win. Having a bg cap of some sort will definatley help this.

All we'll need then is a way of stopping those pesky light horse

Matthew
(taking mediocrity to a new level)

[nikgaukroger]

3. Changing the army lists. There are 14 books, which punters have paid a lot of money for. And the aiuthors won't look at this until version 2 of the rules are done. And it still needs to make commercial sense, which is unlikely IMHO. So guesstimate as to the earliest this is likely to happen would be 2002, and even then it seems unlikely to me.

2002 next time around I take it - assuming time is cyclical

[nikgaukroger]

In that regard, I do like RBS' suggestion that every 60 points of troops counts 1 to the maximum number of attrition points needed to finish the game. i.e. at 800 point the maximum number of attrition points needed would be 13. Do that much damage to the enemy and the game ends with you getting a 5 point bonus. If the enemy has , say, only 11 BGs you'd still only need 11 attrition to break them. But if they have 17 BGs you'd only need 13 points to break the army.

I liked this proposal when RBS first made it and I still like it now.

Come on tournament organisers - can we adopt this please?!!

OK, here is a deal. If the FoG boys and girls at Britcon this year manage to complete their scoresheets correctly (or at least with a record mimimum of mistakes) I'll see about doing it for Britcon 2011.

[petedalby]

OK, here is a deal. If the FoG boys and girls at Britcon this year manage to complete their scoresheets correctly (or at least with a record mimimum of mistakes) I'll see about doing it for Britcon 2011.

Why so cautious Nik?

Why not do it for this year? How many lists have you had in so far?

Come on - you know you want to.

[Mehrunes]

You need a bit of notice so players know what the scoring will be before they write their army lists. However, three months is plenty.

Why? Maybe that's part of the problem. Players will always exploit whatever scoring system will be used. Just let them think of a historical and flexible army setup and surprise them with the scoring system to be used on the day of the tournament.

[dave_r]

Of course there is also those of us who don't think there is a problem.

If you put an artificial cap on the number of attrition points then this favours armies that just hit this cap - in this case 13 BG armies. The points system already covers this to an extent in that a BG that costs 40 points isn't going to be as good as a BG that costs 60 points. Therefore why handicap the armies with lots of relatively poor BG's?

This sort of artificial cap just favours those armies who happen to have a solid number of BG's around the artificial cap introduced.

If you want to do it proportionately that's great - why not just say you need to get 75% of your starting BG's in AP rather than 100%? That way it is easier for armies to break without including the artificial fudge of giving those armies whose BG's are easier to break (because they cost less) and making them have less staying power.

Therefore if an 18 BG would break on 12 AP then a 12 BG army would break on 8 AP.

Everybody should be happy with this.

[petedalby]

Of course there is also those of us who don't think there is a problem.

Well if that doesn't give you sufficient incentive Nik, nothing will.

[Mehrunes]

The point system ensures that two armies have roughly the same strength. That works.
But is is the army structure that defines the resilience regarding the victory conditions. So it is always better to have two BGs at 40 points than having one of 80.

Should two armies with the same points value not have the same victory condition?