Proposed Britcon scoring

[shall]

After a successful trial at Roll Call, the new competition scoring system has been tweaked by its originator Lawrence - thank you for all the help lawrence.


The version we will test at Britcon is as follows, unless some major flaw appears. It is set to 32-0 for now to be compatible with the computer system for DBM and other periods. In due course I suspect we will make it 20-0 instead.

up to Army size (Battle groups)
8 9-10 11-12 13-14 15-16 17-18 19+ AR
NONE 0
1 1 2 2 2 3 3 2
2 2 3 3 4 4 5 3
Attrition 3 4 4 5 6 7 8 5
points 4 5 6 7 8 9 11 7
lost 6 7 8 9 11 12 14 9
7 8 10 11 13 15 17 11
9 11 13 14 16 18 13
ARMY ROUT 16

You get the AR you inflicted on them plus what you have left from your 16.

EXAMPLE: So if you are 9 BGs as lost 4APs and they have 18 BGs and lost 16APs then:

You get 9 for getting 14 or more APs on them; they get 5 for taking you to 4APs.
They get the 7 that are left from their 16, you get the 11 that are left from yours.

Score to you = 9 + 11 = 20 ; Score to them = 7+ 5 = 12

If there is a tie break is needed, then the level 1 tie break will be [Army Routs - Army Routs suffered]. Level 2 [Army Routs caused].

There's a bit of extra incentive to bust someone fully.

Here's to a great comp. It sounds like Roll Call was good fun with Richard diplomatically landing 4th - a new record for the authors!

Si

PS comments welcome prior to sealing it later this week

[lawrenceg]

Modified to sort out formatting and Si's finger trouble with the number keys on his keyboard.

After a successful trial at Roll Call, the new competition scoring system has been tweaked by its originator Lawrence - thank you for all the help lawrence.


The version we will test at Britcon is as follows, unless some major flaw appears. It is set to 32-0 for now to be compatible with the computer system for DBM and other periods. In due course I suspect we will make it 20-0 instead.




1. Locate the number of battle groups in your army at the top of the table.
2. Read down the column until you find the largest number <= your AP lost.
3. If you suffered an ARMY ROUT, use the ARMY ROUT row.
4. Read the corresponding AR (attrition ratio) from the column on the right.

You get the AR you inflicted on them plus what you have left from your 16.

EXAMPLE: So if you are 9 BGs as lost 4APs and they have 18 BGs and lost 13APs then:

You get 9 for getting 12 or more APs on them; they get 5 for taking you to 4APs.
They get the 7 that are left from their 16, you get the 11 that are left from yours.

Score to you = 9 + 11 = 20 ; Score to them = 7+ 5 = 12

If there is a tie break is needed, then the level 1 tie break will be [Army Routs - Army Routs suffered]. Level 2 [Army Routs caused].

There's a bit of extra incentive to bust someone fully.

Here's to a great comp. It sounds like Roll Call was good fun with Richard diplomatically landing 4th - a new record for the authors!

Si

PS comments welcome prior to sealing it later this week

[shall]

My guardian angel comes to the rescue.

Thanks Lawrence. Some things I am good at - accurate typing has never been one of them alas!!

Especially when time pressured as I am at present.

Si

[donm]

I don't remember anyone at Roll Call having a problem with the system.

It worked for me in one game and against in another.

Don M

[hammy]

I have did a score sheet for Roll Call with the table included. I will update it to the new values ready for Britcon.

The only minor issue is making the rounding clear. e.g. if I have taken 4 AP and the numbers in my column are 3 and 5 I look across from the 3 not the 5.

Hammy

[jdm]

At Britcon Scoring has to be out of 32 as per the other periods. In order that the players can take part in the Fantasy league

JDM

[bddbrown]

Tried to calculate the score from my game last night (battle report and point to follow). Took a me a moment to head my head around calculating the final score from the AR values. I found it a little easier to consider it as "Your score is 16 plus the difference in ARs.".

e.g. I got 6 out 13 (5 AR) and Richard Collins got 3 out of 13 (3 AR).
My score is 16+5-3=18.
Richard's score is 16+3-5=14 (or 32-18=14 if you prefer).

Seems a fair reflection on the game as well which is nice.

[neilhammond]

e.g. I got 6 out 13 (5 AR) and Richard Collins got 3 out of 13 (3 AR).
My score is 16+5-3=18.

a 14/18 with Richard! I don't believe it. Surely it should be 32/0 or 0/32. Is there a flaw with the rules?

Neil

[bddbrown]

It was a bit of a funny game. We both broke bits of the other's army and were in no position to exploit. Over time he would have got the better of me I think. FoG does not allow easy exploitation of break-throughs so it can be difficult to convert an slight win into a total victory. Still the intent was there from Richard the whole way!

[shall]

It was a bit of a funny game. We both broke bits of the other's army and were in no position to exploit. Over time he would have got the better of me I think. FoG does not allow easy exploitation of break-throughs so it can be difficult to convert an slight win into a total victory. Still the intent was there from Richard the whole way!

I think that depends a lot on army choice and design.

Certaintly the rules are desionged to let armies that could exploit well to try to do so from an initial punch - a Mongol perhaps; but to make toher armies have to fight along a reasonably large front to get a result.

Certainly we have tried to avoid allowing a Romn army to win big by fighting with 1 elite unit to get a littel hole and then scatter through the gap. They need to get a full legion into an advantageous positiion to hammer an entire centre or flank.

So hopefully horse for courses....

My Parthians for instance work as real parthians did - skirmish to weaken, swamp flanks, large cataphract charge in the middle somehere if timed tight is great - if mis-timed is awful.

etc. etc.

Si

[neilhammond]

I think that depends a lot on army choice and design.

Certaintly the rules are desionged to let armies that could exploit well to try to do so from an initial punch - a Mongol perhaps; but to make other armies have to fight along a reasonably large front to get a result.

Certainly we have tried to avoid allowing a Romn army to win big by fighting with 1 elite unit to get a littel hole and then scatter through the gap. They need to get a full legion into an advantageous positiion to hammer an entire centre or flank.

Si

I think that's fair enough. You had a similar balance under DBM - you could overwhealm an enemy command (usually by bringing 2 commands to bear onto 1 enemy command) at which point it depended on whether you would expoit the opportunity quickly enough.

Neil