A challenge to the very top players . . .

[stockwellpete]

While I was playing pantherboy yesterday in my LOEG match (Late Medieval) I mentioned that I thought the gap between the very top players (e.g. PB, Eric, hidde and CheAhn) and the rest of us is actually getting wider - and that I was wondering if there was any value in a handicap system for LOEG.

Now, my LOEG rating is around 4.50, which makes me a "quite good" player, I think. Players with a rating of 5.00+ I would describe as "good" (because to get that rating they are winning one and losing one at Division A level), while players with a rating of 6.00 and upwards "are "very good", "excellent" or whatever superlative you like going all the way up to PB at 9.29 (who is "on another planet", in my humble opinion ).

But even though I consider myself to be "quite good", I am completely and utterly outclassed by the very best players on a regular basis. So while I was trying to distract myself from the root canal treatment I was having today, I came up with this idea . . . I actually think that even if the top players gave me a 100pts handicap in a 500pt game, they would still probably beat me more often than not.

So the challenge to our exalted group is this - pick either a Lancastrian or Yorkist army or pick a Later Anglo-Irish or Later Medieval Irish army at 400pts and I will pick a 500pt army for the army you have not chosen. And if I do manage to beat you (I shall be trying very hard to prove my own argument wrong), and if you have the time, then perhaps we could play a second battle where the handicap is only 50pts?

Is there anyone interested in taking up this challenge?*

* Of course, there are other very good players who might like to have a go at this too e.g. Lysimachos, davouthojo and ianiow to mention three more top players.

[TheGrayMouser]

Well, I speak for myself but i'd rather lose a game "bigtime" in an equal point battle, than lose "medium-ly" with a 100 Ap advantage!

[stockwellpete]

I've got a challenger!

[stockwellpete]

Well, I speak for myself but i'd rather lose a game "bigtime" in an equal point battle, than lose "medium-ly" with a 100 Ap advantage!

Yes, OK. But I am interested in trying to measure the gap between the very top players and the "also-rans" like myself in Division A this time. I know it won't be very scientific but, roughly anyway, I think that it is likely that the difference between a player with a LOEG rating of 5.00 and a player with a LOEG rating of 6.00 might be around 25pts in a 500pt game (or a 5% difference if you want to measure it in that way). This is just a hunch, mind - and I may be completely wrong.

It is also worth pointing out that the range of ratings in the Late Medieval division A this time is between 3.61 and 9.29 - and in Early Medieval Division A it is between 3.59 and 9.29 - a whopping 5.68 and 5.70 difference between the lowest and highest rated players respectively!

If there is anyone else interested in this exercise who is matey with one of the top players, then by all means arrange your own games and just feed the results in here. I don't have to be involved in all the games.

[Morbio]

Well, I speak for myself but i'd rather lose a game "bigtime" in an equal point battle, than lose "medium-ly" with a 100 Ap advantage!

I think I would too, however, I'm conscious of the challenge (or lack of) I may be giving my opponent, so if receiving a handicap makes it a closer game that stretches both my opponent and I then that isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'm thinking this may be useful if used a little like golf - all the important tournaments (e.g. the majors and other ranking tournaments) should be off scratch, however the fun tournaments (e.g. club matches) or friendly matches would probably benefit from a handicap.

[stockwellpete]

Well, I speak for myself but i'd rather lose a game "bigtime" in an equal point battle, than lose "medium-ly" with a 100 Ap advantage!

I think I would too, however, I'm conscious of the challenge (or lack of) I may be giving my opponent, so if receiving a handicap makes it a closer game that stretches both my opponent and I then that isn't necessarily a bad thing. I'm thinking this may be useful if used a little like golf - all the important tournaments (e.g. the majors and other ranking tournaments) should be off scratch, however the fun tournaments (e.g. club matches) or friendly matches would probably benefit from a handicap.

I should make it clear that Steve is against the idea of a handicap for LOEG so this discussion is entirely academic in relation to that competition, but I have an idea for a tournament in the New Year where a very limited form of handicapping may be appropriate.

What is interesting to me though in terms of LOEG, is that when I looked at the LOEG ratings for individual players then one of the first things that I noticed was that the eighth placed "active" player has a rating of 5.92; the ninth placed "active" player has a rating of 5.31; and the tenth placed "active" player has a rating of 4.67. So between 8th and 10th place there is a very wide rating gap of 1.25.

And I think this gap helps to explain why the Division A's of LOEG are rather more uneven than the B's or C's divisions. Because the top ten or so players obviously do not enter all the various leagues all of time (there is absolutely no reason why they should) then a number of players with a rating below 5.00 are always required to make the top divisions a viable size.

Of course, sometimes there is a certain uneveness in some of the lower divisions too, particularly if a really good player has only just joined LOEG - but these players would only spend one season in each lower division before moving up, so the imbalance is only temporary here, whereas in the top division I would say that there is a bit more of a structural problem because the top group of players (rated 5.00+) are really quite a bit better than the second group of players (rated 4.00 to 4.67).

[stockwellpete]

Just a bit of an update. I have been playing with Anders (hidde) who is also quite interested in trying to measure the "gap" between the very top players and the rest of us. What we did first was to start a game between two Wars of the Roses armies where I had 500pts and Anders had 400pts. We played half-a-dozen turns, I suppose before it became clear that I could just use the extra numbers of archers to just shoot Ander's army to death. So we stopped that game and started another one (again using WotR armies), but this time I only had a 50pts advantage. This game is still in progress and it is fairly even at the half-way stage - I still feel I have a chance to win (if I can use my largely unscathed "poor" billmen effectively) and whatever happens now we have had an enjoyable game/chat. At 500pts each though, I would expect Anders to beat me 9 times out of 10, and some of the games would effectively be over very quickly.

I have also been thinking about the point that Morbio made earlier in the thread about using the handicap in smaller tournaments. My next medieval invitation event (500pts) will take place in February next year - it will be a northern European themed event this time and Anders has agreed to enter again - with a mighty 450pts Swedish army - and I will be assembling a group of challengers (5) in the New Year who have LOEG ratings between 3.50 and 4.50 to see if we can get the better of him. It should be good fun anyway.

I noticed two incredible LOEG results yesterday. Steve won his match and dropped only 2 points in the process while Eric appears (was there a resignation?) to have won his game without dropping any at all! So what this suggests to me is that the very top players might be able to concede 100pts (in a 500pt game) and still win in match-ups that favour their choice of army. In the three LOEG matches that I have lost heavily this time, I didn't feel that my Later Anglo-Irish amy had very much chance against the horse armies of eastern Europe (Wallachians, Serbians and Hungarians). The Anglo-Irish are a strong list generally, but I feel that they are susceptible to the mass of mounted light lancers that the eastern European armies can deploy - they have no spearmen to hold them off. Also the eastern European armies can move more quickly than the Irish forces overall.

[stockwellpete]

My game with Anders has now finished and my Lancastrians (500pts) narrowly triumphed over his Yorkists (450pts) by 46/54 to 36/36. It was a very exciting game and was in the balance until the penultimate turn. The casualty figures were interesting too - Anders lost 4758 out of 10800 and I lost 5451 out of 16200. So you can see that my army was the much larger of the two - that was partly because of the handicap and partly because of the different type of armies that we chose. (Anders had lots of foot knights, I chose lots of billmen and poorer "shire levy" troops).

I know we are all different but for me this was a very good way to learn things and improve my play. For a start I was able to attack in a game against one of the top players - normally I adopt a cringing defensive position and shut my eyes! So it did give me a different feeling about the game. And because I had the "cushion" of the extra units I was able to put my own plan into operation more confidently knowing that the odd mistake didn't matter so much - basically in WotR battles we are talking about an archery duel followed by a clash of foot soldiers (knights and billmen).

Anyway, my thanks to Anders - it was an interesting little experiment and I think I can tentatively suggest that a 1 point difference in the LOEG rating between two players is roughly equal to 25pts in the DAG in a 500pt game. Anders' current rating is 6.34 while mine is 4.49 - a difference of 1.85 - which suggests that with a 50pt handicap in my favour I should just be able to nick a game or two from him. And so it proved this time.

[ericdoman1]

Well Pete steve-H8 had suggested this in the UK league. That is a handicap.

I am against it partly for one reason. When I started playing I was being betaen quite a lot, reached about 50/50 and now I reckon I am on 80% (inc friendlies), in the LOEG prob 70%.

My 0 game was just one of those incredibly rare moments when everything went well. You know you shoot something it disrupts, you charge in it frags or routs. However PB is abot to give me a serious kicking, I am going to be lucky to reach double figures. y estimate will be 42/39 vs 8/47 loss. PB is ona different level in this game. The only chance we mere mortals have of beating him is if we can gain an advantage with the map, the actual troop match ups are in your favour, you get a couple of lucy dice rolls, PB is half asleep, PB maybe missed a turn etc.

A bit of digression, the one reaosn, is that I took it s a challenge to beat a player who had been beating me. On my day with the right army and map yes I am a good player but if the map falls against you, a few unlucky combat rolls well you are up against. I think it is all down to psychology mumbo jumbo, if yougo into any game thinking you are going to lose, you probably will.

Anyway my suggestion to steve-H8 was not a points handicap but an army choice handicap. There is the challenge of using those ranked armies that have performed poorly (PB has proven that wrong though HA) and those that have done well. If you had 10 plaers entering the Medieval period. You would ahve to divide those armies available by 10. Let us say there are 30 armies to chosse from. the top ranked player can only choose the last 3, the lowest ranked player choses the top 3?

In TT comps they would use a scoring system, limited games (You could ahve a comp with 20 - 100 players in it and you would only play 4 to 6 games), limited time (only 3.5 hours max) and a Swiss system.

The scoring system will help to some extent they have a bizarre one for FOG-TT and I have no idea how that can be adapted into the pc game (haven't really checked to be honest). Limited games maybe only 6 but the Swiss System and scoring is improtant. Limited time, I ahve noticed most of my games will finsih on average in about 10 to 11 turns, therefore "make it so", although no idea how to implement that. The Swiss sytem is based on the scoring system. In round 1 it is a random draw, although three have been ocassions where the draw is based on seedings. First seed plays lasts eed etc. Round 2 conssits of paling an opponent who has an identical score to yourself. Again using Steve H-8's system, you receive 1 point for every 20 casualties inflicted (max of 5) and 2 pts if you ave completely defeated your opponent. I do not believe there has been one xample of neither player standing off, as they would receive 0 points. After round 1 those players on 7 pts wil play one another and so on, this will ahppen in round 3, players on equal points will play one another and so on.


Probably chatted too much but there we go.

Cheers


Eric

[stockwellpete]

Hello Eric. I think the problem for LOEG is that the top few players are probably increasing the gap between themselves and everybody else so the top divisions are the most unequal. The two very big wins that you and Steve have recently registered are against players who are in the LOEG top 20 - they are not new players.

Quite frankly, I would rather not get slaughtered in that way - and I would actually prefer to concede the game without playing if I realised that my army was highly susceptible to my opponents and had very little chance (as I realised my Anglo-Irish were to your Wallachians, Steve's Serbians and CheAhn's Hungarians). It just does not fit in with my idea of entertainment. Of course, other players may take a different view.

I think your suggestion about classifying armies is fraught with difficulty because all the armies are vulnerable to different opponents. How you would divide 30 armies up into ten groups of three is very difficult to see. The handicap idea that I was testing out with Anders seemed to work out OK - and we both got a more enjoyable game out of it instead of me being outclassed by him at 500pts each. So it is certainly OK for friendly games if both players agree.

[TheGrayMouser]

Well my two cents

The best way to "close the gap" , if even needed, would be to play double headers with each opponent, so you play with "your chosen" army vs your opponents , and then swap roles

so... 50% of your battles will be with a non choice army

scoring : no need to develop a convaluted scoring system, each battle is simply a battle scored in the way they are now

drawbacks: each division likly would need to be a little smaller in # of players ie 7 players means 12 battles

players would need expansion packs to equal whoever his opponents are to play the reverse battle....

[stockwellpete]

That's an interesting idea, TGM. And smaller Division A's would reduce the range of LOEG ratings within it too.

My latest thought about handicaps is this - players with a LOEG rating of 7.5 and over would be penalised 25pts in the DAG (500pts game) but this handicap could only be claimed by opponents with a rating of less than 5.00. And players could waive their entitlement to this handicap if they wanted to.

[deeter]

We did a very short-lived campaign in which everyone started with a 500 pt. army with limits on elite/superior units. All players were of roughly the same skill level. Winners got a 50 pt. increase for the next battle, which proved to be an immense boost. That's why the campaign ended so abruptly.

Deeter

[stockwellpete]

We did a very short-lived campaign in which everyone started with a 500 pt. army with limits on elite/superior units. All players were of roughly the same skill level. Winners got a 50 pt. increase for the next battle, which proved to be an immense boost. That's why the campaign ended so abruptly.

Deeter

Well, to concede 50pts to a player of a similar skill level is a very big ask. Usually it would force the player with the smaller army to get on terrain and fight a defensive battle (unless it was completely unsuitable for his troops).

[ericdoman1]

What about both players using the same army but playing home and away with army. I think the map is the biggest factor in a game.

OK the downside would be a cav army fighting on a horrible map for it would be a problem same a sthe other possible combos. Potential of draws. the mirror match may find a player with an ideal map for him on both ocassions?

I still think that it should be a challenge readily accepted playing againsta tough opponent.

Come to think of it Pete, you persevered in our Med Welsh vs Med Germans. You had given up the ghost after the first game but came back for more and then won the third game. OK the med German army has now changed but surely that must be the challenge.

BTW if you'd like a rematch when you can use the Wallachians and I will use the Anglo Irish Later army then pm me. Games a re a bit slow at the mo. Any interesting historical scenarios as well?

[stockwellpete]

Hello Eric. I just want to post this little bit again about handicaps . . .

"My latest thought about handicaps is this - players with a LOEG rating of 7.5 and over would be penalised 25pts in the DAG (500pts game) but this handicap could only be claimed by opponents with a rating of less than 5.00. And players could waive their entitlement to this handicap if they wanted to."

In practical terms, there are only two players with a rating of higher than 7.5 and that is yourself and Steve - and if the above scheme was implemented, you would only incur a 25pt penalty against players who have a rating of less than 5 (i.e. predominantly B Division standard players in LOE terms) only if they wanted to claim it.

But your closest rivals - maybe hidde, davouthojo, lysimachos and CheAhn and a few others, would not be getting any handicap bonus at all. I just think it would mean that some of the relatively weaker players would stand a little bit more of a chance of avoiding being absolutely slaughtered - I don't think that it would make much difference in terms of the final result - you and Steve would still win the battles 99 times out of 100.

Now Steve has clearly said to me that he does not want a handicap system at all in LOEG and I understand perfectly how he wants to run his league. And it should be said too that he runs LOEG superbly. So really we are talking about a handicap system that may be appropriate for other events, as Morbio suggested earlier in the thread. The experiment I did with Anders shows that players could also handicap friendly games using the LOEG ratings if they wanted to.

I am not too keen on a re-match between the Wallachians and the Anglo-Irish - hardly a historical encounter I think you would agree, but I would certainly be interested in playing a scenario game or two with you. I will send a PM later on. Cheers Eric.

[ericdoman1]

I am against a handicap situation.

I can not see much joy in winning a game vs an opponent who wasn't at full strength. That is the beauty of sport, games. An upset, David beats Goliath, The FA Cup, jumpers for goalposts.

I am only going to enter LOEG and possibly/probably the Companions Cup comp but using a different book/list.

The idea behind the Swiss System is that somewhere down the line the top players will paly against each other, a few times. In TT it generally means a draw or a very narrow win. There have been numerous ocassions where a player not seeded would get a top 3 spot.


Anywya it is all down to the players.

Looking forward t Decline and Fall, got the book proper.