Slitherine

philqw78 wrote:As for Ians comments I think the +5 for breaking your opponent without being broken should be used.

So many smart minds can't be wrong. We need to look at this.

timurilenk wrote:

hazelbark wrote:I prefer a bloody fighting match to the bloodless BHGS boring draw meister events that are all too common and end 11-9 or 10-1 and reflect nothing of what took place.
But too each their own.

Defensive?

In general, I also prefer games which are more decisive - nearly all of mine are (I was accused of playing like an American on Sunday! It was meant to be a compliment )

I guess the difference is that I see the game as win-loss-draw. To win you must kill your opponent's army, if nobody does it is a draw, if your army is broken you lose. The rest is (for me) window dressing and the current trend seems to be to reward the 'plucky trier'! I guess I do not mind this, but when people who win get the same score as people who lose or draw then something has gone too far.

Please do not misunderstand me - I will min-max whatever system you guys come up with. I am merely trying to point out that the new system is the opposite of the 3-0, 1-1 system we had before. Perhaps that is a good thing, perhaps not. I can live with either

I would offer you the same complement Ian or even a higher one. You come to play and win and you are going to wade in and not mince about. It is why you are respected as a foe and consider a good fellow to boot. We played back in DBM and that was more your style then too IIRC. It is why you do well. Unless we gave points for height i think you would do well under any scoring system. I am not defensive about the bhgs drawmeister i am derisive of it. There is far too much don't lose mentality in some quarters.

I think it is better for the hobby to say you will be viewed better if you have a hack-fest than if you table sit. In neither case does it apply to you.

philqw78 wrote:Currently someone who 'draws' could get 28 points. This means they would have lost nothing and been 1 or 2 AP, 10%, from breaking the enemy army. Thats a very good performance. Nobody who 'loses' or gets a losing draw could get a higher score than someone who breaks their enemy.

Sure there are lots of possible scores and this scoring system has most of the required features.

My original response was to zoltan won being happy that he won and his opponent was awarded the same number of points (21-19) when he killed his opponents army and I got 17 points for my draw - as you point out it could very easily have been 21 for me but in 30 points per round 21, 19 and 17 are close enough to 2 each in a 3,2,1 system.

Under the previous system the winner would have got 3, the drawer 1 and the loser 0 (possibly this score might have invoked the rare 2-1 score, I cannot remember, so 2,1,1) Either way the winner would have been rewarded for winning.

Under the rules scoring it would have been 16,13,9.

Any could be OK but the 3,2,1 and the rules reward winning

The new system dilutes the reward for winning with which I disagree, but it would appear others applaud.

Phil I acknowledge you suggest adding the 5 points which would mitigate in this respect

hazelbark wrote:
I would offer you the same complement Ian or even a higher one. You come to play and win and you are going to wade in and not mince about. It is why you are respected as a foe and consider a good fellow to boot. We played back in DBM and that was more your style then too IIRC. It is why you do well. Unless we gave points for height i think you would do well under any scoring system. I am not defensive about the bhgs drawmeister i am derisive of it. There is far too much don't lose mentality in some quarters.

I think it is better for the hobby to say you will be viewed better if you have a hack-fest than if you table sit. In neither case does it apply to you.

I will find a way to win even if you factor in height!

I guess I will have to push for girth too then though!

How about bonus points for lack of hair then if not height?

Rob

Robert241167 wrote:How about bonus points for lack of hair then if not height?

Rob

This!

hazelbark wrote:I am not defensive about the bhgs drawmeister i am derisive of it. There is far too much don't lose mentality in some quarters.

I feel the US team (two that I spoke with anyway) were very surprised at the level of aggression from the GB team based upon the reports they had previously received on play styles.

timurilenk wrote:I feel the US team (two that I spoke with anyway) were very surprised at the level of aggression from the GB team

Sorry, I'd had a bit to drink by then.

philqw78 wrote:Sorry, I'd had a bit to drink by then.

lololol

philqw78 wrote:

timurilenk wrote:I feel the US team (two that I spoke with anyway) were very surprised at the level of aggression from the GB team

Sorry, I'd had a bit to drink by then.

I'd wondered why you wanted to borrow a funnel at lunchtime.

As for scoring systems, in the normal scoring system I got 11, 0, 23 and 8. Giving 42 out of 100.

Under the new system I got 15, 0, 28 and 16 giving 59 out of 120. Largely the same.

I preferred this system to the 3-1-0 system it does give an incentive to go and win and take some risks. Maybe a +5 for winning wouldn't be out of the question. Need some time to think.

Round by Round Team Scores. i'll do the individuals when I get time

Round One
GB (67) v Italy (65)
USA (33) v France (90)
Anzac (49) v Portugal (79)
Spain (88) v Barbarian (37)

Round Two
GB v Portugal (89-30)
France (67) v Spain (52)
USA (91) v Barbarian (40)
Anzac (46)v Italy (82)

Round Three
GB (106) v France (16)
Spain (55) v Italy (61)
USA (91) v Portugal (37)
Anzac (72) v Barbarian (66)

Round four
GB (78) v USA (56)
Anzac (49) v Spain (85)
France (61) v Italy (65)
Barbarian (57) v Portugal (57)

dave_r wrote:

philqw78 wrote:

timurilenk wrote:I feel the US team (two that I spoke with anyway) were very surprised at the level of aggression from the GB team

Sorry, I'd had a bit to drink by then.

I'd wondered why you wanted to borrow a funnel at lunchtime.

I said drink not enema Dave

Too much information, Mr. Powell. There are things that occur between friends that should remain firmly behind closed doors....

You could ask Mr Briggs to explain what the funnel is for.

timurilenk wrote:

hazelbark wrote:I am not defensive about the bhgs drawmeister i am derisive of it. There is far too much don't lose mentality in some quarters.

I feel the US team (two that I spoke with anyway) were very surprised at the level of aggression from the GB team based upon the reports they had previously received on play styles.

Well once i moved to the list checker roll i did not coach them. I would never expect a lack of aggression from GB since the year we knocked them off the podium. A bit angry since then your whole country has been.

I think there is a style that in general GB players have that is often "precise" which can been seen as cautious. And that may be what got mis-translated. I think non-rash is perhaps more apt.
I would say once the odds are 50/50 POAs and such I would expect a GB player to push very hard figuring them also thinking they have an extra edge in the manuver bits as the close begins. There are in general far fewer of the GB players who will go in at 30% odds.

Or we can put it all down to GB changing their playing style to match the scoring system. Which is what I know Ian secretly believes.

hazelbark wrote:A bit angry since then your whole country has been.

hmmm ... interesting

hazelbark wrote:There are in general far fewer of the GB players who will go in at 30% odds.

Perhaps I understand better now what you are trying to say.

ITC lists posted to field of Glory yahoo group
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/Fie ... TC%202012/

Congratulations to the British team, well drunk, I mean played LOL.

Last tiem I used a funnel was after a college rugby game. 2 pints of Old Peculiar was poured into it, a 1 metre tube was connected, you'd squeeze the middle part, place tube over mouth, let go and suck hard. 2 pints down in less than 3 seconds!

So you weren't face down then?