Page 1 of 1
Results for Warfare 2009
Posted: Thu Nov 26, 2009 10:03 pm
by Ghaznavid
The results for
Warfare 2009 are now on the
Hall of Honour
http://www.fieldofglory.com/hallofhonour.html
ror/IF
Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 3:05 pm
by azrael86
From the above, it seems that the bye in the IF/ROR comp is wrong.
In round 1 the recipient got 1 pt, round 2 0 pts, round 3 24 and round 4 13pts ??
Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 3:35 pm
by nikgaukroger
Why do you think that is wrong?
Warfare does the bye score in a different way to many other comps - there is not a set score.
Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 3:49 pm
by peterrjohnston
0 points for a bye?! How do they do it then?
Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 3:52 pm
by azrael86
It just seems odd - unless they did play a game and those were their scores?
Also as published the draw matched a player on 17 after two rounds with one on 2, but who had had a bye scoring 0?
Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 3:58 pm
by hammy
I believe that a bye at Warfare gets you 13 points temporarily for the purposes of the next round draw. After a bye player plays their next game the score for the bye is changed to be the same as the score they get in said next game.
Hope that makes sense.
Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 4:07 pm
by Robert241167
Hi guys
Wouldn't it be fairer for the bye to be the average of all the other games a competitior has played?
A potential zero or 25 under the current scoring for it to be based on just 1 game seems both unduly harsh or unduly beneficial.
My two-penneth.
Rob
Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 4:22 pm
by azrael86
hammy wrote:I believe that a bye at Warfare gets you 13 points temporarily for the purposes of the next round draw. After a bye player plays their next game the score for the bye is changed to be the same as the score they get in said next game.
Hope that makes sense.
It does explain the results posted, although it is a rather strange system, and a bit unfair on the player who gets the bye in the 4th round. It also allowed a spectacular piece of submarining !
Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 5:15 pm
by hammy
Robert241167 wrote:Hi guys
Wouldn't it be fairer for the bye to be the average of all the other games a competitior has played?
A potential zero or 25 under the current scoring for it to be based on just 1 game seems both unduly harsh or unduly beneficial.
My two-penneth.
Rob
Well as the bye goes to the player in bottom place scoring it at your average would not be particuarly attractive.
As far as I can tell no bye system is perfect. The Warfare one is 'different'
Posted: Fri Nov 27, 2009 7:01 pm
by dave_r
Wouldn't it be fairer for the bye to be the average of all the other games a competitior has played?
This was thought about, but it would make it far too complicated if the person with the bye was in contention for winning the tournament as nobody would know their actual score. It is very unlikely that somebody in contention for the trophies would have a bye in the third round. It also neatly solves the problem of somebody getting 25 points from their first game when, erm, their skill level wouldn't warrant it. Which usually means a fairly unpleasant second game.
Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 5:41 am
by rich
As far as I can tell no bye system is perfect. The Warfare one is 'different'
How do other competitions handle byes does anyone know?
Don’t BHGS have a standard system for scores and byes for ranked competitions?
Basing the score on one game does seem to have given some extremes at Warfare.
It seems it can make or break your competition for the lucky and unlucky.
Rich
Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 9:27 am
by kevinj
The norm is for players to be given a score as if they had got a win. In the BHGS doubles the practice has been to give 20 pts rather than the 25 maximum. Some competitions in the past have awarded the average winning score from the round in question.
Cheers,
Kevin
Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 12:00 pm
by hammy
rich wrote:As far as I can tell no bye system is perfect. The Warfare one is 'different'
How do other competitions handle byes does anyone know?
Don’t BHGS have a standard system for scores and byes for ranked competitions?
Basing the score on one game does seem to have given some extremes at Warfare.
It seems it can make or break your competition for the lucky and unlucky.
Rich
The BHGS used to award 32 points to a bye in DBM but this meant that a player getting a round 1 bye often ended up getting badly slapped in round 2 as well as giving a big boost to someone who won big in game 1.
For FoG tournaments 20 points seems to be the expected bye score although playing a game against the umpire and getting the score you actually achieve is sometimes used.
Warfare is not a BHGS event. It is run by the Wargames Association of Reading
Posted: Sat Nov 28, 2009 8:03 pm
by peterrjohnston
We use 20 for a bye in Italy. The one tournament I player/umpired, playing last place, I offered a 20 point bye and play a friendly if they wanted, or whatever the game score was from a competition game. Everyone took the competition game.
Posted: Sun Nov 29, 2009 8:01 am
by rich
Everyone took the competition game.
This seems a good offer if there is a umpire with time.
At least you get a game, which is what I would be there for.
Rich
Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:34 am
by marco
is it possible to get informations about the army of m nikgaukroger
i like the skythians army
thanks
merlin marc
Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 10:49 am
by nikgaukroger
marco wrote:is it possible to get informations about the army of m nikgaukroger
i like the skythians army
thanks
merlin marc
From memory it was Kimmerian:
IC
TC
3 BGs of 8 Poor archers
2 BGs of 6 Poor MF Spearmen
9 BGs of 4 LH
Urartian TC ally
2 BGs of 4 Cv Armoured, Superior, Drilled, half Light Spear, Swordsmen hald Bow, Swordsmen
1 BG of 8 MF, Average, protected, Undrilled, half Light Spear Swordsmen, half Bow
Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:18 am
by marco
thanks and interesting
marco
Posted: Tue Dec 01, 2009 11:54 am
by nikgaukroger
It was interesting to use in the period but (obviously) lacks much punch so can be prone to incomplete games whilst running around like a bunch of girls if the shooting isn't effective
