Scoring non-open battles in automated tournaments

[rbodleyscott]

For round 2, how is the game scored if the English win but there have been zero losses for both sides ?

Good question. This is the first time we have used a defensive battle in the automated tournament system.

The current tournament scoring code means that if the game times out it would result in a 0:0 score. (i.e. Each side would get the enemy rout percentage)

Giving the defending side the full 60 points for a decisive victory, if the battle remains undecided at nightfall, however, might be too much.

It is something we will need to think about for the future.

What do others think? Similar issues would also affect:

(side A nightfall victory):
Reinforcements (own), Own Side Defending, Enemy relieving besieged fortress

(side B nightfall victory):
Reinforcements (enemy), Enemy Defending, Player releiving besieged fortress, Baggage Escort mission

How should these be scored if the game reaches nightfall in a tournament?

The game will report a victory for one side, but what victory bonus over and above the rout %ages should they get, if any? And should it be different for the different scenarios?

Obviously it would be good if we could include most of the scenario types in future tournaments, but only if we can get the scoring right.

[tyronec]

For the defensive battles, I think awarding a win to the defender who survives till nightfall works fine. So they would score 60-0 in a non-event battle. 60 is not a great score in the tournament and if the attacker declines to attack then anything less is going to be penalising them severely, after all you get 75 for a no show. It is going to be pretty hard for the defender to force a result with their reduced army.
I have never played one of these games out so am assuming that the game is moderately balanced as it is set up, though likely when you have seen the tournament results for a few matches you will have more data to work on.
Round 1 was in my opinion disadvantage for the French with the army mixes and probably some of the others will favor one side or the other but that is all part of the fun.

I have not played any of the other scenario types, if you want someone to do a bit of play testing on them would be happy to take part.

[Ray552]

My thought is to award the defending player 75 points if he is not routed by nightfall, and the attacker scores what ever rout % he can inflict on the defender.

Of course, if the attacker routs the defender before nightfall, or vice versa, then regular scoring is used.

That should give an incentive for the attacker to, well, attack because if he just sits at his start line, the score will be against him 75-0.

Essentially it will be scored as if the attacker never showed up to play the match, as it should be.

I am sure there's a loophole in there somewhere, so point it out if you see one.

[tyronec]

I have now completed my defensive battles match in the tournament and the French won both times. Would be interesting to know how it went in other players games, did many players score better with the English rather than the French ? I would only have thought they could if the French attacked frontally against the defenses.

In our games the English were forced to come out of their defensive position, by fire power in one game and by a flanking attack in the other. Unless you had an 'Agincourt' like position with both flanks guarded I would think this is generally what is going to happen, and even if you used a narrower map the defender is not going to be able to deploy pits the cover the area outside the deployment area. Maybe it would work on a narrow map if the defender had archers and stakes...

The English have a force around 200 points (140 initially plus 3 points/unit) less than their opponents. I think this is too big a margin, the way the game works a few extra units make a big difference - battles can be won by one unit that gets around a flank. Perhaps reduce it to something like 40 points initially plus the 3 points per unit would make for a more balanced game.

Having said that the occasional unbalanced battle in the tournaments is not a problem and great to see more scenarios being tried out.

[VenG]

It is the same for me-I outflanked the English with the French and in the other game, the French crossbow just cut my archers to pieces. And those pits does nothing, I was forced to came out of the defensive position. The disproportion is too big for the English sadly.

[Nijis]

The English defenders do seem underpowered in the tournament battles.

My opponent played very well as the French (and I laid my pits poorly) and routed me 40-5. In the mirror game, I staged a much clumsier attack, and he had a very good pit design, and still I'm ahead 41-29. Our map is quite favorable to the English defender, with their left flank covered by a river.

He massed his firepower and cracked one of my corners, while his knights went around my right flank where I had not laid my pits properly. So, it's clear why I lost. But my much clumsier attack involved me simply shooting through the front of his line, with my crossbowmen overwhelming his archers by weight of shot.

The game rewards maneuvers and counterattacks, so it's hard to win with a static army. That said, the longbowmen seem a bit underpowered in a missile duel. Maybe some of them should be veterans with Above Average quality, or have Some Armour? I recognize that there may be a reluctance to upgrade the quality value of levy troops, and also this may require new textures. Maybe reducing their cost by a point or two is also worth considering.

[SnuggleBunnies]

My personal thoughts are that the longbows (and/or their stakes for the later ones) should be a *little* cheaper, or their shooting a little more effective. Subtle changes to either should do the trick. I think English armies should really shine on the defensive, we wouldn't want them to be an auto-win army. Right now, it seems a little tough even to play a solid defensive game with them.

Regarding scoring, I think defenders winning a solid 75 on the draw is fine - they are at a points disadvantage, they shouldn't feel compelled to attack on top of that just to get some points.

[edb1815]

I have now completed my defensive battles match in the tournament and the French won both times. Would be interesting to know how it went in other players games, did many players score better with the English rather than the French ? I would only have thought they could if the French attacked frontally against the defenses.

In our games the English were forced to come out of their defensive position, by fire power in one game and by a flanking attack in the other. Unless you had an 'Agincourt' like position with both flanks guarded I would think this is generally what is going to happen, and even if you used a narrower map the defender is not going to be able to deploy pits the cover the area outside the deployment area. Maybe it would work on a narrow map if the defender had archers and stakes...

The English have a force around 200 points (140 initially plus 3 points/unit) less than their opponents. I think this is too big a margin, the way the game works a few extra units make a big difference - battles can be won by one unit that gets around a flank. Perhaps reduce it to something like 40 points initially plus the 3 points per unit would make for a more balanced game.

Having said that the occasional unbalanced battle in the tournaments is not a problem and great to see more scenarios being tried out.

In my matches we are both flanking with the French forcing the English out of the fortified positions. My opponent put 60 points in peasants and moved them to his baseline so I as the English have to rout even more of the French frontline units. Matches are ongoing with no clear winner in either yet.

[gribol]

Regarding scoring, I think defenders winning a solid 75 on the draw is fine - they are at a points disadvantage, they shouldn't feel compelled to attack on top of that just to get some points.

Good point. I think so too.