Warrior Ancient and Medieval Rules

Greetings Asif,
The one issue I have with the scoring system is that it doesn't reward a
generals instinct to protect his troops. Why should I be rewarded for getting
my troops killed? During the highth of TOG a tournament was run in campaign
format. You started out with 2000 pts you had to field 1000 pts if you could,
but not more than 1500. Troop losses were permanent. You started seeing folks
protecting troops ( even LI) it forced us to think beyond the here and now.
Terry

[Ewan McNay]

shahadet_99 wrote:
> Your counter argument of "But perhaps Jon is that much more skilled
> than Scott that he could hold his opponents to nothing"....
>
> ...Invariably falls to my inescapable logic of "Well if Jon was THAT
> much better that he can hold his opponent to zero points, why did he
> not just "feed" some lousy LI units to his sad-sack opponents and get
> some cheap bonus points that way? I mean, at 5-0, he is OBVIOUSLY in
> control of the game. Granted, if you feed units too soon, you might
> endanger your ability to fight, but if he's on his way to a 5-0 win,
> he can probably see some places late in the game where he can make
> a "dumb mistake" and "accidentally" lose some little units that don't
> matter to him in the long run.

OK, last comment from me on this. Just to note that I was glad to see you
acknowledge - even half in jest? - that the current system rewards feeding
troops to a losing opponent. If you think that's sensible, well, OK, you
have the right to be in error .

--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Terry Dix" <notalent@p...> wrote:
>
> Greetings Asif,
> The one issue I have with the scoring system is that it doesn't
reward a generals instinct to protect his troops. Why should I be
rewarded for getting my troops killed? During the highth of TOG a
tournament was run in campaign format. You started out with 2000 pts
you had to field 1000 pts if you could, but not more than 1500. Troop
losses were permanent. You started seeing folks protecting troops (
even LI) it forced us to think beyond the here and now.
> Terry

I totally agree with you Terry - the concept of a "points" win is
the by-product of a limited duration tourney, no doubt about it.

Were we in a campaign situation, people would spend MUCH more effort
to make sure they preserved troops for future combats. The "re-boot"
of an army to 100% capacity after every round of a Swiss tourney
precludes this.

By it's very nature, you can't compare campaigns with swiss tourneys.
Campaigns are marathons, where the best general is the one who
achieves the most with the least loss.

Swiss tourneys are sprints, where only the result for each "40yd dash"
matters.

Again, I agree with Scott - for the "sprint" style tourneys we
currently run, the current point system is the least mistake-ridden of
the options available.

-Asif Chaudhry

> OK, last comment from me on this. Just to note that I was glad to
> see you acknowledge - even half in jest? - that the current system
> rewards feeding troops to a losing opponent. If you think that's
> sensible, well, OK, you have the right to be in error .

Nope, not even half in jest - the way the current system is set
up, a TRULY superior player could set up his 5 point wins and feed
some loser troops to an opponent to get some bonus tourney points.

I DO see that this is possible, and I also acknowledge that it is
not desirable.

NO SYSTEM OF SCORING IS PERFECT.

However, the point of this whole discussion, from the very
beginning, has been:

1.) What is the BEST possible way to score points in a tourney so
that everyone can come to a consensus agreement about who came in
1st/2nd/3rd ?

And MY argument (in agreement with Scott) is that the current
system does the job better than any other possibility currently
given out. It rewards wins, and also accounts (in part) that player
skill levels are different and thus a person who defeats skilled
opponents deserve the trophy more than someone who bullies some
newbies and/or not so skilled players.

Also, as Jamie pointed out in an earlier post, it's not even CLOSE
to a given that one can feed troops and still maintain that full
criteria for a 5 pt win. Given that a 4-2 win is the LESS than a 5-
0 win (since you only get 40% of the 2 points), you're better off
taking care of your own business before worrying about
scoring "bonus" points.

- Asif Chaudhry

Greetings Asif,
That format was still swiss for scoring. I'm considering running a similar
tourney in sept in LA depends on if I can get the tables.
> I totally agree with you Terry - the concept of a "points" win is
> the by-product of a limited duration tourney, no doubt about it.
>
> Were we in a campaign situation, people would spend MUCH more effort
> to make sure they preserved troops for future combats. The "re-boot"
> of an army to 100% capacity after every round of a Swiss tourney
> precludes this.
>
> By it's very nature, you can't compare campaigns with swiss tourneys.
> Campaigns are marathons, where the best general is the one who
> achieves the most with the least loss.
>
> Swiss tourneys are sprints, where only the result for each "40yd dash"
> matters.
>
> Again, I agree with Scott - for the "sprint" style tourneys we
> currently run, the current point system is the least mistake-ridden of
> the options available.
>
> -Asif Chaudhry

[John Murphy]

And, campaigns often (not always) failed to prudoce a battle - let
alone a decisve one - for this very reason.

Which is another reason for the current point system.

I wouldn't want to drive to Lancaster to sit and stare at my
opponents all weekend across TF's and the muzzles of my seige cannon!


--- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "shahadet_99"
<shahadet_99@y...> wrote:
>
> --- In WarriorRules@yahoogroups.com, "Terry Dix" <notalent@p...>
wrote:
> >
> > Greetings Asif,
> > The one issue I have with the scoring system is that it doesn't
> reward a generals instinct to protect his troops. Why should I be
> rewarded for getting my troops killed? During the highth of TOG a
> tournament was run in campaign format. You started out with 2000
pts
> you had to field 1000 pts if you could, but not more than 1500.
Troop
> losses were permanent. You started seeing folks protecting troops
(
> even LI) it forced us to think beyond the here and now.
> > Terry
>
> I totally agree with you Terry - the concept of a "points" win
is
> the by-product of a limited duration tourney, no doubt about it.
>
> Were we in a campaign situation, people would spend MUCH more
effort
> to make sure they preserved troops for future combats. The "re-
boot"
> of an army to 100% capacity after every round of a Swiss tourney
> precludes this.
>
> By it's very nature, you can't compare campaigns with swiss
tourneys.
> Campaigns are marathons, where the best general is the one who
> achieves the most with the least loss.
>
> Swiss tourneys are sprints, where only the result for each "40yd
dash"
> matters.
>
> Again, I agree with Scott - for the "sprint" style tourneys we
> currently run, the current point system is the least mistake-
ridden of
> the options available.
>
> -Asif Chaudhry