Moderators: hammy, philqw78, terrys, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Design, Field of Glory Moderators
In this case it is more than just a rounding error. The BHGS came up with this table by modifying one that I had calculated (which originally had one column for each BG size gave 0-20 VP for the game). A side effect of the modification was to make it harder to get AR=1. The losses required would in most cases justify an AR of 2. So if the first row was changed to AR = 2 instead of AR = 1, that should get rid of the "result reversal" oddity you describe.rbodleyscott wrote:The scoring system used at Roll Call, which is the one shown on the Britcon FoG Details page, worked quite well.
I did notice a slight oddity, which is probably due to rounding errors.
vs Mark Muslek I inflicted 5 attrition points and suffered 4. There was thus 1 difference in AP, but the resulting score was 18-14.
vs Andy Ellis I inflicted 2 attrition points and suffered 0. There was thus 2 difference in AP, but the resulting score was 17-15.
(Both armies in each game used the 11-12 BGs column.)
Hi Richard - I see that Andy won the competition with his Tartars so you did well to beat him.vs Andy Ellis I inflicted 2 attrition points and suffered 0. There was thus 2 difference in AP, but the resulting score was 17-15.
It is hard to tell. The battle was in Steppe and the table was largely featureless. Andy only needed a draw to win the competition, so was playing a delaying (skirmishing) game. I managed to wheel out from a corner until my army was deployed across the depth of the table. I then proceeded to sweep forward (like the plunger in a bicycle pump) in an attempt to drive him off the side table edge. By the time limit I had taken about 2/3 of the table and he was sweating a bit.petedalby wrote:Hi Richard - I see that Andy won the competition with his Tartars so you did well to beat him.vs Andy Ellis I inflicted 2 attrition points and suffered 0. There was thus 2 difference in AP, but the resulting score was 17-15.
Will you have time to post a report? I have a preconceived idea that an army such as the Tartars will be very hard to damage and could prove a popular competition choice.
What's your view?
Pete
Good to hear that the system worked well in general. Lawrence came up with it after we talked at Leeds IIRC. I changed it to make it fit the 32-0 computer system that will be used at Britcon. I think the eventual system - if we like the concept and early signs are good - is likely to go back to a 0-20VP version.rbodleyscott wrote:
The scoring system used at Roll Call, which is the one shown on the Britcon FoG Details page, worked quite well.
I did notice a slight oddity, which is probably due to rounding errors.
vs Mark Muslek I inflicted 5 attrition points and suffered 4. There was thus 1 difference in AP, but the resulting score was 18-14.
vs Andy Ellis I inflicted 2 attrition points and suffered 0. There was thus 2 difference in AP, but the resulting score was 17-15.
(Both armies in each game used the 11-12 BGs column.)
In this case it is more than just a rounding error. The BHGS came up with this table by modifying one that I had calculated (which originally had one column for each BG size gave 0-20 VP for the game). A side effect of the modification was to make it harder to get AR=1. The losses required would in most cases justify an AR of 2. So if the first row was changed to AR = 2 instead of AR = 1, that should get rid of the "result reversal" oddity you describe.
If you had inflicted 4 AP and lost 3, the game would have been 16-16. The difference between this and your 5-4 becoming 18-14 is a true rounding error. We are stuck with this as the AR goes up in steps of 2, unless the BHGS decide to double the size of the table by going up in steps of 1. As I understand it, the BHGS feel that players prefer to have a low number of rows and columns on any table. Personally, I think it is no more complicated to look something up in a 12 x 15 table than in an 8 x 9 table.
