Simplified Fog Scoring System

A forum to post news about tournaments around the world. Please post any such messages here!

Moderators: hammy, Ghaznavid, Slitherine Core, Field of Glory Moderators, Field of Glory Design

stevoid
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 285
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:03 pm
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Simplified Fog Scoring System

Post by stevoid » Sun Jul 20, 2008 6:30 am

Greetings from New Zealand.

We have just trialed a simplified version of the FoG tournament scoring system here down under. Feedback was favourable, and we will use it again at Call to Arms 2008 (http://www.warlords.org.nz/CalltoArms2008.htm).

The motivation for this system was to mitigate against high BG armies (16+ in 800 point games). It has the added bonus of obviating the need for tired players to look up rows and columns after a taxing day drinking and gaming (even though there are savants out there who can still remember the combat table from 7th ed.).

I would like to point out that NO OFFICIAL RULES HAVE BEEN HARMED in this exercise. That is, Attrition Points are calculated as before, Army Rout still occurs when APs equal number of original BGs (excluding scythed chariots yadda yadda). All that has changed is the (arbitrary) means of arriving at a score for tournament purposes. Furthermore, this simplified system maintains the zero sum approach of 20 for draws and 25 for outright wins (although a higher win bonus has been mooted to make it + 10 for a 30 zero-sum score option).

The perceived problem with unusually high BG armies is that they gain by being hard to break - often known as points denial in other systems' parlance - and they also gain in a no-result where the exchange of APs is equal or, in some cases, unequal. It was deemed after some discussion and analysis of tournaments to date that this situation could be mitigated against by the adopted system. Moreover, note that the Design Philosophy of the game system envisaged battle of around 10-15 BGs. The 'average' army at cons seemed to be in the 11-14 range. Well-designed armies of 16+ BGs derive, in our opinion, too many advantages in a time restricted tournament scene; therefore, a new tournament scoring system...


Scoring:

Attrition Point losses are calculated and accumulated as per the FoG rules except that the maximum number of lost APs that can be accumulated is 10.

An army rout occurs as per the FoG rules, i.e. when half of the army's AP total is lost.

Game score is 10 less AP losses plus your opponent's AP losses plus 5 points for breaking your opponents army. No complicated table look-ups required.

Draws will have scores that add to 20 and wins to 25 as they do now.

Example a 10 BG army plays a 15 BG army:
- they each lose 5 APs: the score is 10-10
- the first army loses 5 APs, the second 12: the score is 15-5 (the 10
max applies).
- the first army loses 5 APs, the second is routed (15 AP losses): the
score is 20-5.

We here in kiwi-land will be interested in feedback from afar.

Cheers,

Steve

hazelbark
General - Carrier
General - Carrier
Posts: 4957
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: Capital of the World !!

Post by hazelbark » Sun Jul 20, 2008 8:34 pm

what is the score of a 15 BG losing 2 and an 12 BG losing 4?

ie an inconclusive game with light losses?

Personally I am not worried about a preponderance of high BG armies. As they tend to not have much strike power per BG. They may be hard to break. But under your system if you inflict 10 AP and lose 0. You still only get 20. And are denied the win bonus.

So shouldn't you do something like a ratio of 4-1 also earns a partial win bonus or add more time to se the game to conclusion?

stevoid
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 285
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:03 pm
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Post by stevoid » Sun Jul 20, 2008 9:14 pm

hazelbark wrote:what is the score of a 15 BG losing 2 and an 12 BG losing 4?

ie an inconclusive game with light losses?

Personally I am not worried about a preponderance of high BG armies. As they tend to not have much strike power per BG. They may be hard to break. But under your system if you inflict 10 AP and lose 0. You still only get 20. And are denied the win bonus.

So shouldn't you do something like a ratio of 4-1 also earns a partial win bonus or add more time to se the game to conclusion?
1. Assuming that by 'losing 2' you mean APs, then under our scoring system it would be 12-8 whereas under the old system it would have been 12-8! Not much of a change which applies for most cases, things only really change when a large BG army is involved.

2. I don't understand the point of your 10-0 example - the criteria for a win bonus hasn't changed. If you're making the point that neither system rewards such a lop-sided draw then fair enough, However, our intention was to simplify and improve the existing system which worked well in most cases.

Cheers,

Steve

nikgaukroger
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 10265
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 9:30 am
Location: LarryWorld

Post by nikgaukroger » Mon Jul 21, 2008 8:34 am

I'm with Dan on this. It is quite possible to break 15+ BG armies in a 3.5 hour-ish game with a smaller (in BG terms) army.
Nik Gaukroger

"Never ask a man if he comes from Yorkshire. If he does, he will tell you.
If he does not, why humiliate him?" - Canon Sydney Smith

nikgaukroger@blueyonder.co.uk

hammy
Field of Glory Team
Field of Glory Team
Posts: 5440
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:11 pm
Location: Stockport
Contact:

Post by hammy » Mon Jul 21, 2008 9:04 am

As a system it certainly simplifies things considerably.

One possible area that there may be issues (which was a problem in DBM too) is that you can get to a point in a game where for example you know you can't break your opponents army even if you might be able to inflict a bit more damage but you won't score any more points by doing so and just risk losing points yourself.

If you are facing a 16 BG enemy and you have done 10 AP to them (5 BGs destroyed or routed off table say) then unless you can see a way to get another 6 AP in the available time there is no point in playing any longer.

One aspect I like of the current tournament system is that it is always worth fighting on as you are rewarded for all the damage you inflict.

That said there is also a significant advantage to simplification.

lawrenceg
Colonel - Ju 88A
Colonel - Ju 88A
Posts: 1536
Joined: Sat Feb 24, 2007 6:24 pm
Location: Former British Empire

Post by lawrenceg » Mon Jul 21, 2008 11:23 am

So if a 20 BG army fights a 10 BG army and both lose 9 AP the score will be 10-10.

Seems a little unfair to the big army which has its opponent on the brink of defeat while losing under 25% of its own force.

If two 20 BG armies play each other and one loses 19 AP, the other 10 AP, the score will still be 10-10. That doesn't look very fair either. In this case the losing large army is advantaged.

If players can't read the table after a day of alcohol-fuelled carnage, then they can extract the row relevant to their own army and write it on their army list. At the last tournament I went to, the players just recorded army size and AP losses on the score sheet. The organisers did the rest so it didn't matter how drunk or tired the players were.

Is there actual evidence that armies with lots of BGs score better, or are harder to break, than those with few BGs, or is it just a perception?
Lawrence Greaves

dave_r
General - King Tiger
General - King Tiger
Posts: 3754
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 3:58 pm

Post by dave_r » Mon Jul 21, 2008 1:31 pm

At the Northern Doubles, there are army classes. This is based on two things:

- how much of your army is superior / elite
- Number of BG's

You get divided into 3 classes - 1, 2 and 3. If you beat a higher class army you get bonus points if you break your opponent's army.

If you have more than 15 BG's then your army "jumps" a class.

Bearing in mind that we are playing 900pt doubles games. To match in with other rulesets we are using the old 32point scoring system. I am the list checker and I was personally astonished at the amount of armies that are exactly 15 BG's. It seems that most players see the potential 3 extra points as much more valuable than going for armies with a huge number of BG's.

Given that this is a pure player choice I think it speaks volumes. So to answer the original point - I don't think players perceive that a large number of BG's makes the army better. Time will of course tell, but at the moment this doesn't appear to be an issue.

berthier
2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
2nd Lieutenant - Panzer IVF/2
Posts: 685
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 10:01 am
Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Contact:

Post by berthier » Thu Jul 24, 2008 9:54 am

In a Pure Numidian List, the player really does not have much of choice but to bring a large number of BGs because of the general quality of the troops. The best the Numidian can get is a 4 stand battlegroup of Superior cav IF you run them as Juba I or a Principate Roman Ally for Juba II. In a theme type tourney your scoring seems to artificially penalize such armies and give an advantage to smaller better quality armies. The better quality armies already have an advantage.

I have played the Numidians in two comps (and will again) and can tell you that in only one game of eight did the game time out before an army was broken (it was mine) so I just really don't see your argument.

fatismo
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 103
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2008 1:20 am

Post by fatismo » Sun Oct 19, 2008 9:10 pm

So let me get this straight. My Numidian/Roman ally (19 BG's) plays my friends Medieval French (8 BG's)

I break his army, but to do it have to sacrafice some of my Numidian light horse (a general has to make some hard decisions in battle).

My score is 10 + 8(opponents AP's) - 10(my AP's) + 5(win) = 13
Opponents score is 10 + 10(my AP's) - 8(opponents AP's) = 12

So I won and it's a 13/12 as opposed to a 20/5 win under the FOG official scoring.

Forgive me for saying, but I think I like for FOG scoring system

Perhaps I'm bias as I have a high BG army, but then again maybe the creator of this scoring system uses a low BG army????

BTW I'm from NZ so not everyone here thinks this system is perfect (even my friend with the Medieval French)

stevoid
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 285
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:03 pm
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Post by stevoid » Sun Oct 19, 2008 9:46 pm

fatismo wrote:So let me get this straight. My Numidian/Roman ally (19 BG's) plays my friends Medieval French (8 BG's)

I break his army, but to do it have to sacrafice some of my Numidian light horse (a general has to make some hard decisions in battle).

My score is 10 + 8(opponents AP's) - 10(my AP's) + 5(win) = 13
Opponents score is 10 + 10(my AP's) - 8(opponents AP's) = 12

So I won and it's a 13/12 as opposed to a 20/5 win under the FOG official scoring.

Forgive me for saying, but I think I like for FOG scoring system

Perhaps I'm bias as I have a high BG army, but then again maybe the creator of this scoring system uses a low BG army????

BTW I'm from NZ so not everyone here thinks this system is perfect (even my friend with the Medieval French)
Hi, you math is a little off. If you lost 2 BGs to get the win the score would 21-4.

10 for all his APs, 6 for your remaining APs (10-4), and 5 for the win. His score is the 4 APs he got off you.

fatismo
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Senior Corporal - Destroyer
Posts: 103
Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2008 1:20 am

Post by fatismo » Sun Oct 19, 2008 10:01 pm

Don't think my maths is wrong, I didn't say I lost 2 BG's

I lost 5 BG's = 10AP (25% of my total BG's)

He lost 4 BG's = 8AP (this borke his army)

Lycanthropic
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Sergeant - Panzer IIC
Posts: 186
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 10:48 pm

Post by Lycanthropic » Sun Oct 19, 2008 10:08 pm

As a NZ player who has competed in "Natcon" (FoG pts system) and "Call to Arms" (WTF pts system), I have come to the conclusion that this new "simplified" points system is flawed. Here are some reasons why:-

1) The rules writers didn't write it.
2) A corner sitting scrub sitting on a hill can achieve a 20-0 draw by not taking any BG losses and inflicting 10 APs.
3) On a table next to the corner sitting scrub, a player who broke his opponents will to live only scores 15-10 because he lost 10 APs doing so.
4) Did I mention the rules writers didn't write it, and you are posting international ratings on the official website? You aren't? Why not?
5) This simplified scoring system encourages beserker rage tactics in players trying to squeeze the maximum 10 pts from their loss.
6) After completing one match my opponent proudly proclaimed that "I'm happy! I got my maximum 10 points! I concede, that is as many points as a draw"
7) Manufacturing an alternative points system that serves your own needs is gift wrapping rotten eggs. Looks great, still stinks.

stevoid
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 285
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:03 pm
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Post by stevoid » Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:00 am

fatismo wrote:Don't think my maths is wrong, I didn't say I lost 2 BG's

I lost 5 BG's = 10AP (25% of my total BG's)

He lost 4 BG's = 8AP (this borke his army)
Hi, your math is still off because if you broke your opponent and he had 8 BGs that would still be 10 APs to you so a 15-5. Under the other system it would be 20-5.

stevoid
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Staff Sergeant - StuG IIIF
Posts: 285
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 9:03 pm
Location: Wellington, New Zealand

Post by stevoid » Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:26 am

Lycanthropic wrote:As a NZ player who has competed in "Natcon" (FoG pts system) and "Call to Arms" (WTF pts system), I have come to the conclusion that this new "simplified" points system is flawed. Here are some reasons why:-

1) The rules writers didn't write it.
2) A corner sitting scrub sitting on a hill can achieve a 20-0 draw by not taking any BG losses and inflicting 10 APs.
3) On a table next to the corner sitting scrub, a player who broke his opponents will to live only scores 15-10 because he lost 10 APs doing so.
4) Did I mention the rules writers didn't write it, and you are posting international ratings on the official website? You aren't? Why not?
5) This simplified scoring system encourages beserker rage tactics in players trying to squeeze the maximum 10 pts from their loss.
6) After completing one match my opponent proudly proclaimed that "I'm happy! I got my maximum 10 points! I concede, that is as many points as a draw"
7) Manufacturing an alternative points system that serves your own needs is gift wrapping rotten eggs. Looks great, still stinks.
1. Not an inherent flaw. As noted originally, the competition scoring system that has been adopted and then locally amended is not part of the rules as published. NZ, and other locales I'm sure, have a long history of taking the scoring system that comes with the rules and then trying to find something to suit everyone, a task which I feel is impossible. With DBM we played 10-0 as per the book, W/L/D, +100, Gulf-South...

2. I'm not sure how the corner sitter inflicts 10APs without losing any but all scoring systems look strange if you use an atypical (if not impossible) example like that.

3. 15-10 for a win where both sides inflicted losses does not seem inherently wrong.

4. Yes, but so what and I have no idea what the rest of your post means.

5. So does the other system it's just that the differential in BG sizes does not reward the larger army twice, i.e. by being hard to break and by giving more points in an exchange of units.

6. And you got 15 points after losing 10 APs... Also, a draw is guaranteed to gain someone 10 points either.

7. I find this offensive. Greg and I have organised and/or umpired every FoG comp in NZ to date. We've done a lot of work to introduce players, get beta lists from Slitherine (thanks guys), vetted lists, etc etc. The simplified scoring system was adopted after wide-ranging player feedback from the NZ scene. Many were (and some still are) calling for more drastic changes as they thought the system as it stood offered too many advantages to those who came up with mobile large BG armies. The adopted system (as explained earlier) is an attempt to keep the army-break and APs as per the rules but to mitigate a perceived imbalance. Future comps will use whatever scoring system their organisers deem suitable. I'm more than a little pissed that you think that I'm trying to change the system to advantage myself; I think my competition record in FoG, DBM, 7th... might suggest that I don't need to do that. It seems sad that no matter how much effort some of us put into organising comps for others, that we cop slights on our character. I will not be posting on this thread anymore.

hammy
Field of Glory Team
Field of Glory Team
Posts: 5440
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:11 pm
Location: Stockport
Contact:

Post by hammy » Mon Oct 20, 2008 8:49 am

The 'official' tournament scoring system doesn't claim to be perfect, IMO no scoring system can.

While I appreciate the simplicity of this system I do believe it has flaws which I have mentioned earlier in the thread. For a tournament where the vast majority of armies are between 10 and 14 BGs this system and the 'official' one will produce similar results. It really depends on what you want from a scoring system.

This system is very easy for a player to know exactly what they scored. The 'official' one less so but you can have a good idea. For me the 'official' system can produce a nice bit of tension at the end of a comp. In one round of the doubles Martin and I finished in equal first place in one comp and lost on the fractions, neither we nor the other team on the same score knew who had won which made a refreshing change from the old DBM days where you normally knew with an hour or more to go when you had won the comp or at least what the scores needed to be on the other tables for you to win.

In the UK all we are putting on scoresheets is player names, number of BGs in the army and number of AP lost. There is no reference to the actual score and the computer (or umpire) does the sums. As a result it isn't exactly difficult for players but there is a possible problem where players might not notice that they had filled in a score sheet wrongly as they may well have no idea what the actual scores should be.

dave_r
General - King Tiger
General - King Tiger
Posts: 3754
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 3:58 pm

Post by dave_r » Mon Oct 20, 2008 9:33 am

The main problem with competition scoring in the UK is that you don't know the actual score until you see either the draw for the next round or the results sheet.

This can be quite a pain when doing things like club comps. It is possible to work it out, but is difficult.

Since the competition scoring is different to that described in the rulebook then I think it is entirely reasonable for comp organisers to make their own scoring system. How succesful that scoring system is will be voted by the players.

The scoring system mooted by the NZ players seems to have caused quite a division, so perhaps needs some modifying? I think that various players are trying to provide constructive criticism to make the scoring system better rather than just negative slating. After all, a good scoring system is conducisve to a good tournament - nobody wants to go home complaining that they were beaten by the scoring system, not a better player.

Don't give up :)

philqw78
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Chief of Staff - Elite Maus
Posts: 8637
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 11:31 am
Location: Manchester

Post by philqw78 » Mon Oct 20, 2008 9:40 am

I think the scoring system is great.
http://www.fieldofglory.com/file/rankingsGB5.pdf You get a full explanation of why here.

You're never going to please everybody, but I don't care this week. :D

rayfredjohn
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Senior Corporal - Ju 87G
Posts: 79
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2006 3:23 pm

Post by rayfredjohn » Mon Oct 20, 2008 10:03 am

Sweet

hammy
Field of Glory Team
Field of Glory Team
Posts: 5440
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:11 pm
Location: Stockport
Contact:

Post by hammy » Mon Oct 20, 2008 12:07 pm

dave_r wrote:The main problem with competition scoring in the UK is that you don't know the actual score until you see either the draw for the next round or the results sheet.

This can be quite a pain when doing things like club comps. It is possible to work it out, but is difficult.
It's not that hard.....

Player one scores (the number of AP the have left) * 10 / their number of BG) + (the number of AP inflicted * 10 / opponents army size) round to the nearest whole number in favour of the player with the higher score. The player with the lower score scores 20- the player with the higher scores score. Add 5 if you break your opponents army.

babyshark
Field of Glory Moderator
Field of Glory Moderator
Posts: 1336
Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 6:59 pm
Location: Government; and I'm here to help.

Post by babyshark » Mon Oct 20, 2008 1:04 pm

FWIW, I have run a couple events using the "standard" scoring system and found that it is easy to use once one gets the hang of it. It took me one round of fussing in the first tournament to get my head around it. And I am a lawyer, too (and therefore congenitally bad at math).

Marc

Post Reply

Return to “Tournaments”