Slitherine

david53 wrote: You see I would agree with you if that would please some people but looking back on this thread its not the size of the BG's that count for them.

This thread has wandered around and covered far too many issues to pin it down to just one. But equally the sheer volume of comment seems to indicate that there is "some" sort of issue that is spoiling "some" peoples enjoyment of the game - and this "mystery issue" seems to come up most frequently in battles with lots of skirmishers, with large BG-count armies, or where the "benny hill" phase drags out (or prevents) a possible conclusion in a reasonable timeframe.

The challenge is working out what exactly that issue is, and how (if at all) to deal with it - however whether you use Mongols at the Challenge is unlikely to affect this process in any way whatsoever

madaxeman wrote:

david53 wrote: You see I would agree with you if that would please some people but looking back on this thread its not the size of the BG's that count for them.

This thread has wandered around and covered far too many issues to pin it down to just one. But equally the sheer volume of comment seems to indicate that there is "some" sort of issue that is spoiling "some" peoples enjoyment of the game - and this "mystery issue" seems to come up most frequently in battles with lots of skirmishers, with large BG-count armies, or where the "benny hill" phase drags out (or prevents) a possible conclusion in a reasonable timeframe.

The challenge is working out what exactly that issue is, and how (if at all) to deal with it - however whether you use Mongols at the Challenge is unlikely to affect this process in any way whatsoever

It's possible I may be the only player to have come out the other side of the Benny Hill phase. In a 6 hour Britcon game I had something fluffy 1AP from breaking and pinned in the corners with camp at my mercy. I then took three bounds trying to bolster a fragmented unit to get an extra point. My opponent finally worked it out and persuaded some LH to suicide against my cavalry.

LOL - nice!

madaxeman wrote:

david53 wrote: You see I would agree with you if that would please some people but looking back on this thread its not the size of the BG's that count for them.

This thread has wandered around and covered far too many issues to pin it down to just one. But equally the sheer volume of comment seems to indicate that there is "some" sort of issue that is spoiling "some" peoples enjoyment of the game - and this "mystery issue" seems to come up most frequently in battles with lots of skirmishers, with large BG-count armies, or where the "benny hill" phase drags out (or prevents) a possible conclusion in a reasonable timeframe.

The challenge is working out what exactly that issue is, and how (if at all) to deal with it - however whether you use Mongols at the Challenge is unlikely to affect this process in any way whatsoever

Lets cut to the chase the mystery issue is you think the rules regarding skirmishers should be changed simple put up an arguement instead of just saying theres a problum.

grahambriggs wrote:

madaxeman wrote:

david53 wrote: You see I would agree with you if that would please some people but looking back on this thread its not the size of the BG's that count for them.

This thread has wandered around and covered far too many issues to pin it down to just one. But equally the sheer volume of comment seems to indicate that there is "some" sort of issue that is spoiling "some" peoples enjoyment of the game - and this "mystery issue" seems to come up most frequently in battles with lots of skirmishers, with large BG-count armies, or where the "benny hill" phase drags out (or prevents) a possible conclusion in a reasonable timeframe.

The challenge is working out what exactly that issue is, and how (if at all) to deal with it - however whether you use Mongols at the Challenge is unlikely to affect this process in any way whatsoever

It's possible I may be the only player to have come out the other side of the Benny Hill phase. In a 6 hour Britcon game I had something fluffy 1AP from breaking and pinned in the corners with camp at my mercy. I then took three bounds trying to bolster a fragmented unit to get an extra point. My opponent finally worked it out and persuaded some LH to suicide against my cavalry.

You could have off course just allowed your opponent to catch your BG and get it all over, or you could have played the game to your best and did what you did.

Not to cast any doubt on your 6 hour game but I was at that event and remember the game in question, surely you are exaggerating a little on the time? LOL

Rob

Robert241167 wrote:Not to cast any doubt on your 6 hour game but I was at that event and remember the game in question, surely you are exaggerating a little on the time? LOL

Rob

The Friday night game at Britcon can last upto 6 hours so time was not an issue for Graham. I am sure the game lasted less than 6 hours but because there was effectively no time limit it allowed Graham to bottle up his opponents army and bide his time until he bolstered the fragmented BG.

Cheers Hammy

Remind me is that on the agreement of both parties or the rule?

Rob

Robert241167 wrote:Cheers Hammy

Remind me is that on the agreement of both parties or the rule?

Rob

On the Friday night of Britcon games start between 6:00pm and 9:00pm and last bounds are called at midnight. The intention is that there should not be many drawn games in the first round. There is nothing stopping a pair of players agreeing a draw and packing up but if either player wants to keep playing then the game goes on.

Oh god, now I've got to find an army that can't be beaten inside 6 hours on the Friday night!!!

Mind you last year I think I got a 25-0 on the Friday night inside 2 hours..............................................................................but then had a draw and 4 big losses to plummet into oblivion!!

Rob

Robert241167 wrote:Oh god, now I've got to find an army that can't be beaten inside 6 hours on the Friday night!!!

You could just not put your name into the hat until later

In previous years when Britcon was in Loughborough it was not unheard of for players to hide in the bushes waiting for the nasty seeded players to all get their games underway and then pop their name into the draw when they felt it was 'safe'

Robert241167 wrote:Oh god, now I've got to find an army that can't be beaten inside 6 hours on the Friday night!!!

Mind you last year I think I got a 25-0 on the Friday night inside 2 hours..............................................................................but then had a draw and 4 big losses to plummet into oblivion!!

Rob

Easier idea start at 9pm last bound at 12pm 3 hours play

hammy wrote:

Robert241167 wrote:Oh god, now I've got to find an army that can't be beaten inside 6 hours on the Friday night!!!

You could just not put your name into the hat until later

In previous years when Britcon was in Loughborough it was not unheard of for players to hide in the bushes waiting for the nasty seeded players to all get their games underway and then pop their name into the draw when they felt it was 'safe'

As if anyone would do that now

david53 wrote: Lets cut to the chase the mystery issue is you think the rules regarding skirmishers should be changed simple put up an arguement instead of just saying theres a problum.

Nope, skirmishers is not in itself the problum. Oddly enough, it's exactly as I said in my last post.

Of course, if there was not a big VP bonus for breaking the oponent's army, there would be much less reason to complain about unbreakable armies.

lawrenceg wrote:Of course, if there was not a big VP bonus for breaking the oponent's army, there would be much less reason to complain about unbreakable armies.

And there would be more incentive to draw as you can get a relatively better placing in a tournament by drawing all four games

Agreed. To my way of thinking the importance attached to getting as decisive a victory as possible rather than just a victory is the issue. It's also unhistorical

The counter-argument was that if the scoring is too granular, you can't separate the players over what might be as few as four rounds.

This has been an issue in chess tournaments for years, and various tie-break schemes are used. It's not entirely satisfactory if you believe there needs to be a clear winner rather than a three-way tie for first place, it is true.

But then again, a tournament being decided by somebody just shading an extra point in one of their games could be seen as just as arbitrary as e.g. a tiebreak based on countback or sum of opponents scores.

Another thing I've been wondering about...camp counts 2 APs in tournament scoring? IT seems to me it should increase with size of army...otherwise the impact of losing your camp is less for the many BG armies...and if the many BGs are being used as elusive fluff, being more able to ignore a threat to their camp exacerbates the potential for Benny Hill problems.

ShrubMiK wrote:But then again, a tournament being decided by somebody just shading an extra point in one of their games could be seen as just as arbitrary as e.g. a tiebreak based on countback or sum of opponents scores.

It might be just as arbitrary, but it has the massive advantage of simplicity. The need for a second scoring system to provide tiebreakers only proves that your primary system isn't well though out IMO.

This keeps getting relitigated all the time but the same people keep arguing the point in the threads whenever they appear. There is not an overwhelming proportion of players posting here saying this is a problem. I think of the rankings we have 850 players and maybe 20 or 30 in this thread.

In any set or rules/regulations/laws there is an opportunity for maximising your advantage we need to accept this is a fact of life and move on. I played LH armies for a very long time and switched to foot armies and have not had any problems beating mounted skirmish armies.

madaxeman wrote: This thread has wandered around and covered far too many issues to pin it down to just one. But equally the sheer volume of comment seems to indicate that there is "some" sort of issue that is spoiling "some" peoples enjoyment of the game - and this "mystery issue" seems to come up most frequently in battles with lots of skirmishers, with large BG-count armies, or where the "benny hill" phase drags out (or prevents) a possible conclusion in a reasonable timeframe.

The challenge is working out what exactly that issue is, and how (if at all) to deal with it - however whether you use Mongols at the Challenge is unlikely to affect this process in any way whatsoever

I think the major issue is that people don't like being unable to complete games and there are a number of reasons why games are not completed. The scoring system rewards players who win games with an extra 5 points. Perhaps what is needed is a system that rewards both players that complete a game, with the winner getting more points than the loser (maybe 10 for the win 5 for the loss). This would make both players in a game more keen to bring the game to a conclusion.

I have used a scoring system similar to this when running DBA comps. The winner scores 15 points minus the number of elements lost (with a minimum score of 10) and the loser score points equal to the number of enemy elements killed (maximum score of 5). If a draw occurs then both players get 0. While this would be extreme for FoG where it is sometimes going to be hard to get a result even if both players are trying to get a result I think a reward for completed games could solve alot of problems.

Regards

Martin