International Team Challenge - Lisbon - 1/2 Sept 2012

[kevinj]

What did players think about the different scoring system?

Did anyone keep track of how the scores would have been under the normal Fog System?

[madaxeman]

Interesting maybe to note that the winning margin of the UK team exceeded the total 4-round score achieved by Mr Ruddock on his own.

And even if he'd literally not turned up and his opponents had all been awarded 30-0 byes, team GB would still have won.

Perhaps "Passenger" should now be added to "Bridesmaid" in his list of attributes ..?

[dave_r]

Following a swift straw poll at the venue here at the hotel, I think that the proposal has been accepted.

Dave "Passenger" Ruddock

[spike]

Interesting maybe to note that the winning margin of the UK team exceeded the total 4-round score achieved by Mr Ruddock on his own.

And even if he'd literally not turned up and his opponents had all been awarded 30-0 byes, team GB would still have won.

Perhaps "Passenger" should now be added to "Bridesmaid" in his list of attributes ..?

A bit harsh on Mr Ruddock..... (note I didn't say you were wrong )

S

[hazelbark]

What did players think about the different scoring system?

Did anyone keep track of how the scores would have been under the normal Fog System?

We should have that at some point and will provide analysis. Presuming records were kept.

[madaxeman]

What did players think about the different scoring system?

Did anyone keep track of how the scores would have been under the normal Fog System?

I thought it was good. Meant I got more points from those games where I made a strategic decision to finish 2nd in

[philqw78]

But in order to be sure, congratulations to you (dave_r, Ruddock) and those three other guys who obviously just rode along on your coattails.

Rode his coat tails! Three oither guys! See Tim's analysis of Dave's performance above.

We're trying to see if any other country could take him. If anyone can prove a criminal background we can send him to the ANZACs, or a dislike of tea and we can give him to the Americans. I don't think even the French would actually take him no matter hoiw much cheese he ate, so we just need to disprove his parentage.

[zoltan]

What did players think about the different scoring system?

Did anyone keep track of how the scores would have been under the normal Fog System?

I thought it was good. Meant I got more points from those games where I made a strategic decision to finish 2nd in

I also thought the scoring was good. For example in one game I broke my opponent's 11 BG army in the last turn. But I had lost 14 points (including baggage) out of my 15 BG army. So the result was something like 21-19 to me which fairly rewarded my opponent for almost breaking me. It could have gone either way!

[timurilenk]

What did players think about the different scoring system?

Did anyone keep track of how the scores would have been under the normal Fog System?

I got less points under this system - 100/120 (83%) whereas I would have got 87/100 (87%) using the 20+5 system.

Not really that bothered - I do not think the scoring system makes too much difference to how people play which seems to be the premise on which the changes are made.

Two of my opponents were really aggressive and two were somewhat passive (one possibly premeditated to stop opponents scoring rather than winning) - all four were good games though

[timurilenk]

What did players think about the different scoring system?

Did anyone keep track of how the scores would have been under the normal Fog System?

I got less points under this system - 100/120 (83%) whereas I would have got 87/100 (87%) using the 20+5 system.

Not really that bothered - I do not think the scoring system makes too much difference to how people play which seems to be the premise on which the changes are made.

Two of my opponents were really aggressive and two were somewhat passive (one possibly premeditated to stop opponents scoring rather than winning) - all four were good games though

I lied - would have got 84 in the 20+5 system so nearly the same

[timurilenk]

I also thought the scoring was good. For example in one game I broke my opponent's 11 BG army in the last turn. But I had lost 14 points (including baggage) out of my 15 BG army. So the result was something like 21-19 to me which fairly rewarded my opponent for almost breaking me. It could have gone either way!

I have a different opinion on this.

This has the effect of averaging the scores by rewarding losers with points scores closer to the winners - the 20+5 is a better system IMO since it rewards those who win and separates the scores out which is good for finding out where you finish.

If you are aggressive, you will play so whatever the scoring (within reason) and the same with the passive types. The aggressive ones will get more points under both systems than the passive ones.

Having said all that, it is likely not a factor in team competitions since the individual scores average out and you will get close finishes in mid-table.

[philqw78]

I got a score that was about 8-10% better as a percentage of maximum score under this system compared to 25-0.

Therefore I think it worked.

I do think it is better. Two players who go for it having little of their armies left at the end of the game will score higher than those that are risk averse. Changing some people's mindset to aprreciate this may take a couple of competitions though.

As for Ians comments I think the +5 for breaking your opponent without being broken should be used.

The main problem is the possibility of collusion. "Lets just SAY we had a mutual destruction and get 20 points each". T%herefore any game where it looks like both players may score over 17 points must have an umpire call before game end.

[grahambriggs]

What did players think about the different scoring system?

Did anyone keep track of how the scores would have been under the normal Fog System?

I found it a positive thing. I took a manouvre and shooting army and fought two late Republican Roman and two Later Seluecid. They all came out to fight and I think partly that was because the scoring system encouraged army designs that emphasised the ability to break enemy units. And having selected an army that was designed to cause damage, they couldn't really take a defensive approach, which led to games where there was lots of action. Of course, this may be that the opponents were of that mindset anyway.

When I took the same army to the BHGS Challenge this year, I fought three heavy foot armies. Those were much duller affairs, as the heavy foot secured the flanks, turned the table and slowly plodded forward - hence I had some dull 10-10 draws, and a game where i'd got so bored that i charged in anyway and lost.

[timurilenk]

I got a score that was about 8-10% better as a percentage of maximum score under this system compared to 25-0.

Therefore I think it worked.

I do think it is better. Two players who go for it having little of their armies left at the end of the game will score higher than those that are risk averse. Changing some people's mindset to aprreciate this may take a couple of competitions though.

As for Ians comments I think the +5 for breaking your opponent without being broken should be used.

The main problem is the possibility of collusion. "Lets just SAY we had a mutual destruction and get 20 points each". T%herefore any game where it looks like both players may score over 17 points must have an umpire call before game end.

I guess my point is that you will not change most people's mindset - you got a higher score, but I doubt it changed the way you played, just happened that the system rewarded it better - I would guess you would have been just as aggressive with 20+5 'cos you always are Perhaps it is a good thing you were rewarded, perhaps not, I am not really commenting on that (obviously it is good because you are in my team !)

You and I can, however, think of a few people that would come to draw whatever - or more accurately avoid losing.

One of my opponents this weekend seemed happier to prevent me scoring than he was pressing on to score himself, it was a 17 - 8 draw, it would have been 13 - 7 under the 20+5 system (40% kills vs 10% - I got the higher score). The battle group he won because I took a risk and lost it! I have no complaint about him or the game, but the scoring system did not seem to matter at all to his style of play.

Apparently there was a 21-19 score where the losing player got 19 points - this seems to me to be completely crazy, but I may be one of the few who see it this way.

[hazelbark]

The main problem is the possibility of collusion. "Lets just SAY we had a mutual destruction and get 20 points each". T%herefore any game where it looks like both players may score over 17 points must have an umpire call before game end.

A trivial matter and easy for the umpire to do. Also I think it really requires two very bad human beings. I would be hard pressed to find TWO at a an event. I could see somone who is gamey and doesn't like it announce they have plans and be very obnoxious about it. But I find those people either the sort that couldn't win versus a competent opponent or so over the top that it is merely an obnoxious charade. I just think it is really a incredibly low order or probablity.

[timurilenk]

The main problem is the possibility of collusion. "Lets just SAY we had a mutual destruction and get 20 points each". T%herefore any game where it looks like both players may score over 17 points must have an umpire call before game end.

A trivial matter and easy for the umpire to do. Also I think it really requires two very bad human beings. I would be hard pressed to find TWO at a an event. I could see somone who is gamey and doesn't like it announce they have plans and be very obnoxious about it. But I find those people either the sort that couldn't win versus a competent opponent or so over the top that it is merely an obnoxious charade. I just think it is really a incredibly low order or probablity.

Agree - the collusion thing is more theoretical than real. The 20+5 is just as open to collusion in a team thing as we could agree to give two wins each thereby both getting a bonus of 10 - any non-zero sum scoring offers opportunity. I just could not imagine us colluding with (say) the French or the Americans on anything that would give them an advantage!

[hazelbark]

I guess my point is that you will not change most people's mindset - you got a higher score, but I doubt it changed the way you played, just happened that the system rewarded it better

I think there is always some delay in adopting to a new system.

You and I can, however, think of a few people that would come to draw whatever - or more accurately avoid losing.

True

Code: Select all

One of my opponents this weekend seemed happier to prevent me scoring than he was pressing on to score himself, it was a 17 - 8 draw, it would have been 13 - 7 under the 20+5 system (40% kills vs 10% - I got the higher score). The battle group he won because I took a risk and lost it! I have no complaint about him or the game, but the scoring system did not seem to matter at all to his style of play.

Well you will always have team strategies that call for defensive play. Also you were probably the absolute best player at the event, so they had two choices. Jamming into your army and hoping to take point with them but go down big or preventing you from running up the score.

Apparently there was a 21-19 score where the losing player got 19 points - this seems to me to be completely crazy, but I may be one of the few who see it this way.

I prefer a bloody fighting match to the bloodless BHGS boring draw meister events that are all too common and end 11-9 or 10-1 and reflect nothing of what took place.
But too each their own.

[philqw78]

I don't think collusion will be a problem, but some do.

And there are some unsavoury people around. I mean, they even allow politicians, bankers and lawyers to enter some competitions.

[timurilenk]

I think there is always some delay in adopting to a new system.

I guess we disagree on this point

Well you will always have team strategies that call for defensive play. Also you were probably the absolute best player at the event, so they had two choices. Jamming into your army and hoping to take point with them but go down big or preventing you from running up the score.

It would seem you and I agree on this. As I said I had no issues with it and the game was more of a challenge (arguably the most interesting of the weekend) trying to beat a Swiss army that did not want to fight. It is really not that unusual for opponents to try to shut my game down - I have a lot of experience with it

I prefer a bloody fighting match to the bloodless BHGS boring draw meister events that are all too common and end 11-9 or 10-1 and reflect nothing of what took place.
But too each their own.

Defensive?

In general, I also prefer games which are more decisive - nearly all of mine are (I was accused of playing like an American on Sunday! It was meant to be a compliment )

I guess the difference is that I see the game as win-loss-draw. To win you must kill your opponent's army, if nobody does it is a draw, if your army is broken you lose. The rest is (for me) window dressing and the current trend seems to be to reward the 'plucky trier'! I guess I do not mind this, but when people who win get the same score as people who lose or draw then something has gone too far.

Please do not misunderstand me - I will min-max whatever system you guys come up with. I am merely trying to point out that the new system is the opposite of the 3-0, 1-1 system we had before. Perhaps that is a good thing, perhaps not. I can live with either

[philqw78]

but when people who win get the same score as people who lose or draw then something has gone too far.

Currently someone who 'draws' could get 28 points. This means they would have lost nothing and been 1 or 2 AP, 10%, from breaking the enemy army. Thats a very good performance. Nobody who 'loses' or gets a losing draw could get a higher score than someone who breaks their enemy.

If you need a bigger differential add the +5 for breaking without being broken back in. Which I would see as a good idea. Its the plus for destroying enemy survivors as they flee from the field, a very important thing historically.