Slitherine

lawrenceg wrote:I'd like players to consider the question:

Who deserves more points out of

a player who causes 90% attrition (i.e. not quite an army rout) on the opponent and loses nothing
or
a player who causes 100% attrition (army rout) on his opponent and suffers 90% attrition himself ?

In my view, clearly the first one deserves more points. However, this is precisely the situation where the opponent is likely to play slowly (or ultra-cautiously) to avoid army break. In the second situation the game is so close that the "losing" player is likely to be hopeful of victory right to the end, so is likely to play faster and more aggressively.

Hence the result of the Win:Draw:Loss scoring system is that a player who sees no hope of victory is incentivized to play unfairly slowly, whereas what almost amounts to a mutual destruction is encouraged. This make no historical sense - clearly the first player is better demonstrating the historical skills of a good general - and does not even achieve the objective it is intended to achieve. (Which isn't necessary anyway in FoG).

terrys wrote:
I have noticed that the US players tend to be more 'Gung-Ho' in their approach to DBM, which (I think) leaves them at a disadvantage when coming up against the more considered approach of the Europeans. I'm begining to think that this is the effect of the scoring system(s) used in the US.

I disagree. IMO the various scoring systems devised for DBM are reflections of the "national playing character" and are driven by it rather than driving it.

Whilst an interestig exercise I think it possible that you will not get long term agreement on the scoring system to be used with FoG - I think others will develop as they did with DBM. Not that it isn't worthwhile having a base line to work from which hopefully this process will produce.

FWIW I tend to agree with Richard and Terry that FoG, as opposed to DBM, has less corner/table sitting & playing for a draw issues and thus you can allow unfinished games to score reasonably well as they are likely to have come as a result of fighting for it rather than avoiding fighting for it. IMO there is nothinmg wrong with rewarding skillful active defense.

Also let us remember for all the endless weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth about draws in DBM the fact is that competitions are won by players who win a lot of games and do so regularly. If you could draw your way to victory I'd be God-Emperor of the DBM universe by now - but you can't so I'm not

nikgaukroger wrote: Also let us remember for all the endless weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth about draws in DBM the fact is that competitions are won by players who win a lot of games and do so regularly. If you could draw your way to victory I'd be God-Emperor of the DBM universe by now - but you can't so I'm not

I think the wailing etc came largely from players who felt they were robbed of victory because their inferior opponent played for a draw. The modified score systems sought to reduce draws by increasing the reward for a win (supposedly making it worth risking a loss to gain a chance of a win). This,
as RBS pointed out, does not work. If a draw gets more points than a loss, then the rational strategy for an inferior player (with little chance of winning) is to play for a draw. It doesn't matter how big the reward for winning is if winning is not seen as a possible outcome. The US 0-15 DBM system tried to overcome this by making it worthwhile sacrificing a command to kill an enemy command, but the large penalty for losing built into the DBM score system outweighs that. Another perverse effect of the "big win bonus" is to incentivise the attacker to go all-out and risk defeat to beat a corner-sitter - thus potentially rewarding the corner-sitter.

One of the problems is the perception of what a "win" is. In DBM and FoG, bringing the enemy 99% of the way to breaking is regarded by most people as a "draw", which is fundamentally wrong IMO.


Incidentally, you can draw your way to victory if you are in a special sub-pool in the main competition pool. A good example is the ladies competition at the IWF WIC DBM. They play in the same pool as the men, but the highest scoring lady wins the ladies world championship. As all the ladies are below-average players, they can expect to finish below half way in the main pool. If one lady plays for, and gets, a draw in every game she stands a good chance of winning. This entirely rational strategy has been used successfully by Bernice Ligault at the last two WICs (much to the annoyance of all who played against her).

Although it is considered harder to force a draw in FoG, if playing for a draw increases your chance of getting a draw at all, this strategy remains viable.

This suggests to me that it may be worth, if possible, including in the draw (i.e. opponent pairing) software the ability to force sub-pool members to play each other. (Probably in the later rounds in order to reduce the chances of giving an easy draw to one of the main pool potential winners)

lawrenceg wrote:One of the problems is the perception of what a "win" is. In DBM and FoG, bringing the enemy 99% of the way to breaking is regarded by most people as a "draw", which is fundamentally wrong IMO.

Not only is it fundamentally wrong, but it makes it critical for tournament organisers to get the army points size and game duration right, otherwise too high a proportion of games will end in "draws". A system where to get a substantial "win" it is not necessary to completely break the enemy army is much more forgiving in this regard - and is what was envisaged by the design team in the design of the FoG rules. Hence the victory conditions in the rules, which stress relative losses as the main arbiter of victory/defeat. If a lot of games are timed out due to an overambitious choice of army size or inadequate game duration, it won't matter nearly so much with such a system. Moreover, bolting on a Win:Draw:Loss scoring system drawn up for an entirely different set of rules would not be in accordance with the design of the FoG rules, which were specifically designed to give a good range of scores for timed out games.

I would favour an 11:11:3 system - especially until tournaments shake down and we see what combinations of army size & game duration work well in each scale.

I can't really understand the pressure to change a system that has been shown to work well in several UK tournaments in the last year, and whose results (in its latest iteration) were generally agreed by the participants to reflect the "correct" result in pretty much every game (possibly every game). In my view no alteration is needed to the scoring system used at Warfare. It can easily be mathematically adjusted to give a total of 25 without altering its fundamental profile.

terrys wrote:My concern with this system is that it encourages a specific style of play. It induces players to use quick-kill armies and to ignore the slower winning armies - (like Arabs - with defensive spears and horse archers)

Well i think you need to realize their are people who pick armies primarily for competition and pick armies for fun

While I don't want to encourage defensive play, (and the game system doesn't do that).

Absolutely and brings back more fun in the rush in style that will increase marketablity.

We certainly don't want to see players giving up simply because it looks like they're going to lose.

This is very hard to regulate, because snapping a players morale is often easy. Although again you game design does not make it as easy (i think) for a highly skilled player to annihilate a beginning player as compared to DBx.

I prefer to see a player get his points for good generalship, not because of his opponents recklessness.

I fully agree but this is much harder to define as gamers will attempt to fulfil the technical requirements.

rbodleyscott wrote: Moroever, the more the scoring system favours outright wins, the more unfair disadvantage there is to the player whose opponent deliberately plays slowly to avoid an army break.

I am completely against any system that heavily penalises incomplete games.

I have been watching the time in my recent games (which have not been timed) and I think that the early predictions of games that end significantly faster than say DBM games is a little optimistic.

So I agree with the concern for a unfair penalty for incomplete games especially so if you combine with shorter playing time.

Now this may be the difference between sitting down for a fun game versus sitting down as a "Geometric Tournament Player" which many of us have been accused of in past games.

To FoGs credit the fun component feels greater in FoG, than other tournament games.

This is an interesting reversal from my view as I prefer the DBM 3-1-0 or 15-0. But I fear those systems in FoG without sufficient time.

lawrenceg wrote:I'd like players to consider the question:

Who deserves more points out of

a player who causes 90% attrition (i.e. not quite an army rout) on the opponent and loses nothing
or
a player who causes 100% attrition (army rout) on his opponent and suffers 90% attrition himself ?

Clearly the former is a more victorious general. But I'd rather be either player in the later game because it was probably more enjoyable.

Be cautious about trying to turn FoG into a system that allows the 3 DBM CVs to destroy an enemy player. Every person I have seen attracted to FoG is doing so because it appears to be more of a fun game while retaining the competiton element.

I realize this is contradictory.

nikgaukroger wrote:

terrys wrote:
I have noticed that the US players tend to be more 'Gung-Ho' in their approach to DBM, which (I think) leaves them at a disadvantage when coming up against the more considered approach of the Europeans. I'm begining to think that this is the effect of the scoring system(s) used in the US.

I disagree. IMO the various scoring systems devised for DBM are reflections of the "national playing character" and are driven by it rather than driving it.

Whilst an interestig exercise I think it possible that you will not get long term agreement on the scoring system to be used with FoG

FWIW I tend to agree with Richard and Terry that FoG, as opposed to DBM, has less corner/table sitting & playing for a draw issues and thus you can allow unfinished games to score reasonably well as they are likely to have come as a result of fighting for it rather than avoiding fighting for it.

I think Nik is more right here. There is also a US negative reaction to the nick the foe and and fall back style that makes people feel good about the DBM 6-4 style that isn't a real game. Clearly in a guerilla war it is an excellent strategy. It just is an un-fun game. It also adds more emphasis to the rule litigation aspect of DBM, that FoG has less of. The 15-0 encourages a fun game where people grapple across a broader battle. In my view the 3-1-0 does this as well.

But the ability to break off an attack and its VP ramification is also largely impacted by the DBM game mechanics where with enough pips you can retrograde usually enough to have a game time out if that is your goal.

In FoG, that is far harder (or at least I haven't figured out how. ) But that is a good thing.

So a victory score based on an unfinished game works better for FoG than DBM.

Which begs the question of comp results. Not having any comps yet in the US, what are the % of games that have ended with a broken foe so far?

rbodleyscott wrote: I can't really understand the pressure to change a system that has been shown to work well in several UK tournaments in the last year, and whose results (in its latest iteration) were generally agreed by the participants to reflect the "correct" result in pretty much every game (possibly every game). In my view no alteration is needed to the scoring system used at Warfare. It can easily be mathematically adjusted to give a total of 25 without altering its fundamental profile.

As the current system is totally zero sum including the bonus points for causing an army rout, it has to be 0 - 2n unless you include half-points (so a draw is 12.5 - 12.5) , or offset all the scores by 1 (i.e. a max win is 25-1)

Which begs the question of comp results. Not having any comps yet in the US, what are the % of games that have ended with a broken foe so far?

I haven't evaluated scores at other comps yet but at Britcon this year (27 players) percentages were as follows:
(using a 32-0 system)

30-32 pts ...... 28%
27-29 pts ...... 22%
24-26 pts ........ 7%
21-23 pts ...... 15%
18-19pts ....... 19%
16-17 pts ........ 9%

The top 2 scores are probably outright wins (i.e. enemy broken), and the bottom 2 are effectively draws.
This gives a result of outright wins: 50% .... draws: 28%

As a comparison the DBM 15mm games at the same event (56 players) gave result of:
30-31 pts ...... 36%
27-29 pts ...... 14%
24-26 pts ........ 8%
21-23 pts ........ 3%
18-19pts ....... 22%
16-17 pts ...... 17%

This gives a result of outright wins: 50% .... draws: 39%

At the end of the day, this debate requires answering a question that may simply not be possible to answer (nor gain a consensus): on what basis would we say that someone was the best player at a competition ? And it does seem clear that we'd all (?) like it to be the person who was the 'best' player - but whether that is someone who can win all their games no matter what the losses, or someone who can inflict the most damage with the least losses themselves is a matter of personal values/perspective.

Even without resolving the philosophical issue about what "winning" a tournament means, there is still a strong element of "all other things being equal" in this debate that will remain chaotic by the very nature of gaming. Ignoring the <luck> element inherent in the game, other variables that can/will have an effect on final competiton placings include such things as . . .

* notwithstanding Swiss Chess draws, the 'luck of the draw' (or the "dang, how come I ended up playing him" factor) alongside the results of all the other games - ie: the mix of who you played and at which point in the competition, when compared with who other folk in the competition played against, does matter - and more so in a larger comp

* the various choices made within an army mix pre-comp (including OoM) compared to the choices others have made - scissors, paper, rock - will strongly influence the shape of individual match ups and the resulting games

* initiative and terrain placement over the course of a competition will make a difference (bad/good luck will influence the shape of each game)

. . . and for these (and other similar) factors, no amount of regulation or structure will provide a satisfactory result for differentiating the 'best' player.

Better, IMO, for the individual competition organisers to decide which gaming philosophy/approach to reward and incentivise the results accordingly. Potential players considering attending those comps can then make their own choice about their army/game approach (or attendence) depending on their preferences.

I suspect there is no universal 'truth' here . . . the experiences of the ghosts-of-rules-past led to FoG; the deign philosphy (as said by others within this debate) is to address some of those past issues . . . so, let's suck it and see.

And, anyways, FoG does provide for a very adequate "score" that feels right when considering the outcome of a stand-alone game.

Thanks, very nice description of the situation in all respects.

Jerome

Keef wrote:At the end of the day, this debate requires answering a question that may simply not be possible to answer (nor gain a consensus): on what basis would we say that someone was the best player at a competition ? And it does seem clear that we'd all (?) like it to be the person who was the 'best' player - but whether that is someone who can win all their games no matter what the losses, or someone who can inflict the most damage with the least losses themselves is a matter of personal values/perspective.

Even without resolving the philosophical issue about what "winning" a tournament means, there is still a strong element of "all other things being equal" in this debate that will remain chaotic by the very nature of gaming. Ignoring the <luck> element inherent in the game, other variables that can/will have an effect on final competiton placings include such things as . . .

* notwithstanding Swiss Chess draws, the 'luck of the draw' (or the "dang, how come I ended up playing him" factor) alongside the results of all the other games - ie: the mix of who you played and at which point in the competition, when compared with who other folk in the competition played against, does matter - and more so in a larger comp

* the various choices made within an army mix pre-comp (including OoM) compared to the choices others have made - scissors, paper, rock - will strongly influence the shape of individual match ups and the resulting games

* initiative and terrain placement over the course of a competition will make a difference (bad/good luck will influence the shape of each game)

. . . and for these (and other similar) factors, no amount of regulation or structure will provide a satisfactory result for differentiating the 'best' player.

Better, IMO, for the individual competition organisers to decide which gaming philosophy/approach to reward and incentivise the results accordingly. Potential players considering attending those comps can then make their own choice about their army/game approach (or attendence) depending on their preferences.

I suspect there is no universal 'truth' here . . . the experiences of the ghosts-of-rules-past led to FoG; the deign philosphy (as said by others within this debate) is to address some of those past issues . . . so, let's suck it and see.

And, anyways, FoG does provide for a very adequate "score" that feels right when considering the outcome of a stand-alone game.

I have been reading this debate, and I see this as coming down to 2 seperate arguements:

1: How can we make it easier for the "Tournament organiser" to work out who has won and lost their competition.
2: How do you adjudge who is the best/luckiest wargamer on the day.

JD originaly asked for assistance with the first question, but this is tied to the second.

My suggestion is look to the "sporting world", and see how they determine who win/loss, as they have been doing this for the longest time. They all in the end to award "score" in 2 ways -
1: Determine who won/lost, or where no-one had an advantage. this determines the major score or points
2: A tiebreaker such as goals scored, which is used where there are 2 participants on the same score.

The 3/1/0 score system used in football, was suggested by Jimmy Hill to encourage attacking play, and has much to recomend it. Then you need a way of determining our equivilent of "Goal Difference", based on casulties inflicted probably as a percentage of BG's lost against those you distroyed.

Last point with all this is though what is a "win", is it army routed or based troop's/resources lost - Now that is a different arguement to be answered

Finally
If we have too many draws it is because we either don't allocate enough time with the resources for the competition or We give the players too many resorces for the time alocated. If 800 points and 3Hrs gives too many draws either extend the playing time or reduce the points.

Spike

I still don't see anything inherrently evil about a hard fought game where neither side actually breaks the other.

I realise that in DBM it is possible to hunker down in the corner and make a game a non game. I have yet to have this or anything like it in FoG but I have had games where we have called time with neither side broken. I have enjoyed all the games of FoG I have played unlike the DBM games where my opponents chose not to play which were pretty boring to say the least.

I would like to admit up front that I do not play in tournaments, and so have little knowledge of the various scoring systems being discussed. However, in following the discussion here, it seems that there is one system being promoted by the FoG rules writers and some of the long-term beta testers, while differing systems are being advocated by other listmembers. Has anyone tried playing FoG tournaments under those other systems to see how they might actually work, or is all of the discussion of alternatives purely theoretical, based solely on experience with a completely different rule set (DBM)?

Just a thought from an interested observer.

Cheers,
Scott

ars_belli wrote:I would like to admit up front that I do not play in tournaments, and so have little knowledge of the various scoring systems being discussed. However, in following the discussion here, it seems that there is one system being promoted by the FoG rules writers and some of the long-term beta testers, while differing systems are being advocated by other listmembers. Has anyone tried playing FoG tournaments under those other systems to see how they might actually work, or is all of the discussion of alternatives purely theoretical, based solely on experience with a completely different rule set (DBM)?

I think you have a very valid observation. But right now the pool of FoG tournaments is very limited to testers in very few places. So there is a lot of assumptions all around here. And I am sure we all reserve the right to cahnge our opinion in 2009.

The 3/1/0 score system used in football, was suggested by Jimmy Hill to encourage attacking play, and has much to recomend it. Then you need a way of determining our equivilent of "Goal Difference", based on casulties inflicted probably as a percentage of BG's lost against those you distroyed.

Counting only an army rout as a win is a bit like only giving 3 points to a football team that wins AND scores 10 goals. Winning 9-0 only gets you the 1 point for a draw.

lawrenceg wrote:

The 3/1/0 score system used in football, was suggested by Jimmy Hill to encourage attacking play, and has much to recomend it. Then you need a way of determining our equivilent of "Goal Difference", based on casulties inflicted probably as a percentage of BG's lost against those you distroyed.

Counting only an army rout as a win is a bit like only giving 3 points to a football team that wins AND scores 10 goals. Winning 9-0 only gets you the 1 point for a draw.

As I said defining a scoring system is not the problem - "how you define who won" is the problem, is it a rout or a percentage of casualties or BG's lost ?
I guess most want a rout as the determination of victory- which means my last case applies, where 800pts and 3hrs is either not enough time or too many points.

Greetings

If we are trying to represent a battle then - aside from strategic considerations - an ancient battle was usually terminated by one side or the other retreating - in good order or otherwise. Those 'draws' were either where battle was rejoined next day or where both armies remained glowering at each other for a while. In Classical Greece the vistor was the army which held the field of battle - though this could be disputed from time to time.

Maybe assume that an army will usually withdraw when the fighting dies down after it has suffered x% losses - a.k.a its withdrawal level this would give:

Army A broken = Army B wins
Army A exceeds withdrawal level, Army B under withdrawal level = Army B wins (less completely than a rout)
Army A and Army B both exceed withdrawal level at end of game but neither break = draw
Army A and Army B neither exceed withdrawal level at end of game = draw

Regards

Edward

My view is keep it simple

up to 100 points - % enemy army destroyed
up to 100 points - % own army remainining
100 points - outright winner
60 points - wining draw
40 points - losing draw
50 points - draw

To determine winner or loser each side works out what % of opponents force lost. If there is a difference of 10 or more then is a winner scoring 100 and a loser scoring 0. A difference of less than one is a draw, with each player scoring 50. Any result between the two gives a winning/losing draw scenario and a 60/40 split of the points.

The advantage of using higher numbers is the wider spread of results generated.