Slitherine

timmy1 wrote:Phil, no need to be negative...

timmy1 wrote:Phil

I some computing systems FFFF or FFFFFF is binary representation of minus 1 (in what's called two's compliment). Sorry if I was trying to be too clever (well... I am not ever really sorry for being a 'smart alec' but I probably should be).

Regards
Tim

timmy1 wrote:..FFFF or FFFFFF is binary representation of minus 1

lawrenceg wrote:You don't start with Attrition points and then lose them.

You start with BGs (which does not change) and you gain attrition points.

So the formula would be

score = 10 x (Own BG- own AP)/ own BG + 10 x (opponent AP/opponent BG) + 5 (if only opponent routed)

If you only collect and use the BG and AP, but print the formula on the sheet, players can work out their scores if they want to.

Victims of our modern mathematical education system can get a numerate friend to produce a lookup table for their army showing what

10*N/(own BG) is for N=1 to number of BG.

Are the 5 bonus points only added if one player routs?
If both players rout simultaneously do they both get the +5?


If you produce a table which does that for all army sizes then you will have the equivalent of the current table. If people understand where it comes from, they might be less prone to errors.

There is a guy at our club who has to use his fingers to add two dice, but he doesn't play FOG.

colton1237 wrote:I think both with and without decimal places, the scoring system at present is overly complex. Not only that, I also agree with the original post, the scoring system is in itself broken. It's encouraged a relentless rise in the number of BGs in armies under the philosophy "you can't break me, and if I can't break you, we can swap BGs so I win on percentages". It's daft, and there seems to be more and more draws as a result.

ironchemistryman wrote:I've a suggestion. Not that it is necessarily a good one. Why not go use the old 6th edition-type scoring system?

This works as:

Score = Points value of army + Opponents losses - Own losses

Count a broken army (broken as per the rules) as full points value (e.g. 650 in the forthcoming Stockport Pick'n'Mix). Short of that, count routed battlegroups as their full points value, fragmented or evaded off table as half value and a lost (or taken, depending) camp as 50 points. Don't worry about any lost bases, just whole battlegroups.

Presumably, everybody knows how many points they are playing with (!) and the cost of each battlegroup. Your maximum score is then twice the points value of the army that you are using and is achieved by breaking the enemy army without losing or having a single batlegroup fragmented. Your minimum is then, well, er, nul points. The total score should add up to twice the points value of each army (a useful check).

If you want to keep a 0-25 scoring system then divide each players score by the maximum achievable and mulitply by 25. Decimals then become a matter of personal taste.

The theory is that is that a major battlegroup of strike troops (say, King's bodyguard) is less readily replaced than are (say) two units of skirmishers ("plenty more where they came from"). The army that has lost two units of skirmishers would be behind on a battlegroups lost count but conceivably ahead on points and arguably also in military terms.

kevinj wrote:I agree. I think there was a feeling that swarm armies had an unfair advantage when they first appeared, but since then things have settled down and, whilst swarms have had some success in the hands of good players, most of us now work on the principle of picking an army to suit our own style of play and not trying to maximise the BG count.

I think that the modification that sets army break point based on the points value/50 will be sufficient to ensure that swarms will not be taken unless the player believes they have a winning plan and will also remove the attrition advantage they have in scoring.

kevinj wrote:This is going to hurt. Dave is right.

kevinj wrote:OK. Dave may be wrong. But I agree with him. Is that better?

dave_r wrote:

ironchemistryman wrote:I've a suggestion. Not that it is necessarily a good one. Why not go use the old 6th edition-type scoring system?

This works as:

Score = Points value of army + Opponents losses - Own losses

Count a broken army (broken as per the rules) as full points value (e.g. 650 in the forthcoming Stockport Pick'n'Mix). Short of that, count routed battlegroups as their full points value, fragmented or evaded off table as half value and a lost (or taken, depending) camp as 50 points. Don't worry about any lost bases, just whole battlegroups.

Presumably, everybody knows how many points they are playing with (!) and the cost of each battlegroup. Your maximum score is then twice the points value of the army that you are using and is achieved by breaking the enemy army without losing or having a single batlegroup fragmented. Your minimum is then, well, er, nul points. The total score should add up to twice the points value of each army (a useful check).

If you want to keep a 0-25 scoring system then divide each players score by the maximum achievable and mulitply by 25. Decimals then become a matter of personal taste.

The theory is that is that a major battlegroup of strike troops (say, King's bodyguard) is less readily replaced than are (say) two units of skirmishers ("plenty more where they came from"). The army that has lost two units of skirmishers would be behind on a battlegroups lost count but conceivably ahead on points and arguably also in military terms.

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

This then becomes an exercise in mathematics about two hours into the game whilst everybody works out the score..... We need a very simple scoring system so this sort of thing doesn't happen.

The other side of this is that everybody chucks their crap at the opponents best troops in the hopes of getting lucky. One of the major FoG design principles was that skirmishers mean as much as Knights if they break, simply to keep players honest so they don't use them as expendable rubbish. Even if they were historically.