Slitherine

If it's a general problem then it would be better to look for a solution that is more generally applicable than in a type of competition that there isn't much enthusiasm for and that requires a larger number of players than we normally get.

I spent a whole game running away from Dave Saunders (except for a couple of suicidal charges). I knew my army of protected mounted could not face french ordannance. So hid.

And how would a different scoring system change this, unless it rewarded recklessly throwing away your army? Anyone can get a bad match up, and to risk relegation to a lesser competition as a result would probably result in more conservative army choices in order to mitigate that risk.

Or is it because Dave is at the top of the ranking?

Do you need another reason?

OK, you've got me here, I've got nothing to counter this.

spike wrote:No it probably doesn't, as I said earlier I dont like the idea of an "FA Cup" competition, So I made an alternative suggestion, as has Kevin.

The point was that I come 4th in all your iterations.

Humour's wasted on some people.

philqw78 [b]should have said[/b] wrote:
MY Humour's wasted on some people.

....oh, so like a joke but not funny

It rewards saving points as much as taking them which can lead to negative play. This was brought to the forefront of my mind at the Challenge where I spent a whole game running away from Dave Saunders (except for a couple of suicidal charges). I knew my army of protected mounted could not face french ordannance. So hid

But that's part and parcel of the game isn't it? As I recall you did something similar against me too. I'm guessing most of us have done it some time or another.

The 35-0 bit has some merit but has the potential to distort the results in my view. A couple of big wins and you could be uncatchable. Look at the Challenge. Graham won all his games but still ended up tied with Dave who lost at least one because Dave picked up more army breaks - and that's all about the luck of the draw.

Surley Graham, having some girly Persians, drew more games. He didn't win more.

petedalby wrote:

It rewards saving points as much as taking them which can lead to negative play. This was brought to the forefront of my mind at the Challenge where I spent a whole game running away from Dave Saunders (except for a couple of suicidal charges). I knew my army of protected mounted could not face french ordannance. So hid

But that's part and parcel of the game isn't it? As I recall you did something similar against me too. I'm guessing most of us have done it some time or another.

The 35-0 bit has some merit but has the potential to distort the results in my view. A couple of big wins and you could be uncatchable. Look at the Challenge. Graham won all his games but still ended up tied with Dave who lost at least one because Dave picked up more army breaks - and that's all about the luck of the draw.

Well, I think I broke two armies and monkey boy broke three. Against my last two opponents I broke the bits that stood to fight but couldn't catch enough of the rest. In the last game this was because I forgot Ian's army was 13BGs not 12 so made the wrong decision on the chase.

Phil does have a point in that at such a stage in the game, with current scoring, Rob and Ian were never going to get any more points and to stand and fight would just risk them scoring less so there's no incentive for them to fight. On the other hand, with the strongest troops in the army gone, the chance of actually doing more damage is small. So I doubt the incentive would make the risk worth it.

While ITC didn't benefit in the past from the 310 scoring, I have played a few singles competitions with "big win" style scoring in DBM and it seemed to have a positive effect there, somewhat against my expectation. Mostly it was people brought more aggressive armies and so you got more games where a proper battle took place.

So a move in that direction would be a good thing perhaps. As long as it doesn't get to the stage where mutual suicide is a good plan!

I spent a whole game running away from Dave Saunders (except for a couple of suicidal charges). I knew my army of protected mounted could not face french ordannance. So hid.

aaahh! so that was what was happening....bit of bennie hill. should have been more aggressive, and allowed less fag breaks.

still think more toys on the table is the answer. version 2 has not addressed running away enough. yet. if anything made it worse as generals move less troops double speed. 900pts please. as always yawn.

davesaunders23 wrote:aaahh! so that was what was happening....bit of bennie hill. should have been more aggressive, and allowed less fag breaks.

At which point we may have seen who could be most aggressive Dave

I spent a whole game running away from Dave Saunders (except for a couple of suicidal charges). I knew my army of protected mounted could not face french ordannance. So hid.

I thought we were discussing aggression Phil, how's that sort play going to be rewarded!!!!

davesaunders23 wrote: aaahh! so that was what was happening....bit of bennie hill. should have been more aggressive, and allowed less fag breaks.

still think more toys on the table is the answer. version 2 has not addressed running away enough. yet. if anything made it worse as generals move less troops double speed. 900pts please. as always yawn.

Sorry Dave
Disagree entirely, more troops on big table equals more drawn games not less. Fewer troops on smaller tables is the answer to having too many dull drawn games, this I for one think is dull in its own right - More results and bonus point victories are the way to go.

S

davesaunders23 wrote:
still think more toys on the table is the answer. version 2 has not addressed running away enough. yet. if anything made it worse as generals move less troops double speed. 900pts please. as always yawn.

Indeed - more toys is good

still think more toys on the table is the answer. version 2 has not addressed running away enough. yet. if anything made it worse as generals move less troops double speed. 900pts please

Surely more troops would be even harder to move around?

kevinj wrote:

still think more toys on the table is the answer. version 2 has not addressed running away enough. yet. if anything made it worse as generals move less troops double speed. 900pts please

Surely more troops would be even harder to move around?

more toys means less running away. in my (humble) opinion. also looks better to those of us more interested in history and toys than the competitive game. i suspect the players we've lost are those who are less competitive.

derby has larger armies, more often than not 850 if not 900pts. i haven't noticed less fun games. okay there are some slower players but are there really that many? who aren't still slow at 800pts? roll call is 850pts.

anyway i'm getting away from Phil's original point.. sorry.

mind you if the challenge had been 900pts Phil might not have run away from me so successfully, methinks. as long as the army break does not rise for the extra points..which v2 has addressed.

Hi Dave

You do know the army break would raise for the extra points?

900/50 now gives a maximum 18 break points.

Rob

Robert241167 wrote:Hi Dave

You do know the army break would raise for the extra points?

900/50 now gives a maximum 18 break points.

Rob

I agree Rob, as you know. The lower the breakpoint the sqicker games are.

spike wrote:Sorry Dave
Disagree entirely, more troops on big table equals more drawn games not less. Fewer troops on smaller tables is the answer to having too many dull drawn games, this I for one think is dull in its own right - More results and bonus point victories are the way to go.

S

Less troops on a smaller table. Are you mad. (this is rhetorical so no ?) Troop density would still be low, therefore giving space to hide. V2 now encourages the same points on smaller tables to increase troop density and therefore game finishes.

Just becuase you can put 17BG on a table and play for a draw.

philqw78 wrote:

spike wrote:Sorry Dave
Disagree entirely, more troops on big table equals more drawn games not less. Fewer troops on smaller tables is the answer to having too many dull drawn games, this I for one think is dull in its own right - More results and bonus point victories are the way to go.

S

Less troops on a smaller table. Are you mad. (this is rhetorical so no ?) Troop density would still be low, therefore giving space to hide. V2 now encourages the same points on smaller tables to increase troop density and therefore game finishes.

Just becuase you can put 17BG on a table and play for a draw.

So are you saying that 650 pts on 5x3 tables makes a bad competition format then Phil or

S

FWIW I think we should be exploring smaller tables / more points and anything else which adds variety - and still with no need to change the scoring system.

I'm looking forward to Britcon with it's smaller table in the Medieval period. I think that will make for a different game. I've always enjoyed Derby and its approach with themes and different points per theme although sadly I can't make it this year due to the date change.

The Southern League in FoGR have very successfully used a 1 day, 3 games, pre-set terrain format which has been extremely well attended.

So more variety please tournament organisers. Let's get away from 800 AP on a 6 x 4 table.

spike wrote: So are you saying that 650 pts on 5x3 tables makes a bad competition format then Phil or

S

You said less points on a smaller table numb nuts.

650 is normal points on that size table.

I said wrote: So are you saying that 650 pts on 5x3 tables makes a bad competition format then Phil or

S

First....650pts on 5x3 is Hammy's creation as a competition, it did not exist before he ran EXPO 2008 (as far as I'm aware), and was not defined in any annex of v.1. so it is only normal because it has been deemed as acceptable to players. He could have chosen for example 600pts on 4x4 tables as his standard instead of 650 on 5x3

Phil said wrote: You said less points on a smaller table numb nuts.
650 is normal points on that size table.

and two....

I did not say anything about points Phil, I said "Fewer troops on smaller tables" which is not the same thing.

However with V.2 as it happens less points also means a lower break-point, so fewer points does assist in making games more decisive, as long as the tables are appropriately scaled.
Which as it happens is what you were actually saying, whist trying to heap scorn on me

If you want a competition where the overly competitive big boys kick all the rabbits into a separate competition beginning with round 2, why not just hold separate competitions, and instead of playing round 1 have some additional quality drinking time?