Dividing the Spoils - Tournament 2: Concluded

[Aetius39]

Game set up for Malabar26 attacking (unjustly) Aetius in Parthyaia

pw is DiSp

See you in the hills!^^

Aetius

[Giacofa93]

Hi. I'm a bit confused by the attacking / supporting situation. If I'm attacked by 2 and win one and lose one presumably it's a draw and nothing changes. If i'm attacked by three and lose one win two, it's still a draw? Is that correct?

This also means that there isn't much to gain from attacking with 2 players instead of 1, right? You are increasing the chances of not winning the battle, actually?

[kronenblatt]

Hi. I'm a bit confused by the attacking / supporting situation. If I'm attacked by 2 and win one and lose one presumably it's a draw and nothing changes. If i'm attacked by three and lose one win two, it's still a draw? Is that correct?

This also means that there isn't much to gain from attacking with 2 players instead of 1, right? You are increasing the chances of not winning the battle, actually?

In my view, the mechanics increase the chances of winning the battle or at least of not losing it, the more other players you can muster in support of you.

For example, let's say there a two players supporting your attack against a solitary defender. This means that you're three attackers against one defender. Each player can not count more than one win, so even if the defender wins two and loses one, he can still only count one win against one loss, and thus the battle is a draw and no satrapies are gained for either side. Now, if the defender wins one and loses two, he will lose the battle and his satrapy.

So I'd say that it not an overwhelming advantage but still noticeable. One aspect speaking in favour of your argument though would be if the mechanics affect the behaviour of the outnumbered player, i.e., making him camp and remain idle in a defensive position. But that is always possible in all games unfortunately.

[Giacofa93]

For example, let's say there a two players supporting your attack against a solitary defender. This means that you're three attackers against one defender. Each player can not count more than one win, so even if the defender wins two and loses one, he can still only count one win against one loss, and thus the battle is a draw and no satrapies are gained for either side. Now, if the defender wins one and loses two, he will lose the battle and his satrapy.

I mean, I see the point of being in 3 vs 1. I'm just saying that, contrary to intuition, being "only" 2 vs 1 does not in fact increase the odds of winning, for both the 2 attacker now have to win their match, and if the defender wins only one of the 2 matches he has safely defended the satrapy.

This looks a bit counter intuitive to a first look, but I guess is just a consequence of the rules. Personally I don't feel it's too bad, though there might be some exploits where P1 attacks P2 and P3 supports the attack just to purposefully lose to P2 and prevent P1 from taking the satrapy.

[kronenblatt]

I mean, I see the point of being in 3 vs 1. I'm just saying that, contrary to intuition, being "only" 2 vs 1 does not in fact increase the odds of winning, for both the 2 attacker now have to win their match, and if the defender wins only one of the 2 matches he has safely defended the satrapy. This looks a bit counter intuitive to a first look, but I guess is just a consequence of the rules.

Only one attacker actually needs to win if the other attacker draws. But it could be that the main advantage is to reduce the odds of losing for the attacker. I just can't see how it can be worse or at least not better being 2 attackers than 1 but then again better with 3 attackers; there's probably some way to mathematically express that. And maybe the rules in the end still need to be tweaked in some way here? If so, how?

There might be some exploits where P1 attacks P2 and P3 supports the attack just to purposefully lose to P2 and prevent P1 from taking the satrapy.

What is the best way to deal with that, rules wise?

[kronenblatt]

One way to actually make more players on your side beneficial (even when only two) could be to specify that if there's an equal number of wins (still with the rule that a player can never count as victor more than once in all his battles connected with an original attack and its satrapies-at-stake), the victory goes to the side with the largest number of players (and if equal number of players on both sides, will end in a draw).

So for example, if a player's attack is supported by another player so that they're two against one defender, and the defender wins one of the battles and loses the other (with 1-1 in wins), the defender will still lose overall, since the attacker side has more players (2) than his side (1).

And in another example, if a player's attack is supported by two other players so that they're three against one defender, and the defender wins two of the battles and loses the other (ending up with 1-1 in wins since each player can count only one win), the defender will still lose overall, since the attacker side has more players (3) than his side (1).

[Giacofa93]

But it could be that the main advantage is to reduce the odds of losing for the attacker.

I think so.

I just can't see how it can be worse or at least not better being 2 attackers than 1 but then again better with 3 attackers; there's probably some way to mathematically express that.

Well as you said being 2 also decreases the odds of losing, as well as those of winning. In the end it (rightfully) boils down to player skill. If a low skill player supports your attack, it may mess you up in the end.

One way to actually make more players on your side beneficial (even when only two) could be to specify that if there's an equal number of wins (still with the rule that a player can never count as victor more than once in all his battles connected with an original attack and its satrapies-at-stake), the victory goes to the side with the largest number of players (and if equal number of players on both sides, will end in a draw).

This might be a bit excessive, and I don't really see it as justifiable...but it seems to solve the issues outlined above

There might be some exploits where P1 attacks P2 and P3 supports the attack just to purposefully lose to P2 and prevent P1 from taking the satrapy.

What is the best way to deal with that, rules wise?

What about giving a player the possibility of vetoeing any unwanted support on his attacks?

[kronenblatt]

Thanks, Giacofa93: I'll think about this some more.

What do you other participants in DiSp2 have to say on this topic? I'm all ears.

[SnuggleBunnies]

Thanks, Giacofa93: I'll think about this some more.

What do you other participants in DiSp2 have to say on this topic? I'm all ears.

What if instead of additional battles, support = more force points if you add that army as allies. A player getting multiple supports could choose which allies, and get multiple force point bonuses. Since draws result in no land changing hands, a player unexpectedly facing a much larger enemy force could react by trying to play defensively.

This would make supports more similar to how they work in diplomacy, and would get rid of weird situations where you could win but not win. Downside, some players might not actually get to play a battle on a turn where they are only supporting, but that's not a big deal to me.

[deeter]

It depends on what the campaign is trying to accomplish. If it is a scenario generator only then the system works, although supporting other players is probably not ideal. If it's trying to simulate strategic considerations such as battles of one army verses several, it doesn't do a good job. It magically increases the number of defenders proportionate to the number of attackers (which is odd) and other considerations also don't apply such as battle loss carryovers, etc.

Dunno how to address this under the current system, so I would just regard this as a scenario generator wherein whomever wins the most battles wins the campaign. Perhaps when multiple armies attack one, these should be fought sequentially with the defender using only the survivors of the previous battle each time rather than being full strength each time.

Vae Victus, etc. tries to address these questions in more detail, but will take a lot longer to play to conclusion. As a battle generator for a quick campaign, it works fine as is.

Deeter

[carpenkm]

Battle set up for Deeter's sneak attack in Syria - hopefully correctly!

Password is DiSp

[carpenkm]

Battle set up for SnuggleBunnies for his despicable attack on the poor citizens of Media

Password is DiSp

[kronenblatt]

Battle set up for Deeter's sneak attack in Syria - hopefully correctly!

Password is DiSp

Yes, it seems correct (or at least looked correct, since deeter was quick to pick it up ), because you've used the same army (army of Mesopotamia) in this battle that you used in your invasion of Syria and you selected one of Syria's available terrains (desert).

So all seems to be in good order. Well done, Keith!

[carpenkm]

Battle set up for Deeter's sneak attack in Syria - hopefully correctly!

Password is DiSp

Yes, it seems correct (or at least looked correct, since deeter was quick to pick it up ), because you've used the same army (army of Mesopotamia) in this battle that you used in your invasion of Syria and you selected one of Syria's available terrains (desert).

So all seems to be in good order. Well done, Keith!

I had to get one right!!! This is hard work setting up all these battles - hopefully next turn i will be able to improve my diplomacy and not be attacked attacked by most of the Middle East.

[kronenblatt]

Battle set up for Deeter's sneak attack in Syria - hopefully correctly!

Password is DiSp

Yes, it seems correct (or at least looked correct, since deeter was quick to pick it up ), because you've used the same army (army of Mesopotamia) in this battle that you used in your invasion of Syria and you selected one of Syria's available terrains (desert).

So all seems to be in good order. Well done, Keith!

I had to get one right!!! This is hard work setting up all these battles - hopefully next turn i will be able to improve my diplomacy and not be attacked attacked by most of the Middle East.

Yes, this is a tough round for you with 5 battles! Puh.

[carpenkm]

Battle set up for Ironclad. Password DiSp

Come and get some - enjoy the mountain views on your brief stay!

[Malabar26]

I'm in favour of adopting kronenblatt's idea that a draw (say 1-1) results in a victory for the more numerous side.
It would make supporting a defender or an attacker more attractive as your support would have more chance to matters.

[Warg1]

The odious fiends of Gedrosia have been sent back to their tar pits to lick their wounds. The heroic defenders of Karmania have a fair amount of wound licking on their to-do list as well

Warg1 (Karmania) defeats the attack of Doyley50 (Gedrosia) 64 - 43

[Doyley50]

It is with regret that I have to announce that the heroic defenders of Arkhosia were unable to prevail against the uncouth and uncivilized invaders from Drangiane. 40-13

[deeter]

I announce with great pleasure that carpenkm and the anti-Deeter have agreed to a truce as he has agreed to cease his attack on the lands of TomoeGozen.

Deeter