Ever-Green League - 300 BC: CLOSED

[Karvon]

I think it would be more rational to adjust the winner's bonus relative to what the loser can earn.
Thus, 3-0 for less than 15%, 2-1 for 15-29%, 1-2 for 30-44% and 0-3 for 45+.

For example:

40-0 would result in a 7-0 score.
45-20 would result in a 6-1 score.
60-50 would result in a 4-3 score.
45-45 would result in a 3-3 score.

[devoncop]

Inspired by the recent discussions about the "optimal" scoring system providing the "best" incentives, a change to how points are allocated will be applied on all challenges made from now on (currently active games will still keep the old scoring mechanism, with 1p for a win and 0p otherwise):

• Players will now be allocated points as follows:
  • for winning player: 4p plus 2p if suffering 0-4% casualties and plus 1p if suffering 5-9% casualties.
  • for drawing or losing player: 0p if inflicting 0-14% casualties, 1p if inflicting 15-29% casualties, 2p if inflicting 30-44% casualties, 3p if inflicting 45+% casualties.

These incremental point allocations will hopefully create a nerve also if a game is about to be lost and drawn, with players seeking to inflict as much casualties as possible to bring home as many points as possible.

Needless to say, reporting the result will now also require the actual casualties (with inflicted casualties specified in same order as the player), e.g.:

• 7 kronenblatt Navarrese 900-1049 AD lost against 5 TomoeGozen Scots 851-1051 AD 15-45.

• 7 kronenblatt Navarrese 900-1049 AD won against 5 TomoeGozen Scots 851-1051 AD 45-15.

• 7 kronenblatt Navarrese 900-1049 AD drew with 5 TomoeGozen Scots 851-1051 AD 30-45.

I like this system, but is there not a typo in the second paragraph ?

The bonus points for winning players should surely be obtained if the winners themselves lose rather more than 0 -4% or 5-9% ?

Even me at my most incompetent have incurred losses greater than that on every player that has beaten me to a pulp

[kronenblatt]

I like this system, but is there not a typo in the second paragraph ?

The bonus points for winning players should surely be obtained if the winners themselves lose rather more than 0 -4% or 5-9% ?

No, it's actually intended. The winner's additional points would be very hard to get, but not impossible (well, 0-4% is in practice). The reason for the keeping the limit at 9%, is to have a "window" of no adjustments at all until the loser's points start kicking in (at 15%)

[devoncop]

Ah okay.

So the bonus points for winning would be very much the exception rather than the rule whilst the " consolation" bonus points for losing would be much more routine.

I understand now. I definitely like this system.

Thanks Andreas

[ericdoman1]

Hi Andreas

The figures below, not sure if it is me but they do not make sense

• for winning player: 4p plus 2p if suffering 0-4% casualties and plus 1p if suffering 5-9% casualties.

[kronenblatt]

Hi Andreas

The figures below, not sure if it is me but they do not make sense

• for winning player: 4p plus 2p if suffering 0-4% casualties and plus 1p if suffering 5-9% casualties.

In which respect? As I mentioned above, the idea behind the winner's potential points (in addition to the 4p) is that they would be very hard to get, but not impossible (well, 0-4% is in practice). The reason for the keeping the limit at 9%, is to have a "window" of no adjustments at all until the loser's points start kicking in (at 15%).

So if there is a 40%-4% win, the winner would get 6p (4+2) and the loser 0p, and if 40%-9%, 5p and 0p, respectively. But as soon as the loser inflicts 10% or more, the winner gets "only" 4p whereas the loser can get up to 3p, depending on how much losses he inflicts upon the winner.

[ericdoman1]

Hi Andreas

The figures below, not sure if it is me but they do not make sense

• for winning player: 4p plus 2p if suffering 0-4% casualties and plus 1p if suffering 5-9% casualties.

In which respect? As I mentioned above, the idea behind the winner's potential points (in addition to the 4p) is that they would be very hard to get, but not impossible (well, 0-4% is in practice). The reason for the keeping the limit at 9%, is to have a "window" of no adjustments at all until the loser's points start kicking in (at 15%).

for drawing or losing player: 0p if inflicting 0-14% casualties, 1p if inflicting 15-29% casualties, 2p if inflicting 30-44% casualties, 3p if inflicting 45+% casualties.

So it is as it reads. If a score was 48 - 3 the score would be 6 - 0; 40 - 9 = 5-0, 60 -47 = 4-3, 46 - 45 = 3-3 and 15 - 20 = 1-1

I had a quick look through all of the DL Div A games. There were 360 in total only 2 games had the loser scoring 0-4% and 7 games 5-9% so they are quite rare but heck let's go for it. I have included the 2 games' results for 900 AD in that forum. Unfortunately I do not have any of the others. Although as a guess 3 Stew Lysimachid 320-281 BC won against 1 Eric Etruscan 330-280 BC 44-17.1 ericdoman1 Macedonian 320-261 BC won against 2 Karvon Saka 300 BC - 50 AD 47-21

This new scoring system begins now?

[kronenblatt]

So it is as it reads. If a score was 48 - 3 the score would be 6 - 0; 40 - 9 = 5-0, 60 -47 = 4-3, 46 - 45 = 3-3 and 15 - 20 = 1-1?

Exactly correct! And 45%-44% = 3-2. 60%-44% = 4-2. 9%-9% = 0-0. 14%-14% = 0-0. 15%-14% = 1-0. etc.

I had a quick look through all of the DL Div A games. There were 360 in total only 2 games had the loser scoring 0-4% and 7 games 5-9% so they are quite rare but heck let's go for it.

Yes, it can be expected to be very rare, but could then create some nerve in highly uneven games. Normally, it can be safely ignored.

This new scoring system begins now?

Yes, for any games that started yesterday and going forward. (For all games that started before yesterday, the old 1p for win, 0p for draw or loss applies.)

[ericdoman1]

OKey Dokey

[kronenblatt]

6 kronenblatt Carthaginian 340-281 BC won against 7 devoncop Lysimachid 320-281 BC

[Holien]

9 Holien Thracian (Triballi) 350 BC-46 AD Defeats 11 dragmio Gallic 300-101 BC - Score 16% to 41%

A tough battle with a central Hill and weight of numbers told in the end aided by Skirmish superiority. Many Thanks for the game

Updated.

[devoncop]

devoncop (Carthginian 340-281BC with Numidian/Moorish allies ) challenges Holien (Gallic 300-101BC)

PM sent

[SpeedyCM]

I would be interested in playing in this league.

As for starting army whatever you think best for variety of current lists in the league.

[kronenblatt]

I would be interested in playing in this league.

As for starting army whatever you think best for variety of current lists in the league.

Absolutely, Speedy: Welcome! I've allocated Greek (Mercenary) 460-281 BC for you to start with, and added you to the table so you're good to go!

[SpeedyCM]

Thanks mate.

Now to start

Speedy (Greek Mercenary 460-281 BC) challenges dragmio (Thracian Triballi 350 BC - 46 AD).

PM sent.

Updated.

[dragmio]

Thanks mate.

Now to start

Speedy (Greek Mercenary 460-281 BC) challenges dragmio (Thracian Triballi 350 BC - 46 AD).

PM sent.

Updated.

Challenge accepted!

[Holien]

devoncop (Carthginian 340-281BC with Numidian/Moorish allies ) challenges Holien (Gallic 300-101BC)

PM sent

Accepted and game under way.

[Holien]

Holien (Gallic 300-101BC) Defeated devoncop (Carthginian 340-281BC with Numidian/Moorish allies ) - 14% to 24% - Carthage surrendered early

The Gallic Barbarian horde was descending upon the Carthage right flank and their general decided it was best to leave the field of battle before the horde started to roll up his flank. The left flank was fairing better but was being held (just) and it seemed that there was no way to prevent the Gallic units from overwhelming Carthage. The lone Elephant had become seperated from his support and was surrounded by fully stocked javelin units that were about to unleash a killer volley.

Thanks for the game and not sure how the scoring system will deal with a surrender before the game finished?

Open for new games... (Kronenblatt looks like I am allowed to play you now as I might be within reach of you?)

[kronenblatt]

Holien (Gallic 300-101BC) Defeated devoncop (Carthginian 340-281BC with Numidian/Moorish allies ) - 14% to 24% - Carthage surrendered early

The Gallic Barbarian horde was descending upon the Carthage right flank and their general decided it was best to leave the field of battle before the horde started to roll up his flank. The left flank was fairing better but was being held (just) and it seemed that there was no way to prevent the Gallic units from overwhelming Carthage. The lone Elephant had become seperated from his support and was surrounded by fully stocked javelin units that were about to unleash a killer volley.

Thanks for the game and not sure how the scoring system will deal with a surrender before the game finished?

Open for new games... (Kronenblatt looks like I am allowed to play you now as I might be within reach of you?)

Updated.

You're getting 1p for inflicting 24%, devoncop gets 0p, with the game treated as a draw. I'm not really in favour of surrendering early, better to play it out even if foregone conclusion, and the new point system promotes that. For example, devoncop may have inflicted 1pp more and gained 1p instead of 0p, even if impossible to stop your win.

And yes, you're allowed to challenge me now, that's correct.

[devoncop]

Apologies...

My understanding was that my surrender would have been treated ( quite correctly in my view) as a 40-0 win for Holien who was totally demolishing the Carthaginians.

It seems wrong for the scoring system to penalise such a dominant performance by only granting him 1pt.

Maybe the scoring in the event of a player surrender should reflect a victory for the non surrendering player ?

Apologies again and if the scoring system is not changed I will from now on continue until the game is officially lost in a similar situation.

Cheers

Ian