Slitherine

Well there is a difference between game speed and reward for breaking armies. Two different objectives one for first place in a tournament the other for enjoyment.

hazelbark wrote:Well there is a difference between game speed and reward for breaking armies. Two different objectives one for first place in a tournament the other for enjoyment.

Absolutely. And the bigger the reward for breaking amies, the less enjoyable it is when your losing opponent plays slowly enough that you can't break his army in the time available.

Impose some form of scoring adjustment, so that if one side has a significant win in progress but runs out of time it gets a bonus similar to breaking the other army..

Just a thought

John

madaxeman wrote:So +7 for an outright win and a countback based on results of games between the two players concerned would maybe be better from where you stand ?

I'm quite happy with how they stand already Tim.

recharge wrote:Impose some form of scoring adjustment, so that if one side has a significant win in progress but runs out of time it gets a bonus similar to breaking the other army..

+2 for almost breaking an enemy. Awarded when you are more than 1/3 from your break point but your opponent is 2 AP away.

or make breaks easier - eg your army breaks at no of BGs APs, or 14, which ever comes first. Makes hordes a bit pants, and means that games finish quicker.

Better way. Make army BP 1 BG per hundred points or part thereof. So a Britcon 800 point game would have army BPs as number of BG or 8 which ever came first...

timmy1 wrote:Better way. Make army BP 1 BG per hundred points or part thereof. So a Britcon 800 point game would have army BPs as number of BG or 8 which ever came first...

My Tibetans would be great bthen. 8 BG, kill them all to win.

Ugggh. All these proposals ad unnecessary extra layers of complexity. The current system is perfectly satisfactory.

Marc

babyshark wrote:Ugggh. All these proposals ad unnecessary extra layers of complexity. The current system is perfectly satisfactory.

Can't say I agree there. IMHO the scoring system currently used is the one thing in FoG that really favours swarm type armies. Add a limit to the number of BGs that count toward the army break point (say 14 or 15) and the problem pretty much goes away.

Ghaznavid wrote:

babyshark wrote:Ugggh. All these proposals ad unnecessary extra layers of complexity. The current system is perfectly satisfactory.

Can't say I agree there. IMHO the scoring system currently used is the one thing in FoG that really favours swarm type armies. Add a limit to the number of BGs that count toward the army break point (say 14 or 15) and the problem pretty much goes away.

I think this is fair-ish point. The advantage is usual in tournament of unfinished games by winning the ratio of losses. Not particularly critical.

I still favor what makes the rules more enjoyable as opposed to tournament outcome.

babyshark wrote:Ugggh. All these proposals ad unnecessary extra layers of complexity. The current system is perfectly satisfactory.

Yes but since you haven't figured out the current scoring calculations, you could hardly be called a fair judge.

Kidding.

Ghaznavid wrote: Can't say I agree there. IMHO the scoring system currently used is the one thing in FoG that really favours swarm type armies. Add a limit to the number of BGs that count toward the army break point (say 14 or 15) and the problem pretty much goes away.

Anyone have the data to back this assertion up?

Of course; there's nothing to prevent the tournament coordinatorfrom setting a specific limit such as 14.

John

In Italy we had in 2008 an average result of 1 break every 3 game, now we have more than 1 every 2.
As players learn rules play goes faster and more game ends with a brake.

Some kind of match still tend to give draws :
1. armies with a lots of units (middle repubblican roman with 22 units)
2. shoot and flee armies like skytian
3. new players

Given that 1. and 2. are mainly ancients medieval match are faster.

Is it the same in GB ?

Matteo

recharge wrote:Impose some form of scoring adjustment, so that if one side has a significant win in progress but runs out of time it gets a bonus similar to breaking the other army..
Just a thought
John

Maybe the easiest will be to increase the value af the camp, 2 point when you have bp of 8 is good, 2 point when you have bp of 18 means that you can loose yor camp without too many problems.

HIMo camp is supposed to give 20% - 25% of your total BP (we play so in larger battles and in campain).

Matteo

hammy wrote:Looking at the early period I make the number of decisive games per round (out of 21): 18,6,7,5,7,5 so the longer first game was a lot more decisive than the later ones. Overall 38% of games ended in a result.

In the later period out of 19 games there were decisive results in: 17,9,6,9,11,7 or just over 50% of the games. These figures are calculated by summing the total scores each round subtracting 20 times the number of games and dividing the result by 5. Remember that it is possible to get a 16-9 'win'

In my view approximately 50% decisive results is what we should be aiming for. Any higher proportion and there is no reward for rapid, decisive play, and many players will be twiddling their thumbs for the last hour of each round after finishing early.

As has been stated above, Britcon is a special case, becase it has 6 rounds, making the Swiss Chess pairing system more "effective" overall. In the later rounds players of very similar levels of skill will be matched, inevitably leading to more indecisive results.

rbodleyscott wrote: In my view approximately 50% decisive results is what we should be aiming for. Any higher proportion and there is no reward for rapid, decisive play, and many players will be twiddling their thumbs for the last hour of each round after finishing early.

As has been stated above, Britcon is a special case, becase it has 6 rounds, making the Swiss Chess pairing system more "effective" overall. In the later rounds players of very similar levels of skill will be matched, inevitably leading to more indecisive results.

Do we really want decisive games to primarily happen when there are big mis-matches in skill? What would seem like a reasonable decision rate on the top tables?

ethan wrote:

rbodleyscott wrote: In my view approximately 50% decisive results is what we should be aiming for. Any higher proportion and there is no reward for rapid, decisive play, and many players will be twiddling their thumbs for the last hour of each round after finishing early.

As has been stated above, Britcon is a special case, becase it has 6 rounds, making the Swiss Chess pairing system more "effective" overall. In the later rounds players of very similar levels of skill will be matched, inevitably leading to more indecisive results.

Do we really want decisive games to primarily happen when there are big mis-matches in skill? What would seem like a reasonable decision rate on the top tables?

Skilful (historical) generalship was as much about minimising a defeat as maximising a victory.

If tournament games are not about skill, what are they about?

If you have a high decision rate when skill is equal, it can only be due to luck. Why would we want a lot of major score differentials to be decided by luck?

A very high decision rate could be achieved by tossing a coin.

rbodleyscott wrote: Skilful (historical) generalship was as much about minimising a defeat as maximising a victory.

My impression is that most ancient battles ended with decisive victories for one side or another. Now, there are probably some good reasons for this as the sample of battles fought is probably not a random sample of battles that might have been fought but that is a different issue.