Slitherine

Paulkit0 wrote:I like big armies too Bob but we come up against the time we need to complete a game & I wonder if fighting against something like Hawaiian or Western Sudanese there is any way to ever break a 23 or 24 unit army...

This has been suggested for inclusion in the update we are working on:

"The solution adopted in Fog AM for those who don't know it was to restrict the army break point to 1 per 50 points of army size, so a 700 point army breaks on a maximum of 14 AP losses (if it has 14 or more BG, otherwise as now). 800 point armies have a corresponding maximum of 16 and 900 have 18."

I like that and think it was one of the things that I thought would becworth carrying over from FOG.
John

Thanks to everyone who has taken the time to comment. To an extent this has been somewhat overtaken by the prospect of an official update. It seems fairly clear that themed competitions are more popular and I'm hopeful that the forthcoming rules changes will remove the need for tournament "conditions".

It seems there's an appetite for more 1 day competitions. I do feel however that these are more satisfactory if 3 games can be played, either via smaller points/tables or preset terrain. It's too common for a 2 game competition to have 2 players at the top who have similar scores and a third round would give a more gratifying result.

After Urban Bunny's comments about scoring I have been working on a new scoring system that rewards armies that have taken at least some cheaper troop types and encourages getting stuck in. Even having your army broken while causing a modicum of casualties will outscore a declared or bloodless draw. I have the scheme roughed out and most of the spreadsheet work completed it just needs a readable explanation. Is this of any interest?

A different scoring system may well freshen things up. We've just inherited the one used by Fog AM and it does possibly reward draws too much.

steads wrote:After Urban Bunny's comments about scoring I have been working on a new scoring system that rewards armies that have taken at least some cheaper troop types and encourages getting stuck in. Even having your army broken while causing a modicum of casualties will outscore a declared or bloodless draw. I have the scheme roughed out and most of the spreadsheet work completed it just needs a readable explanation. Is this of any interest?

Yes.

Is there any way of influencing the scoring so that superior/elite units are worth more than average or light troops?
I'll explain...
Take an average sized army of say 13bg. The Light Infantry at present is worth the same as the superior armoured cavalry when both break. Which would be a bigger morale blow to the army?
'Oh, there go the Guards, again!' Or 'There goes the Dragoons, they lasted longer than last time!'
Also it would mean that when facing one of the massive 19-20 bg armies that are on the scene, picking off a key unit or two might help the smaller armies cause. Might not help vs 18 unit average Mapuche, but might make elephants or superior cavalry worth shepherding rather than throwing away?

The scoring system has a maximum of 100 victory points and is composed of 5 elements:-
1. 60 Victory Points for kills and army size adjustments
2. 10 Victory Points for base survival
3. 10 Victory Points AP kills
4. 10 Victory Points AP preservation
5. 10 Victory Points for breaking enemy army reduced to 5 Victory Points if your own army is broken

1. The core of this is scoring one Victory Point for each enemy base removed from play. This includes:-
a. 1 Victory Point for sacking the enemy camp
b. 1 Victory Point for each enemy general killed
c. 1 Victory Point per enemy base that evades off-table
d. 1 Victory Point per enemy base removed as a casualty due to shooting or close combat
e. 1 Victory Point per enemy base in broken Battle Groups at the end of the game
f. 1 Victory Point per enemy Regimental Gun Marker removed due to BG break
In addition there are adjustments based on the size of the enemies army and the number of points your army is worth.
a. You gain 1 Victory Point for each base less than 100 bases in your opponent's army. The number of bases is the total of combat bases including Regimental Gun Markers, plus Generals and plus one for the camp.
b. You gain a quarter of a Victory Point for each point not used from the competition points allowance.
c. You lose 4 Victory Points for each point your army is over the competition points allowance

2. You gain 1 Victory Point for each 5% (or part thereof) of the number of bases in your army, over 50%, that survive.
% bases lost Points scored
<5% 10
At least 5% but less than 10% 9
At least 10% but less than 15% 8
At least 15% but less than 20% 7
At least 20% but less than 25% 6
At least 25% but less than 30% 5
At least 30% but less than 35% 4
At least 35% but less than 40% 3
At least 40% but less than 45% 2
At least 45% but less than 50% 1
At least 50% 0
NB it is possible to be broken and still score Victory Points if the lost units are small.

3. Proportion of Enemy Attrition Points lost compared with the Enemy Army Break Point. This is calculated in the same way as the current scheme but will be calculated to the full spreadsheet number resolution and displayed to two decimal places.

4. Proportion of Own Attrition Points surviving compared with your Army Break Point. This is calculated in the same way as the current scheme but will be calculated to the full spreadsheet number resolution and displayed to two decimal places.

5. Score 10 Victory Points if you break the opponents army. This is reduced to 5 Victory Points if both armies break in the same phase.

The logic is to encourage aggressive play with armies that have a proportion of less costly troop types.
Fielding a small army made up of expensive troop types will give your opponent bonus points before you start.
Rewarding slightly undersized armies and allowing a couple of points over, at a cost, makes army design a little easier.
The arithmetic looks complicated but would be entirely handled by the organiser's spreadsheet.
It requires a little additional bookkeeping before and after play.
As part of your army list submission you must state the total number of bases in your army. This can be handled by using a formula like the following for the Badcon spreadsheet:
=SUM(J10:J46)+1+IF(M3>0,1,0)+IF(M4>0,1,0)+IF(M5>0,1,0)+IF(M6>0,1,0)
At the end of the game in addition to recording the Attrition Points lost for each army the number of bases lost needs to be recorded.
I have created a spreadsheet that scores an individual game (https://www.dropbox.com/s/uvh2y3toljopb ... .xlsx?dl=0). Feel free to have a play around. I have locked it so the formulas do not get mangled but there is no password. The full competition organiser spreadsheet will need to be modified but it is a relatively simple task to do so.
Comments welcome
Enjoy

Blimey! Nice one.

My initial reaction is that it looks complicated

From previous experience helping run Britcon there were plenty enough scoresheet errors made with the current system and something more complex would only result in more which would not be good.

Replacing the current system may be a good thing, but IMO not if the replacement were more complex

Whilst this is an impressive piece of work that's clearly been thought through a lot, I have to agree with Nik that it's too complicated. The current system, despite being essentially very simple, still causes problems to the extent that, if I'm using a computer to keep scores in a tournament, I'll write the scoring formula into my spreadsheet and use a simpler scoresheet.

Whilst I agree that it's good to encourage more use of lower cost troops I think that tying it to scoring is not the best way. It also introduces problems of scaling, not many 800 point armies are 100 bases but once you go to 650 or 700 points it becomes even more of a factor. I think the best way to discourage people from the all Superior type armies is to rebalance the cost effectiveness of the different types, which is something we're trying to achieve with the rules revision.

I understand that this looks complicated because to some degree it is! However, the players at the end of game only have to write down 4 numbers; APs lost and bases lost for each player. The umpire has the toughest job of transcribing those numbers into the spreadsheet. To help reduce errors the sample spreadsheet has a number of data validation rules implemented. The computer does all the working out.
This regime is probably as robust as the system where multiple people do the calculations and they are then aggregated; though we are moving away from this in many competitions to the single central spreadsheet model.

To the more substantive criticism that 100 bases is the wrong army size to aim for, particularly for 700 and 650 point armies. This was intended as a fairly aggressive starting point and could easily be adjusted (either generically or on a per competition basis) in the light of experience.
I concur with Kevin that adjustments in troop points costs will go some way towards addressing the overwhelming preference for Superior troops in competition armies.

However I recognise without widespread support this attempt at scoring revision will be consigned to the scrapheap of history.
TTFN

I have also been thinking about scoring and I think there may be an option that is based on the current system but rewards people who play aggressively more.

If one army breaks:
Score as now, so the winner will get 16-25 points and the loser 0-9.

Otherwise:
Each player gets 5 points plus 1 point for each 10% of the enemy army lost.
So:
Players draw with no losses = 5-5
Both players lose 50% = 10-10
One player loses 30% and the other loses 80% = 13-8
In short each player gets between 5 and 14

Mutual Destruction would = 15-15 but I'd make it a special case at say 13-13. They're currently pretty rare, I've only experienced 1 in what I estimate to be over 300 games.

I think this would reward aggressive play more (or at least penalise negative play) but I can see an issue in that there's no fixed score. One benefit of the current system is that players can't make things up for their mutual benefit. I remember earlier scoring systems that tried to reward aggressive play leading to suspicion that some results had been manipulated in this way. Is this still likely to be an issue or, given that we're generally dealing with smaller tournaments that are easier to supervise, is it likely to be less of a problem?

Is this 10%, bases, or AP.

If AP armies are supposed to break on 50% therefore how would anyone get 80%, unless you mean 80% of the 50% to break.

But no bonus for breaking the opposition which means the maximum difference is 10 pts, 5-15 if you lose 0% and kill 100%(ie 50% to get a break) and break the opposition.

This would make all competitions very tight, harder to run away with them.

Other questions would be do you round up so you kill 11 AP of a 24 AP army (12 BG's) that's 45.8% so is that 50% or 40%.

A couple of questions for my clarity
1] Are these percentages of APs rather than bases?
2] Is it your intention to round the 10% as we do now or use "at least" or use the actual percentages in the spreadsheet but not for display?

As to manipulation of the result: The more complicated and automated the calculation the more difficult it is to manipulate the result. I guess we will have to trust the players unless we start doing random spot checks.
If you limit the top score for a mutual destruction then it will quickly see that "Player"s will report all but one AP lost as this will give them better scores.

Yes, I meant percentage of the AP break point, exactly as it's calculated now.

You would get a bonus for breaking the army, as that scoring doesn't change from the current system.

If I were calculating this in a spreadsheet I'd use actual percentages/decimals.

kevinj wrote:I have also been thinking about scoring and I think there may be an option that is based on the current system but rewards people who play aggressively more.

If one army breaks:
Score as now, so the winner will get 16-25 points and the loser 0-9.

Otherwise:
Each player gets 5 points plus 1 point for each 10% of the enemy army lost.
So:
Players draw with no losses = 5-5
Both players lose 50% = 10-10
One player loses 30% and the other loses 80% = 13-8
In short each player gets between 5 and 14

Mutual Destruction would = 15-15 but I'd make it a special case at say 13-13.

I like this as it's very simple:
Although this might better to avoid "under reporting":

kevinj wrote:I think this would reward aggressive play more (or at least penalise negative play) but I can see an issue in that there's no fixed score. One benefit of the current system is that players can't make things up for their mutual benefit. I remember earlier scoring systems that tried to reward aggressive play leading to suspicion that some results had been manipulated in this way. Is this still likely to be an issue or, given that we're generally dealing with smaller tournaments that are easier to supervise, is it likely to be less of a problem?

I can't see any real drawbacks. Aggressive play will garner rewards with this scheme. If you wanted to "fix" things you'd still have to be aggressive enough to get 10-14 points in all your games without getting beaten and hope the leaders were winning and losing alternate games.

I personally don't see the scoring system as the problem here.

Don't think I have ever considered the scoring system before I entered a competition, but this would not encourage my return.

Don

ps. Yes I know some would consider this a good thing.

Don, your return would be most welcome, especially in the competitions I can't get to...

kevinj wrote:Yes, I meant percentage of the AP break point, exactly as it's calculated now.

You would get a bonus for breaking the army, as that scoring doesn't change from the current system.

If I were calculating this in a spreadsheet I'd use actual percentages/decimals.

How would a "let's agree a draw as you clearly would be mad to come out and attack my mounted army on this plain, and I'm not assaulting that defensive position in the corner surrounded by terrain that you've dug yourself into" play out?

In a non-zero-sum system this type of matchup may cause more problems than it solves...