Slitherine

Could one of the BRITCON organisers please post the current FoG scoring system on this board please?

It's in one of the Britcon threads, posted by Lawrence several weeks back.

I can mail you the latest scoresheet if you woulf like.

Hammy

Hi

I'm interested too. Just to provide to the clichy team.

I have checked the old thread and the nice table Lawrence did has died

I will happily send the scoresheet to anyone wanting it. Pop me an E-Mail on hammy@the-riverbank.net or james@urgentdawn.freeserve.co.uk

Hammy

hammy wrote:I have checked the old thread and the nice table Lawrence did has died

I will happily send the scoresheet to anyone wanting it. Pop me an E-Mail on hammy@the-riverbank.net or james@urgentdawn.freeserve.co.uk

Hammy

I've revived it: see viewtopic.php?p=28614#28614

Not sure what most people felt about the scores it generated, but I know a few prefer non-zero-sum.

From the limited comments I heard, there were quite a few problems with the "mental ergonomics" of the score sheet itself, so it ought to be redesigned (i.e. better instructions and positions/titles for the boxes to be filled in).

The eergonmiac were redesigned for the last round and seemed ot work much better. One more go at this and we should be in good shape. If james can e-mail me the sheet I will have a crack at it for them to use in Paris

On the table Lawrence it works well but the groupings along the horizonatal lead to some manipulable little quirks. I think we need the table to run form 8-20 as single columns. Lawrence could you re-arrange accordingly and send across to me thank you. Of course it makes it bigger but actually easire in practice I feel.

As for zero-sum or not this is a good place to start the debate. Several possibilities here:

Bonus points for army destruction - + 4 for anyone who knocks out an army and smooth the current table
Reduction in points if you cause less that 10% damage say - so a 16-16 stand off becomes a 12-12 and there is little incentive to do this

eventually I think we will swap it to a 20 point system as well. the 32 is just to fit with "current technology".

Thanks

Si

shall wrote: As for zero-sum or not this is a good place to start the debate. Several possibilities here:

Bonus points for army destruction - + 4 for anyone who knocks out an army and smooth the current table
Reduction in points if you cause less that 10% damage say - so a 16-16 stand off becomes a 12-12 and there is little incentive to do this

Si

Both those possibilities have already my vote !
Players must be incented to play and try to win instead of trying to gain a small advantage and stop playing.
FOG is a good rule on this point with the -1 for beeing close to the sides and favouring manouvers but a mountednshooty army could succeed in gaining enough time not to lose : the scoring system might avoid such temptation.

Jerome

Pikeaddict wrote:

Reduction in points if you cause less that 10% damage say - so a 16-16 stand off becomes a 12-12 and there is little incentive to do this

FOG is a good rule on this point with the -1 for beeing close to the sides and favouring manouvers but a mounted shooty army could succeed in gaining enough time not to lose : the scoring system might avoid such temptation.

The only problem is that this also punishes the player opposing the mounted shooty army who is trying to contact the enemy but can't because they are avoiding it.

shall wrote:The eergonmiac were redesigned for the last round and seemed ot work much better. One more go at this and we should be in good shape. If james can e-mail me the sheet I will have a crack at it for them to use in Paris

On the table Lawrence it works well but the groupings along the horizonatal lead to some manipulable little quirks. I think we need the table to run form 8-20 as single columns. Lawrence could you re-arrange accordingly and send across to me thank you. Of course it makes it bigger but actually easire in practice I feel.

As for zero-sum or not this is a good place to start the debate. Several possibilities here:

Bonus points for army destruction - + 4 for anyone who knocks out an army and smooth the current table

At the moment the win bonus is +3 and the lose penalty is -3 giving a 6 point incentive to go for an army rout. Not sure if you are suggesting a change to +4 for a win but zero penalty for a loss: are you?

Reduction in points if you cause less that 10% damage say - so a 16-16 stand off becomes a 12-12 and there is little incentive to do this

If you feel you are faced with a choice between 0-32 or 12-12 there is still plenty of incentive to go for the 12-12. If you were expecting the 32 you now have only 12 instead of 16, so I think the good players would be complaining even more under this system.

eventually I think we will swap it to a 20 point system as well. the 32 is just to fit with "current technology".

Thanks

Si

"current technology" = the computer program BHGS use for recording the scores and doing the draw. It only inputs the winner's score and calculates the loser's as 32-winner. So it only works with 32 point zero-sum.


Some of my thoughts on scoring:

The game is really a race to see who can get to the critical number of APs first.

The scores are a method of assessing who is the most skilled player, not a method of assessing the strategic benefit of the battle result as if it were part of a campaign.

If one player gets there and the other is very close behind, then they have similar skill and should get very similar scores. This implies that the score benefit over your opponent for winning should be small.

If one player is far ahead of the other then the skill difference is large and the score difference should be large. If the better player did not manage to get the army rout in the time available, does he deserve as many points as a player who got an army rout but with a much narrower margin?

If a draw gets you more points than a decisive defeat, then there is an incentive for the weaker player to play for a draw.

If a bloodless draw gets you more points than a marginal defeat, then there is an incentive for the stronger player not to risk losses against a very defensive player playing for a draw.

Probably the best way to encourage aggressive play is to make the benefit for doing damage much greater than the penalty for suffering damage. However, a weak player may still see defensive play as his best strategy as he is now more likely to do damage to the stronger player who is incentivised to attack.

If you really want to deter defensive play, you need to make a decisive loss score higher than an indecisive win. This could be done by giving an explicit bonus for losing. Alternatively you could give points for how far you advance, so it's worth coming forward and getting defeated.

rbodleyscott wrote:

Pikeaddict wrote:

Reduction in points if you cause less that 10% damage say - so a 16-16 stand off becomes a 12-12 and there is little incentive to do this

FOG is a good rule on this point with the -1 for beeing close to the sides and favouring manouvers but a mounted shooty army could succeed in gaining enough time not to lose : the scoring system might avoid such temptation.

The only problem is that this also punishes the player opposing the mounted shooty army who is trying to contact the enemy but can't because they are avoiding it.

Maybe. It might also convince players to go after shooty armies with a little more confidence and aggression. It's more risky but I think done well reaps higher rewards than loses.

lawrenceg wrote:
"current technology" = the computer program BHGS use for recording the scores and doing the draw. It only inputs the winner's score and calculates the loser's as 32-winner. So it only works with 32 point zero-sum.

Matt Haywood converted it to cope with 15-0 for Roll Call in 2006.

I quite like it the way it is. If there is anything but zero sum this can lead to very odd results. Being penalised by four points with a 12-12 draw because your opponent refused to come out and fight is unfair. How about refusing to bolster a fragmented unit (or refusing a quality re roll in the last bound) because a 17-15 loss is better than a 12-12 draw.

How easy is it to refuse combat in FoG anyway? Moves are large enough and the game play is very quick. I do not think we have a problem.

On scoring systems I think at the end of the day much of it is about how it affects behvaiour

Whiole we can theorise considerably about it I feel the best appraoch - without binding ourselves to any one system - is to experiment a little. So maybe we will try a tweak of it for the next comp and see how it feels.

Si