The Blitz scoring system by Weasel & Kiwi works well for meetings but in my view falls down for other battle types.
Looking for thoughts/ solutions.
Thinking of producing a spreadsheet to run alongside the current one & see how things pan out as a test but need a data monkey to do the leg work Away from my better half who would normally do, I could but slow as hence dont enter formula much. good job she does not read this :)
The idea is to produce a one stop sheet that offers more variety, perhaps with players having the option of choosing scoring method before start play & to provide a basis for tourney scoring.
Thoughts
1) Fix so works better for advance assaults.
2) Make the allocation of flag importance variable
This would allow players to decide the importance of objectives vs destruction of forces for a game. It would give Tourney Masters a good starting point for scoring & can tailor to how they want the battle to be fought. From flags of no importance to the main objective.
If I understand correctly the current system already gives a lot of info, vic margin, efficency etc. Possible ways to change.
Have the spreadsheet do
1) Assign points value for flags based on purchase cost of your force.
So flags would be worth a set % of your force.
Adjusting % higher holding capturing ground becomes important.
Adjusting % lower destruction of forces takes priority.
Doing this flags would take no further part in determining victory conditions as factored in.
2) To work either all flags would have to be set to zero which is easy enough if place manually or have spreadsheet deduct values.
I think normally there are a max of only 1 or 2 values used & can enter flags controled at end & have spreadsheet deduct.
This is I think an improved version of the way the game normally scores but with the advantage of adjusting flag priority easily.
For diffrent meeting types add a column with a modifyier as follows.
Either straight forward based on engagement type or more for tourneys, scenerios based on 2 modifiers.
1) Meeting type
2) Total Purchase Cost Ratio of both sides
Determining a value for 1 is the tricky bit playtesting seems the only way unless you are cleverer than me....... not that hard.
For a meeting it would be zero.
For an assault it would need to modify the points to allow for the difficulty of attacking dug in units.
This could either adjust one sides score or perhaps give the flags a diffrent priority.
The defender starts with them all & in my view capturing ground is the main priority so see if this makes sense.
Attacking side is assumed to start with say 6 imaginery flags in his control.
If converting flags to points this would be added to his score.
If using Blitz system flags controlled would be based on 27 not 21, this would have the effect of shifting the results slightly I think in the attackers favour.
Any thoughts?
Please keep simple & concise if possible.
Gibratar if you have some time would be intrestead in your thoughts as from your Special Rules Post have clearly spent some time on this.
More than willing to dole out some points to any usefull contributers.
Thoughts yes, solutions, I doubt it.
Why complex? Simple solutions tend to outlast complex ones. Why change the scoring when you are looking to affect the results?
Keep the scoring the way it is programmed and let the game do the scut work. Change the results of those scores and you get to the same place with less work. Us tired old farts like that sort of thing.
Example; Instead of a marginal being 2x, let a marginal be > (greater then). Instead of a decisive being 6x or whatever, make it 2x. A overwhelming can be 3x or 4x and anything over 6x can be a spanking. Or a rude spanking.
That way we will see less draws.
You can hold a poll to determine exactly what the x factor is.
This should make it pretty easy to go back and see what effect the changes will have on past games. Quite a bit, I should think. How many games in the history are draws that would be minor wins under a new definition of winning?
Is it right ( fitting, proper, fair) to change those games, ex-post facto so to speak. Is it fair (proper fitting correct) not to?
Lots of other worms in that can, I'll wait till we chew thru these to bring them out.
04-20-2010, 06:07 AM, (This post was last modified: 04-20-2010, 06:10 AM by Imp.)
Thats an entirely diffrent point to what I was looking at.
What you are talking about is very simple, just what defines a type of victory not how it arrives at that result in the first place.
In my view its not far off could tweak slightly but assuming players at a similar level the majority of outcomes should be a draw, then a minor.
Fits with my thinking what makes a good victory depending on objectives is capturing all objectives or reducing the opposing force to under 1/3rd of its strength. This effectivly means in real terms it ceases to become an effective fighting force. Any result less than that is a marginal victory at best as the force is still capable of operating.
Just because you did better & gave someone a bloody nose does not mean he wont whoop your arse, break his legs though & your pretty safe.
If anything I might relax the overwhelming victory flag conditions as the game can just quite before you have time to take them if you wipe him out.
We can discuss this to you could I suppose add another couple of victory levels. Though for me it works well enough
Please don't make any changes until there has been a good chance for everyone to contribute.
Imp...I don't see any other threads or discussion re. the points / results systems being 'wrong'...why the sudden desire to change it.
As I see it, this is only based on your opinion so far, not a general feeling in the Forum that something needs changing.
Those of us that have been here for a few years now will remember the original scoring system.
It was based on a points ratio (from the game end result page).
This old system served well enough, but handed out many draws.
Because of this, Weasel created a spread sheet that included Flags Captured as a variable.
This became the 'alternate' score system and was an option if you wanted to use it.
Over a couple of years (IIRC) Weasels system became the default as it was better in the collective opinion of the Forum.
Lately Kiwi added a few more variable to the spreadsheet...and that was the latest change.
I vote for no change at all to the spread sheet as it stands.
If you want to develop a new score system, then do that, and it can be used as an alternate system over time.
Players can decide by using both systems which one suits best, and eventually one will become dominant.
There are so many ways of playing a PBEM...not just ME vs Ass / Adv etc.
It is up to the players how they want to score a battle...no-one actually cares how the end result for the ladder is arrived at, just as long as both players agree with the posted result.
It is possible to just have an agreement on a result without referencing Weasel's system at all.
Also...it is easy to change the levels of importance of Flags by just changing their point value on the map, and or using less of them. There does not have to be 21 used.
BTW...never put them all at zero points as the game tends to finish early.
A minimum value of 5 is important if you want to play out all the turns.
Weasel's system does not work well, especially for smaller battles, if the flags have a large value attached to them.
This is because the System gives value for the actual Flags held, and then also for the points they were worth...a sort of double whammy.
This therefore is not the best system to use for scoring a Pre-made scenario (from the SP game itself) as these are created expecting to be played against the AI and scored by the in-game system.
Currently I am playing a bunch of these scenarios against Czerpak and we either negotiate a result or use the in game result as the scenarios are not good to be scored by Weasel's system.
There are many other points to be considered...so therefore take your time there bro :-) Like I say, there doesn't seem to be a general feeling on the forum that there needs to be a change.
Also...I think you have lost sight of the fact that you can create a result for the ladder by any means that both player deem fair.
It is good to keep things simple and flexible...and your ideas so far do not seem to be following that path.
Absolutly no intention of changing the current system in the forseable future I think its very good, certainly far better than the system used by the game for most things.
I do however think it is geared towards meeting engagements & could possibly be improved a little for other types.
The idea was prompted in part by the post special rules but mainly by a little debate going on in a tourney forum.
The idea is to provide an alternative that is hopefully a bit more flexible allowing it to be used as a basis for tourney scoring & for normal games to give the players some choice in the type of battle he wants to play. Capture terrain vs destroy forces balance basicly which is useful for a tourney or scenerio designer as he can tailor the objectives mission breifs accordingly.
While at it as said I think it falls down a bit for assaults & advances so thought could look at that.
On your point about there are many ways to play & score I whole heartily agree & indeed do, I wish flag placement value etc was better handled in game. From my experience if suggest though this does not occur to quite a few people so having an alternative might make them think that there are many ways to play this game.
I do agree its a lot of work for what I do already but as issues were raised thought I would see if there are any takers.
Said before to me its all pretty academic I know how well or badly I played & dont really need a set of rules to tell me.
However for something like a tourney the choice of a few diffrent ways to score it pre set up means the tourney master can just pick from them & concentrate on the tourney.
Of course even then they are not set in stone the results can be adjusted as he sees fit.
Good thoughts.
Just a couple of my own in response.
I have been watching the debate in the BSA forum.
Mainly it is a bit of confusion (normal for the start of tourneys and wigam's problem eh ;)) which I am sure will be quickly resolved.
IMO he needs to have a winner from both teams...that way it does not matter about imbalance between the two teams.
Then all that is needed is a careful examination of the results for each battle to get a ranking (high to low score) for each team...then it is easy to hand out the OW to Draw results.
Capture terrain vs destroy forces balance basicly which is useful for a tourney or scenerio designer as he can tailor the objectives mission breifs accordingly.
This is easily handled by careful placement of flags and careful thought in creating their value by the TM. Also, he is in a position to create special rules for each scenario that will offer easy creation of results.
I wish flag placement value etc was better handled in game. From my experience if suggest though this does not occur to quite a few people so having an alternative might make them think that there are many ways to play this game.
Too many players are not aware that they can manipulate the flag placement and value in any PBEM SP game, not just when creating pre-made scenarios.
P1 can hand place and assign values to any flag, also leaving some off the map if required.
This is the easiest way to get a better battle experience IMO and is great for adjusting the way Weasel's scoring system will work.
If you want more attention paid to 'grabbing terrain' then assign high values to the flags in certain areas of the map.
If you want more attention paid to troop losses, then assign less value to the flags.
Just changing these parameters will have a huge effect on the scoring at the end and also on how the players will use there tactics to get the result.
Perhaps we need a 'how to change flag placement and value' sticky rather than a debate on a scoring system that works fine IMO.
Do you hand place and assign value to your flags in your PBEMs?
If you do not, then I imagine that will be why you don't get good results when scoring Advance and Assaults when using Weasel's system.
I think this is the weak area in this debate, rather than the way the scoring system works.
However, I am aware that very small, and very large battles may strain the system a tad. I tend to play mid sized battle, so do not generally run into issues.
Quote:Mainly it is a bit of confusion (normal for the start of tourneys and wigam's problem eh ) which I am sure will be quickly resolved.
Completly agree people reading to much into things, quite possibly misinterpreting things. Will bang heads with Wigam at some point & perhaps layout scoring guidlines a bit clearer if need be. He has enough on his plate without worrying about semantics.
As said thought may as well just see if there are any takers, none of it really bothers me. I tend to score my first game against a new opponent using the Blitz system after that tend to go with whatever fits the situation I am trying to create.
So long as both players no the deal you adjust flags accordingly or ignore completly house rules apply here & in deployment as well as purchase.
Makes for a more varied set of battles & hence keeps intrest going in the game. Currently trying a not so orderly withdrawl over a river, the idea was if I could stop him getting a toe hold on the other bank & get 50% of my forces over there I had won. Not going so well trying to cross the river & hold the bank is even harder than a river crossing the normal way, the river is a lovely shade of red curse mumble mumble.
As said here before, only scenarios seem to have trouble with the scoring sheet. I haven't found any trouble with the current system but I don't use it for all my battles either and I do fix values and places of objectives for generated ones. I'm actually quite pleased with the way it work at the moment.
Vesku
04-20-2010, 07:14 PM, (This post was last modified: 04-20-2010, 10:29 PM by Imp.)
I agree with Walrus - the Weasel scoring sheet works fine and one can always discuss with the opponent about special rules before the game if needed.
So there's my two cents...:smoke:
,
Thexder
04-21-2010, 02:32 AM, (This post was last modified: 04-21-2010, 02:36 AM by Cross.)
Archived Forums
Help
Calendar
Member List
Search
![[Image: Medals50_thumb8.gif]](http://s244.photobucket.com/user/Vesku72/media/Medals50_thumb8.gif.html)
,
){kind=link}
