Passive vs Active Defence

[pompeytheflatulent]

Yes. But that small minority of games are always carefully picked by players depending on the current standings in that division. All part of the metagaming that goes on outside of the actual matches that I dislike.

Well, I think my tolerance levels must be higher than yours.

I hope your tolerance levels for metagaming are high enough that you won't get too mad at me for putting 'armies TBD' down and waiting till the very last day to pick my armies after I had worked out exactly who's getting which army based on their player rating next season.

[melm]

Yes. But that small minority of games are always carefully picked by players depending on the current standings in that division. All part of the metagaming that goes on outside of the actual matches that I dislike.

Well, I think my tolerance levels must be higher than yours.

I hope your tolerance levels for metagaming are high enough that you won't get too mad at me for putting 'armies TBD' down and waiting till the very last day to pick my armies after I had worked out exactly who's getting which army based on their player rating next season.

Imagine everyone starts to play this trick... It makes people who posts their choices early look fool.

[pompeytheflatulent]

Imagine everyone starts to play this trick...

I'm pretty sure there are people who already do this.

[stockwellpete]

Imagine everyone starts to play this trick... It makes people who posts their choices early look fool.

A lot of players do not worry too much. They just pick the armies they enjoy playing with. Anyone who has played the game for a while knows that a bad map, or contrary RNG, can easily offset marginal advantages that might be gained from studying army selections and player rating scores prior to the tournament.

[kronenblatt]

Imagine everyone starts to play this trick... It makes people who posts their choices early look fool.

A lot of players do not worry too much. They just pick the armies they enjoy playing with. Anyone who has played the game for a while knows that a bad map, or contrary RNG, can easily offset marginal advantages that might be gained from studying army selections and player rating scores prior to the tournament.

And even though armies are posted, there's a deadline so armies can be changed anyway until that deadline, right? So no big deal really whether someone posts early (and changes) or late.

[stockwellpete]

And even though armies are posted, there's a deadline so armies can be changed anyway until that deadline, right? So no big deal really whether someone posts early (and changes) or late.

Yes, that's right.

[edb1815]

Yes. But that small minority of games are always carefully picked by players depending on the current standings in that division. All part of the metagaming that goes on outside of the actual matches that I dislike.

Well, I think my tolerance levels must be higher than yours. If a player has won 8 games and got 32 points (8 wins) and is playing his closest rival who has played 8 games and got 28 points (7 wins and a defeat) in the deciding match, I have no problem at all if the player with 8 wins decides to use whatever defensive terrain there is available in that last match to avoid defeat and win the division, even if the match ends up being scored as a 0-0 draw. As far as I am concerned, they have earned the right over the previous eight games to play the ninth game exactly how they want to. And they cannot be sensibly accused of "negative play" given that they have won all of their previous eight matches. These sorts of situations do happen from time-to-time in the FOG2DL, but they are quite rare.

IMO there is a difference between planning strategically to win your division and "metagaming". This is an example of the former. Going back to the sports analogy you certain see instances of teams making strategic decisions to win their division or to get in the playoffs. Having your best pitcher available against a division rival in baseball for example. An example of a valid defensive tactic in game would be to try for a draw if the battle has turned against you and there are few turns left, in particular if it would result in a 2-2 draw vs. a 0-3 loss. I had a game like that last season and it was a fun tense match as I tried to break his army before the time ran out. Is it artificially constrained by the number of turns? No night fell.

Reading this thread I see examples of play cited from the A division. In my experience playing in the "lower" divisions I don't see that level of camping or "metagaming" I have been playing in the DL since almost the beginning and I have only had one player move into a corner defense, but it really turned out to be a trap as his medium infantry sprang out of the woods and charged my crappier medium foot! I have only had one other game, in a Slitherine auto tournament, where a player hid in a corner forest the whole game. IMO Pete's statistics are important here. Ok maybe they don't capture every element of gameplay, but you certainly do get an idea of the prevalence of passive play/camping. Seems to be a small percentage of games.

[MikeC_81]

Mike that is totally untrue saying it is a cultural. I have played in a number of US Opens and know most of your US National team. Not one of them would agree with what you have just said. Strategic cautiousness is a valid and widely used tactic.

There is variation within any given culture and anecdotes do not disprove the general rule. The mentality within North American sports has been a winner take all approach and game rules used to enforce a winner and loser whenever possible. You even see it board game design. There is a reason there is an entire classifcation called Euro games which often focus on non-confrontational paths to victory vs American style board games which often requires direct player vs player interaction and competition to win. It is very much a 'you got to beat the best to be the best' style of game design.

All North American sports have an end of season playoff tournament where the winner is often viewed as the legitimate champion rather than the team that accumulated the most points in league. In fact the trophy of the league portion is often derided upon as a useless trophy and most teams only grudgingly acknowledge it and teams that win that trophy but are bounced early from the playoff tournament are almost always actively mocked. Meanwhile, to my understanding there are no playoffs in Europe and even if there is an extra league tournament that occurs, the trophy for the top place in any given domestic league still carries with it a great deal of prestige.

In your view Mike, what should then a point system (or an alternative to a point system) ideally look like in a league?

A points structure that directly rewards offensive output like Slitherine's own automated tournament is a good starting point. An outcome where the player has something to gain even in losing a legitimate outcome rather than playing for 0-0 draw may reduce such behaviour since 'something is better than nothing' although I have heard that there is still some of that going on in the automated tournaments. In addition, the DL is very much a 1st place or nothing tournament. Discretionary promotions aside if you don't win the division you get nothing. Having a system which rewards the player for trying to finish as high as possible with perhaps a reward in the subsequent season would also encourage players to find some way out of 0-0 draw positions. North American sports leagues, for example, have this problem of "tanking" where the amateur draft of new talent into the league operates on a reverse basis with the worst team having the first pick of the fresh meat. This leads to teams actively trying to field the worst roster possible once they are no longer in contention for the season-ending playoff tournament in order to secure the highest seeding for the draft. It creates some ugly games and causes a lot of fan disinterest.

The more important changes have to occur within the game itself. For example, giving each player a free map reroll that does not require mutual consent is a good start. Camping requires specific terrain generation that is rarely generated twice. Right now it requires mutual consent in the DL which means the camper is actively disincentivized to give up his good position and more likely to try and force the other player to cave and attack. In the Chaos Tournament and in the one I just ran, map rerolls are non-negotiable. If a player wants a new map, they have the right to force it. Similarly, awarding victory within the tournament even if the game itself was a draw (ie no side obtained +25% over 40%), it gives less margin for the camper to succeed. If they get poked in a weak point and they are behind in points, the aggressor can just withdraw without having to potentially commit into the strongest parts of the defense and now the camper must come out instead.

Ultimately though, in any league which relies on points will have some metagaming to a degree. Strict Win/Loss structures tend to have less simply because there are fewer things one can manipulate. Blacking out information also would have a positive effect on limiting metagaming. You can't metagame if you don't know what is going on around you and all you have is the 9 actual games to play. This mentality is used in some of the more serious 'games' in society like elections where polls are often banned within a certain period leading up to the vote and the counting of the vote is done only once all polling stations are shut down so citizens cannot engage in the practice of 'strategic voting'. Pete however wants to essentially have running commentary so that is out.

IMO there is a difference between planning strategically to win your division and "metagaming". This is an example of the former. Going back to the sports analogy you certain see instances of teams making strategic decisions to win their division or to get in the playoffs. Having your best pitcher available against a division rival in baseball for example. An example of a valid defensive tactic in game would be to try for a draw if the battle has turned against you and there are few turns left, in particular if it would result in a 2-2 draw vs. a 0-3 loss. I had a game like that last season and it was a fun tense match as I tried to break his army before the time ran out. Is it artificially constrained by the number of turns? No night fell.

Reading this thread I see examples of play cited from the A division. In my experience playing in the "lower" divisions I don't see that level of camping or "metagaming" I have been playing in the DL since almost the beginning and I have only had one player move into a corner defense, but it really turned out to be a trap as his medium infantry sprang out of the woods and charged my crappier medium foot! I have only had one other game, in a Slitherine auto tournament, where a player hid in a corner forest the whole game. IMO Pete's statistics are important here. Ok maybe they don't capture every element of gameplay, but you certainly do get an idea of the prevalence of passive play/camping. Seems to be a small percentage of games.

Metagaming is by definition using information and circumstances outside a particular game to influence the actions within that particular game. This creates asymmetric situations already described which can be distasteful to players like myself and others since in our view it compromises game quality as in situations described above. Pete has in the past, and in this thread indicated that in his view that he is willing to sacrifice game quality if it is a low percentage affair and in some cases openly welcomes it. Yet every season this topic of negative play comes up from one source or another and his answer has pretty much always been don't play if you don't like it. Which is fair enough it is his tournament.

[TomoeGozen]

If at deployment the map was hidden , as in the Alternative Game Play mod, you would be less likely to get someone pick an army designed to camp if they have no idea if there is somewhere to camp. Might that help a little? At least then if they do end up camping they won't have an army fully designed to take advantage of the terrain.(unless they took a big gamble).

[stockwellpete]

In addition, the DL is very much a 1st place or nothing tournament. Discretionary promotions aside if you don't win the division you get nothing. Having a system which rewards the player for trying to finish as high as possible with perhaps a reward in the subsequent season would also encourage players to find some way out of 0-0 draw positions.

More piffle. Discretionary promotions are an important part of player progression in the FOG2DL. Additionally, in some seasons, where there is significant changes in the players entering a section compared to last time, players can be promoted if they have won more games than they have lost in the previous season. Players who enter season after season without fail will also find themselves very gradually moving upwards ("FOG2DL drift"), even if they they do not finish in the top two or three places. Players finishing in the top three also go onto Anders' medal table and every single match affects a player's FOG2DL rating, which is important in the army allocation process for the next season, and can also influence in which division a player is placed (for example, if they are joining a section for the first time). And then there is the relegation battle too, which sometimes can affect 4 or 5 players right up to the end of the season. So, every game in the FOG2DL has something resting on it, even before you consider friendly "bragging rights" between players.

Metagaming is by definition using information and circumstances outside a particular game to influence the actions within that particular game. This creates asymmetric situations already described which can be distasteful to players like myself and others since in our view it compromises game quality as in situations described above. Pete has in the past, and in this thread indicated that in his view that he is willing to sacrifice game quality if it is a low percentage affair and in some cases openly welcomes it. Yet every season this topic of negative play comes up from one source or another and his answer has pretty much always been don't play if you don't like it. Which is fair enough it is his tournament.

I have given one example where I think a player is perfectly justified in fighting an ultra-defensive battle - if a draw means that they can prevent their opponent overtaking them in the table right at the end of a season. That is a tactical decision for that player in those very specific circumstances. And those circumstances can only have come about because the player in question had played successfully in nearly all their other previous matches. The low percentage you are referring to is just over 1% of matches. The player who goes on most about negative play is you. A few others I know have been frustrated by it in the past and the rules of competition have been adjusted so that now a 0-0 draw is scored the same as a defeat. Those players have returned to the FOG2DL.

[kronenblatt]

In your view Mike, what should then a point system (or an alternative to a point system) ideally look like in a league?

A points structure that directly rewards offensive output like Slitherine's own automated tournament is a good starting point.

...

Similarly, awarding victory within the tournament even if the game itself was a draw (ie no side obtained +25% over 40%), it gives less margin for the camper to succeed. If they get poked in a weak point and they are behind in points, the aggressor can just withdraw without having to potentially commit into the strongest parts of the defense and now the camper must come out instead.

So it sounds like a combination of getting points for the casualties incurred for both winner* and loser**, and an additional bonus (such as the difference between winner and loser) for the winner, independent of whether the losing army routed or the battle went full length.

So if end result is say:
34%-23%, loser gets 23p and winner gets 34 + (34 - 23) = 34 + 11 = 45p.
60%-59%, loser gets 59p and winner gets 60 + (60 - 59) = 60 + 1 = 61p.
40%-15%, loser gets 15p and winner gets 40 + (40 - 15) = 40 + 25 = 65p.
40%-0%, loser gets 0p and winner gets 40 + (40 - 0) = 40 + 40 = 80p.

Then both players are incentivised to incur casualties, but the player in the lead also further incentivised to keep opposing player's incurred casualties down. (This still doesn't deal with a tie though, but what does?)

Thoughts anyone? Pros? Cons? I'm thinking out loud here and just presenting ideas not fully thought through to get input and discussion going. So hit me!

Note: my interest concerns ideas for good points systems for leagues and tournaments in general. Not for DL or any other tournament or league.

* defined as the player with the most casualties incurred at end of the battle.
** defined as the player who isn't the winner.

[Schweetness101]

If at deployment the map was hidden , as in the Alternative Game Play mod, you would be less likely to get someone pick an army designed to camp if they have no idea if there is somewhere to camp. Might that help a little? At least then if they do end up camping they won't have an army fully designed to take advantage of the terrain.(unless they took a big gamble).

yes, that is a big part of the motivation for covering the map in the mod: to decrease min-maxing the terrain, and to generally prevent picking the perfect army for that exact battlefield.

The historical justification is that although a commander may have known what sort of terrain generally he might be facing before recruiting troops to set out on a campaign (like knowing the map type in game if it's not potluck, ie med agricultural or mountainous etc...), he would have generally not recruited troops directly in sight of the battlefield.

I think the FOG2DL will not use mods ever though, and rightly so, it is a tournament for the vanilla game and supported semi-officially by the publisher. Although, one non-mod near equivalent would be for all players to submit a unit selection list after receiving their army choice, and be obligated to pick that list every game. Of course though, then you would not be able to tailor your army selection to the terrain or even to your enemy's army list. Perhaps then you could require the submission of your army list for any given matchup prior to hosting the game for that matchup, but now we are getting into some serious logistical difficulties for Pete potentially.

[TomoeGozen]

I think the FOG2DL will not use mods ever though, and rightly so, it is a tournament for the vanilla game and supported semi-officially by the publisher. Perhaps then you could require the submission of your army list for any given matchup prior to hosting the game for that matchup, but now we are getting into some serious logistical difficulties for Pete potentially.

I've edited the quote to highlight the relevant bits.

Good point about the DL not using mods , I'd lost focus on the fact that this topic was talking mainly about how this affects the DL. And , yeah , I think Pete has enough on his plate as it is

[MikeC_81]

I have given one example where I think a player is perfectly justified in fighting an ultra-defensive battle - if a draw means that they can prevent their opponent overtaking them in the table right at the end of a season. That is a tactical decision for that player in those very specific circumstances. And those circumstances can only have come about because the player in question had played successfully in nearly all their other previous matches. The low percentage you are referring to is just over 1% of matches. The player who goes on most about negative play is you. A few others I know have been frustrated by it in the past and the rules of competition have been adjusted so that now a 0-0 draw is scored the same as a defeat. Those players have returned to the FOG2DL.

I have played 4 out of the 8 season? But then there is this. Your words. viewtopic.php?f=477&t=98771&p=849856&hi ... ay#p849856

Well, during the course of every FOG2DL season, I get PM's from players grumbling about so-and-so is just sitting on a hill and not moving. I know it happens because that is how I sneaked through in one of my KO matches this year. And I also know some of these players have stopped playing altogether now. Some of these losses are down to natural churn, of course, but there is still a bit of an issue with negative play, I would say.

I just happen to comment on it when I see it. :Shrug:

In your view Mike, what should then a point system (or an alternative to a point system) ideally look like in a league?

A points structure that directly rewards offensive output like Slitherine's own automated tournament is a good starting point.

...

Similarly, awarding victory within the tournament even if the game itself was a draw (ie no side obtained +25% over 40%), it gives less margin for the camper to succeed. If they get poked in a weak point and they are behind in points, the aggressor can just withdraw without having to potentially commit into the strongest parts of the defense and now the camper must come out instead.

So it sounds like a combination of getting points for the casualties incurred for both winner* and loser**, and an additional bonus (such as the difference between winner and loser) for the winner, independent of whether the losing army routed or the battle went full length.

So if end result is say:
34%-23%, loser gets 23p and winner gets 34 + (34 - 23) = 34 + 11 = 45p.
60%-59%, loser gets 59p and winner gets 60 + (60 - 59) = 60 + 1 = 61p.
40%-15%, loser gets 15p and winner gets 40 + (40 - 15) = 40 + 25 = 65p.
40%-0%, loser gets 0p and winner gets 40 + (40 - 0) = 40 + 40 = 80p.

Then both players are incentivised to incur casualties, but the player in the lead also further incentivised to keep opposing player's incurred casualties down. (This still doesn't deal with a tie though, but what does?)

Thoughts anyone? Pros? Cons? I'm thinking out loud here and just presenting ideas not fully thought through to get input and discussion going. So hit me!

Note: my interest concerns ideas for good points systems for leagues and tournaments in general. Not for DL or any other tournament or league.

* defined as the player with the most casualties incurred at end of the battle.
** defined as the player who isn't the winner.

The only problem with these types of systems (Slitherine's as well) is that casualties caused doesn't necessarily translate into having played better. For example, say I can win every single game 60-59 for the rest of time and keep a 100% win rate. The guy who wins 70% of his games 40-0 and loses the remaining 30% percent scores on average atleast 20 % casualties in those losses will end up with more points. So is the guy who wins every game better? Or is the guy who wins less but when he does win, he clobbers his opponent the better player?

Every system has its flaws so in the end you are just trading off strengths for weaknesses. But I agree something like this would give more incentive to play every game like you mean it.

[DanZanzibar]

The system I thought of a while back to emulate the auto tourneys for a win/loss/draw point based approach was:

4 points for a win
If you lose or draw you get points based on casualties inflicted.
15% - 1 pt
30% - 2 pts
45% - 3 pts

The other idea I had (but I don’t feel so strong about) was giving an extra point for winning within so many turns... kinda an artificial shot clock type motivater to get people to march at each other right away. Might help with camping.

[stockwellpete]

I have played 4 out of the 8 season? But then there is this. Your words. viewtopic.php?f=477&t=98771&p=849856&hi ... ay#p849856

Well, during the course of every FOG2DL season, I get PM's from players grumbling about so-and-so is just sitting on a hill and not moving. I know it happens because that is how I sneaked through in one of my KO matches this year. And I also know some of these players have stopped playing altogether now. Some of these losses are down to natural churn, of course, but there is still a bit of an issue with negative play, I would say.

I just happen to comment on it when I see it. :Shrug:

And that was from a discussion about the random map generator where I was asking if there was any way to modify the coding for the maps so that it would be harder for players to adopt passive positions in future. The preponderance of large terrain features with straight lines and the concentration of terrain features towards the edges of many maps can contribute to negative play by providing refuges for players. Apparently there isn't an easy solution to these issues. But even though matches scored at 0-0 represent just over 1% of the total ("a bit of an issue"), I was still trying to bear down on "the problem" to reduce it even further. Of course, this is an issue with the game itself rather than with the FOG2DL rules.

[Macedonczyk]

The only problem with these types of systems (Slitherine's as well) is that casualties caused doesn't necessarily translate into having played better. For example, say I can win every single game 60-59 for the rest of time and keep a 100% win rate. The guy who wins 70% of his games 40-0 and loses the remaining 30% percent scores on average atleast 20 % casualties in those losses will end up with more points. So is the guy who wins every game better? Or is the guy who wins less but when he does win, he clobbers his opponent the better player?

Every system has its flaws so in the end you are just trading off strengths for weaknesses. But I agree something like this would give more incentive to play every game like you mean it.

I've always thought that a good commander makes sure he has low losses first and foremost.
10 Pyrrhic victories no army could stand.

[edb1815]

If at deployment the map was hidden , as in the Alternative Game Play mod, you would be less likely to get someone pick an army designed to camp if they have no idea if there is somewhere to camp. Might that help a little? At least then if they do end up camping they won't have an army fully designed to take advantage of the terrain.(unless they took a big gamble).

yes, that is a big part of the motivation for covering the map in the mod: to decrease min-maxing the terrain, and to generally prevent picking the perfect army for that exact battlefield.

The historical justification is that although a commander may have known what sort of terrain generally he might be facing before recruiting troops to set out on a campaign (like knowing the map type in game if it's not potluck, ie med agricultural or mountainous etc...), he would have generally not recruited troops directly in sight of the battlefield.

I think the FOG2DL will not use mods ever though, and rightly so, it is a tournament for the vanilla game and supported semi-officially by the publisher. Although, one non-mod near equivalent would be for all players to submit a unit selection list after receiving their army choice, and be obligated to pick that list every game. Of course though, then you would not be able to tailor your army selection to the terrain or even to your enemy's army list. Perhaps then you could require the submission of your army list for any given matchup prior to hosting the game for that matchup, but now we are getting into some serious logistical difficulties for Pete potentially.

That is what is done in tabletop miniatures tournaments.

[edb1815]

Mike that is totally untrue saying it is a cultural. I have played in a number of US Opens and know most of your US National team. Not one of them would agree with what you have just said. Strategic cautiousness is a valid and widely used tactic.

There is variation within any given culture and anecdotes do not disprove the general rule. The mentality within North American sports has been a winner take all approach and game rules used to enforce a winner and loser whenever possible. You even see it board game design. There is a reason there is an entire classifcation called Euro games which often focus on non-confrontational paths to victory vs American style board games which often requires direct player vs player interaction and competition to win. It is very much a 'you got to beat the best to be the best' style of game design.

All North American sports have an end of season playoff tournament where the winner is often viewed as the legitimate champion rather than the team that accumulated the most points in league. In fact the trophy of the league portion is often derided upon as a useless trophy and most teams only grudgingly acknowledge it and teams that win that trophy but are bounced early from the playoff tournament are almost always actively mocked. Meanwhile, to my understanding there are no playoffs in Europe and even if there is an extra league tournament that occurs, the trophy for the top place in any given domestic league still carries with it a great deal of prestige.

IMO there is a difference between planning strategically to win your division and "metagaming". This is an example of the former. Going back to the sports analogy you certain see instances of teams making strategic decisions to win their division or to get in the playoffs. Having your best pitcher available against a division rival in baseball for example. An example of a valid defensive tactic in game would be to try for a draw if the battle has turned against you and there are few turns left, in particular if it would result in a 2-2 draw vs. a 0-3 loss. I had a game like that last season and it was a fun tense match as I tried to break his army before the time ran out. Is it artificially constrained by the number of turns? No night fell.

Reading this thread I see examples of play cited from the A division. In my experience playing in the "lower" divisions I don't see that level of camping or "metagaming" I have been playing in the DL since almost the beginning and I have only had one player move into a corner defense, but it really turned out to be a trap as his medium infantry sprang out of the woods and charged my crappier medium foot! I have only had one other game, in a Slitherine auto tournament, where a player hid in a corner forest the whole game. IMO Pete's statistics are important here. Ok maybe they don't capture every element of gameplay, but you certainly do get an idea of the prevalence of passive play/camping. Seems to be a small percentage of games.

Metagaming is by definition using information and circumstances outside a particular game to influence the actions within that particular game. This creates asymmetric situations already described which can be distasteful to players like myself and others since in our view it compromises game quality as in situations described above. Pete has in the past, and in this thread indicated that in his view that he is willing to sacrifice game quality if it is a low percentage affair and in some cases openly welcomes it. Yet every season this topic of negative play comes up from one source or another and his answer has pretty much always been don't play if you don't like it. Which is fair enough it is his tournament.

Metagaming can mean different things depending on the circumstances and type of game. It can also mean the current best ("meta") strategy within the game structure. For example picking the best performing army and the knowing the best way to min/max units. This isn't an RPG where someone exploits the game with outside knowledge. IMO I wouldn't call maximizing your points to win a tournament metagaming, in part because of the negative connotation. Frankly it could apply to any tournament unless it was completely blind scored.

I would venture to say that most game competition systems are derived from the sports arena. Pete has set up the DL after a European league, in my view the English football league. Many players are used to that with promotion/relegation and most points wins without playoffs. You might say that playoffs are the subsequent play in the Champions League or Europa league. The KO Tournament could be considered as a NA style playoff bracket. I don't see a system with divisional play followed by playoffs though. As I said earlier my experience is different from yours apparently, so I am satisfied with the way the DL is scored and played. If you came up with a tournament scoring system that you believe will solve the issues you have I'd certainly give it a go.

[kronenblatt]

The only problem with these types of systems (Slitherine's as well) is that casualties caused doesn't necessarily translate into having played better. For example, say I can win every single game 60-59 for the rest of time and keep a 100% win rate. The guy who wins 70% of his games 40-0 and loses the remaining 30% percent scores on average atleast 20 % casualties in those losses will end up with more points. So is the guy who wins every game better? Or is the guy who wins less but when he does win, he clobbers his opponent the better player?

Every system has its flaws so in the end you are just trading off strengths for weaknesses. But I agree something like this would give more incentive to play every game like you mean it.

I've always thought that a good commander makes sure he has low losses first and foremost.
10 Pyrrhic victories no army could stand.

Makes sense. Then this suggestion of mine would seem to make sense too:

Independent of whether the losing army routed or the battle went full length, both winner (the player with the highest incurred losses) and loser get points for the casualties incurred, with an additional bonus for the winner, consisting of the difference between winner and loser.

So if end result is say:
34%-23%, loser gets 23p and winner gets 34 + (34 - 23) = 34 + 11 = 45p.
60%-59%, loser gets 59p and winner gets 60 + (60 - 59) = 60 + 1 = 61p.
40%-15%, loser gets 15p and winner gets 40 + (40 - 15) = 40 + 25 = 65p.
40%-0%, loser gets 0p and winner gets 40 + (40 - 0) = 40 + 40 = 80p.

Then both players are incentivised to incur casualties, but the player in the lead also further incentivised to keep opposing player's incurred casualties down.