Drawn games and other new ideas for LOEG . . .

[stockwellpete]

Just an idea for the organisers to consider for Season 11 of LOEG and beyond. There are three types of draw . . .

i) mutually agreed draws where neither side breaks (these are often agreed after just a few turns each)

ii) draws that go the full distance (24 turns) where neither side breaks (these are very rare)

iii) draws where both sides break at the same time (these happen from time to time)

At the moment in LOEG all types of draw are awarded one point to each player. What about, in future, if 2 points were awarded to each player involved in the type iii) draw? This would reward players involved in an adventurous game over players involved in a more sterile contest.

Just a thought.

[voskarp]

Sounds lika a good idea. (I've had two iiis already this season)

[flatsix518]

I like this idea. I already had one type III.

Grrrr.

[Jonathan4290]

I too like this idea. It still allows for mutually agreed draws to happen and get a point out of it but rewards players for those tough battles both players played well.

If having 2 players received 2 pts, maybe have it so one player receives 2 and the other 1, based on who inflicted more BP damage, a sort of marginal victory but not the kind where you can surround and destroy a LF and retreat to the hills.

[flatsix518]

Ahh -- that's a good point. It could be very disruptive to the current points if the TOTAL points received by the two players exceeded those for a win.

I hadn't thought of that. Maybe a hard fought draw could be 1.5 points per player...

flatsix518 - again proving why I'm called "the thick"

[stockwellpete]

Ahh -- that's a good point. It could be very disruptive to the current points if the TOTAL points received by the two players exceeded those for a win.

I hadn't thought of that. Maybe a hard fought draw could be 1.5 points per player...

flatsix518 - again proving why I'm called "the thick"

1.5pts each would work OK and that would remove the anomaly as well.

[rexhurley]

1.5 would be crap and mutual draws should a zero reward for an immediate cop out getting points in those situations is just bs.

1 or 2 for a slogged out battle or comeback such as mine this round is cool, I'm okay with one point for those two, awarding on bp is wrong because he with most bg's could loose out yet did more to earn the draw, i.e my jews this rd down 40/1 versus the bosp's, dragged it back to a draw at jews 66/66 bosps 50/50 doing it on bg alone then penalises someone like myself who did more to earn the draw than the person who couldnt close it out for the win.

Draws at 1 pt, mutually agreed non events 0pts

And oh wins earn 3pts so 2pts cant exceed a win as per the other discussion point

[stockwellpete]

Why would it be crap, Rex?

I don't see any problem with mutually agreed draws myself. Some games are just stalemates - I don't see that players should be forced to commit suicide in a game. 1.5 pts each would mean that there were only 3pts available from a single game, the same as a win. Giving 2pts each for a type iii) draw creates a certain amount of anomaly inasmuch as 4pts would be available from a game like that - I don't actually see this as a big problem because these sort of draws do not happen that many times. It could also be argued that draws giving 1pt each are equally anomalous because they only make 2pts available for the game instead of 3.

Another alternative that would work would be 4pts for a win, 2pts for a draw where both sides break, 1pt for any other type of draw.

[hidde]

Well, this has become a hotbead of heated opinions!
Personaly I don't see agreeing on a draw as a cop-out, or wimpy as I read somewhre else. It's common sense I belive, not wanna make suicide on the battlefield...it's done all the time in chess for example.
The nature of LOEG with all the different armies together with a limited choice of maps makes for some situations were a stalemate is evident right from the start.
I'm not sure but I think the original rules gave the players the oportunity to agree to start over. Terminate the game, make a new challenge and see if better maps comes available.
The player with initiativ must be ready to risk not getting it the second time, of course...
Could be something to consider anyhow.

[voskarp]

Well, this has become a hotbead of heated opinions!
Personaly I don't see agreeing on a draw as a cop-out, or wimpy as I read somewhre else. It's common sense I belive, not wanna make suicide on the battlefield...it's done all the time in chess for example.
The nature of LOEG with all the different armies together with a limited choice of maps makes for some situations were a stalemate is evident right from the start.
I'm not sure but I think the original rules gave the players the oportunity to agree to start over. Terminate the game, make a new challenge and see if better maps comes available.
The player with initiativ must be ready to risk not getting it the second time, of course...
Could be something to consider anyhow.

That sounds good too.

[claymore58]

Given the choice, i expect the majority of FOGers want to play each opponent in an actual contested battle?
For the challenge, experience the match up of various armies and the elusive "bragging rights"
So maybe there should be a re-set option. Both players must agree as wining the initiative is sometimes critical to certain armies success factor.

[stockwellpete]

A re-set procedure is certainly worth investigating, I agree. If both players have to agree for a re-set to take place then I cannot see what problems there might be. Perhaps players would have to agree within the first two or three turns, maybe?

If that is not possible then I think 4pts for a win, 2pts for a draw where both sides break, 1pt for any other type of draw - might work as a compromise between players who do not like mutually agreed draws and those who are not bothered by them. At the moment all draws are worth 33% of a win; under the points system suggested here "fought-out" draws would be worth 50% of a win while mutually agreed draws would only be worth 25% of a win. This should keep mutually agreed draws to a minimum.

[rexhurley]

At the moment all draws are worth 33% of a win; under the points system suggested here "fought-out" draws would be worth 50% of a win while mutually agreed draws would only be worth 25% of a win. This should keep mutually agreed draws to a minimum.

Makes more sense pete and makes it more like a winning draw v draw scenario in TT comps

Oh and on my comment it could be said it was suicide for me to come after you in our Med game, but I did and I won, so bragging rights for that and the pleasure of taking the win (rather than the hidings you gave me in the past) exceed a draw, also if enter in an event why not play the game doesnt make sense but that is only an opinion.

Also why I'm so hot on it last time I looked you sit 2nd in the med comp by a point if someone was to be promoted in the league due to a mutual draw that would be very sad for those that try to play and win but may have failed.

Regards Rex

[stockwellpete]

Maybe that is the compromise that can be suggested by us both at the end of the season then, Rex? 4pts for a win, 2pts for a draw where both sides break, 1pt for any other type of draw.

I am only second because I have played all my games except one. I have had a very poor season and I probably will not get any more points now so I shall finish 6th or 7th. I took six months out from the game and my play has gone backwards at an alarming rate. Against you my lot seemed to be fighting with celery sticks rather than spears!

[Aristides]

Well, surprisingly, I agree generally with the OP. ... ...

For me it's about finding a way to encourage us to choose armies and "play it like it's a battle" (not a game of chess!) rather than playing the game like a rules-lawyer.

With 1 pt each for an unfought draw and 2 for a win, it can start to look like early Condottiore armies in Northern Italy, where you might get opposing mercenary captains basically agreeing not to fight, seeings as "those Medici bankers, popes and republicans are going to pay us anyway".

You might get player A in a Division - on equal pts with whoever is top of the table - on his last game simply set a up a non-game/draw as this will give him the win of the Division without having to risk a battle/game.

Some will consider this 'clever' - in a way it is, but isn't it also unsportsmanlike?

If one got 0 pts for an unfought draw, I think players would more rarely play for a draw. If the map goes against you, if the armies are a bad match up, it would probably be worth going for it seeings as if you lose you get the same reward as you would by playing the draw. Of course, some may still play the draw as this at least ensures your opponent gets 0 pts too, but this is less favourable than 1 pt each.

[stockwellpete]

I think giving 0pts for a draw, which is also what you get if you lose, is seriously anomalous. It would be like giving players 3pts each for drawing when both armies break, when 3pts is what you get for winning a game. I think the 4-2-1-0 points system that I have suggested above might work as a compromise between those on each side of the argument here. I will propose it for Season 11 when this season has ended and canvass support from other LOEG players.

[claymore58]

If we introduce the reset option card (play withing 3 turns by mutual agreement), then the incidence of unfought draws should diminish to a non-event

[stockwellpete]

If we introduce the reset option card (play withing 3 turns by mutual agreement), then the incidence of unfought draws should diminish to a non-event

Let's just think it through for a minute though, claymore.

Take our mutually agreed drawn match for example. We had a bit of a giggle about it all at the time and agreed an amicable draw. But imagine if it had been the title decider or something and I had deployed in exactly the same way. You had then said to me, "I don't fancy this, will you agree to a re-set?" - but I had replied (because a draw would have suited me more than you perhaps), "No thanks, I want to play on this map". So you are then faced with either having to attack a very difficult position or waiting where you are until I moved my army. But what if I then just stayed where I was?

The re-set idea wouldn't help in this situation, would it? If the rules had completely prohibited mutually agreed draws then what could the players do? Just send non-moving turns backwards and forwards for 20+ turns so they would at least get one point each for the draw? Perhaps that one point would be all that one of the players would need to win the league, or to win promotion, or to avoid relegation? So if one player then offered the mutual draw, the other one might well say "no thanks" so that they eventually got that precious point. This might sound a bit of an extreme situation but I think this is the way to really test rules out. And something like this might happen a few times each season of LOEG.

For this reason I think the 4-2-1-0 idea with the mutually agreed draw still in operation might be the better option (not just for LOEG but for all forms of league competition).

[Okie]

One thing I would like to see is NOT being forced to fight a battle that a half way decent general wouldn't fight! Such as when one side has total terrain advantage. In such a case as commander I would refuse to fight and move on until I found a more favarable battlefield. Now, how could we come up with battle maps that don't favor one side to an extreme? Would it be alright to just set on your side and not accept battle? I have come up against this numerous times and in a real life situation , I wouldnot fight under those circumstances. In such an instance, would you call it a draw or try a differant battle map??? Okie

[claymore58]

OK .... How about an option to re-fight within X turns - if agreed by both parties? If players do NOT agree to re-fight, then the game continues. But can be mutually declared a "draw". Points are then awarded based on the 4-2-1-0 idea? This would at least give those players who wish to fight a particular match the option to do so. I guess the re-fight card should be limited to only one play per match-up?