Slitherine

rbodleyscott wrote:If tournament games are not about skill, what are they about?

Fun. Enjoyment. Getting in a variety of games. New opponents.Relaxing, avoiding the world. Seeing different armies, playing different people. Beer.
Lots of other stuff.

I get that it is also about winning and skill, but let's not narrow the world down to pure competition that way eventually killed DBM.

I say this is a person who has played and done fairly well in a number of competitions even international.

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

You channelling your old writing partner now?

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.

Probably because they aren't constrained to a 3.5 hour game and just keep going until they get a result - even if this takes more than one day.

rbodleyscott wrote:

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.

The term "decisive game" is not well-defined.

It could be one in which one side kills a lot of the enemy and loses hardly anything itself, possibly ending with neither army routed. E.g. a 19-1

It could be one in which one army is routed, possibly having nearly routed the opposition. E.g. 16-9.

Now, one of these is more likely with mismatched players, the other with matched players. The narrower margin is with the matched players. I don't think many would object if evenly matched games normally ended 16-9 instead of timing out at 11-9. 16-9 is still a significant margin and quite likely to be decided by luck, but many people seem fixated on the need to finish games and favour a score system that rewards finished games more than unfinished ones. If you want evenly matched, finished games to have a smaller score differential then you need to change the score system, e.g. make the win bonus a sliding scale based on margin of victory instead of a fixed 5 points (I'd certainly be happy with that).

Historical battles were normally fought without a time limit, leading to the inevitable rout of one or other army, which would also be the case in FOG if there were no time limit.

One possibility you could look at is setting a shorter time limit for early games which are likely to be mismatched (hence over quicker) and a longer time limit for later rounds. That would allow more drinking time on a Saturday at the expense of having to get up earlier on Sunday. How many players would be in favour of that, I wonder?

lawrenceg wrote: One possibility you could look at is setting a shorter time limit for early games which are likely to be mismatched (hence over quicker) and a longer time limit for later rounds. That would allow more drinking time on a Saturday at the expense of having to get up earlier on Sunday. How many players would be in favour of that, I wonder?

If we could only run Britcon backwards that would be great .

philqw78 wrote:

lawrenceg wrote: One possibility you could look at is setting a shorter time limit for early games which are likely to be mismatched (hence over quicker) and a longer time limit for later rounds. That would allow more drinking time on a Saturday at the expense of having to get up earlier on Sunday. How many players would be in favour of that, I wonder?

If we could only run Britcon backwards that would be great .

Why not just make Britcon a three day event?

lawrenceg wrote:The term "decisive game" is not well-defined.

It could be one in which one side kills a lot of the enemy and loses hardly anything itself, possibly ending with neither army routed. E.g. a 19-1

It could be one in which one army is routed, possibly having nearly routed the opposition. E.g. 16-9.

I find that a good number of games I play, both at tournaments and otherwise are effectively decided even without an army rout (yet). Outside tournaments we usually end such games at that point since we don't consider the hunt for the remaining APs, to achieve an army rout particularly entertaining. Of course at tournaments sometimes on of the skills required is to keep your opponent from breaking your army as long as possible, even after he achieved dominance over the battlefield.
So I doubt that the number of army breaks is actually a good indicator for 'decisive games'.

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

Picking the best list that is avaliable

peterrjohnston wrote:Why not just make Britcon a three day event?

It is. Start Friday. Play 'til finish or 23:00. Then remaining games timed.

Tournaments are not historical battles. For the most part, few historical battles involved evenly matched forces. One side or the other tried to bring the enemy to battle from a position of strength, to ensure a victory. There were very few pitched battles. Most military campaigning had to do with wasting the enemy's territory and sieges. If a general wasn't confident of defeating the enemy he would attempt to avoid battle. More campaigns ended without a decisive battle than the other way around. Usually the campaign ended when the invading army had exhausted it's supplies and could no longer support itself on forage, or when disease forced a besieging army to withdraw. The artificial constructs of tournaments are akin to the "Star Trek" episode when Captain Kirk is transported to a desert planet to fight a Gorn with the fate of the entire race being decided by the outcome.
The time constraints of tournament play reward a certain style of play. Namely one that maximizes an army's advantages and forces a conclusion quickly. It does not reward skirmishing style play because it takes too long to wear down the enemy. Nor does it reward defensive play which requires the opponent to assault a fortified position. The enemy can just sit back and wait for time to expire, without risking his forces. That does not negate the value of an army that is best at skirmishing, nor of one that relies on lots of fortifications. It does mean that in tournament play these types of armies will not lead to decisive decisions.

gozerius wrote: the "Star Trek" episode when Captain Kirk is transported to a desert planet to fight a Gorn with the fate of the entire race being decided by the outcome.

Is this the one where they have a fight on the same cliff Bill and Ted get thrown off by 'Evil Robot' Bill and Ted

philqw78 wrote:

peterrjohnston wrote:Why not just make Britcon a three day event?

It is. Start Friday. Play 'til finish or 23:00. Then remaining games timed.

I mean the 2/2/2 format. More time for games, more time for socialising.

peterrjohnston wrote:

philqw78 wrote:

peterrjohnston wrote:Why not just make Britcon a three day event?

It is. Start Friday. Play 'til finish or 23:00. Then remaining games timed.

I mean the 2/2/2 format. More time for games, more time for socialising.

I hope we can make it an Italian format, turn up, well,... some time and then sit in the sun. Wouldn't work in Manchester though

We play 3 attrition points for a destroyed BG (i.e. one that is removed from the table due to autobreak, being reduced to 1 base or not being about to complete a rout move). Other Broken BGs (on table or routed off table) are worth 2 attrition points as normal. This has meant we get our games finished in an evening whereas we would not have done with the official rules.

It also means there is an incentive to pursue a broken enemy to eliminate it rather than letting it rout off table, so this creates an extra interesting decision - pursue a broken enemy to destroy it or stop pursuing to assist elsewhere in the battle.

lawrenceg wrote:One possibility you could look at is setting a shorter time limit for early games which are likely to be mismatched (hence over quicker) and a longer time limit for later rounds. That would allow more drinking time on a Saturday at the expense of having to get up earlier on Sunday. How many players would be in favour of that, I wonder?

Britcon would be far better in my opinion if we reduced it to 5 games and had two games on the Saturday. That would allow those two Saturday games to be a bit longer (say 4-4.5 hours) and still allow a finish at a resonable time to allow for a bit more socialising.

But in my opinion the game problem is the army break point is a little too difficult to achieve. For example, Pete Dalby had me on toast and would have killed my army but ran out of time.

In my first game, we actually had three phases:

1. I break through his power troops but need anothr 3-4 attrition points to get the army.
2. Much Benny Hilling over next 45 minutes whil I cat smoke.
3. Fianlly get smoke by the neck in table corners, stare at camp needing just 1 AP for the army. Then spend 4 bounds bolstering one of my breaks to get an extra point. Opponent sees what I'm trying to do and eventually manages to get his LH to suicide against my cavalry.

The problem with getting 1AP per BG comes when so many of the BGs are skirmishers.

G

Graham, what does "cat smoke" mean?

Regards,
Peter

grahambriggs wrote: But in my opinion the game problem is the army break point is a little too difficult to achieve. For example, Pete Dalby had me on toast and would have killed my army but ran out of time.

In my first game, we actually had three phases:

1. I break through his power troops but need anothr 3-4 attrition points to get the army.
2. Much Benny Hilling over next 45 minutes whil I cat smoke.
3. Fianlly get smoke by the neck in table corners, stare at camp needing just 1 AP for the army. Then spend 4 bounds bolstering one of my breaks to get an extra point. Opponent sees what I'm trying to do and eventually manages to get his LH to suicide against my cavalry.

The problem with getting 1AP per BG comes when so many of the BGs are skirmishers.

G

Yes, once you get to the Benny Hill phase (i.e. there is nothing left except skirmishers running away) the army is for all practical purposes defeated. If you gave one or two bonus attrition points when all non-skirmisher BGs (plus camp?) are broken then that might be enough to push the army over the edge.

peterrjohnston wrote:Graham, what does "cat smoke" mean?

Regards,
Peter

meant "catch smoke". But now I've typed the other....

grahambriggs wrote: meant "catch smoke". But now I've typed the other....

Thought it might be some new expression... hunting skirmishers is cat smoking

That would be "like herding cats" or "nailing jelly to a wall".

Phrases my opponents repeat to me often. Often through clenched teeth (especially if they are called Tim Porter)

dave_r wrote:That would be "like herding cats" or "nailing jelly to a wall".

Phrases my opponents repeat to me often. Often through clenched teeth (especially if they are called Tim Porter)

good job your hearing isn't better eh