9 Victory-Point System

[Kevin]

Just thought of this as a home rule, which I plan to use going forward. 

Behold, the 9-point system:


For any scenario which has a "winner:"

If the card indicates a 3-3 split, it becomes a 5-4 split.  (Winner gets 5).
Break the 4-2 range in half.  The lower half of the range is a 6-3.  The upper half is a 7-2.
5-1 becomes 8-1.


For scenarios which don't have a winner, such as Border Defense, break the 3-3 range in half to determine whether it goes 5-4 or 4-5.  Otherwise do as indicated above.


In the extremely rare case of a tie (e.g. both armies annihilated in Total Warfare), whoever had fewer points in their army build gets a 5-4 victory.  If both armies were the exact same point cost, the defender gets 5 (or flip a coin if you prefer).

For example, when doing Total Warfare:

Regular 6-point system: 
0-299:  3-3
300-1199:  4-2
1200+:  5-1

9-point system:
0:  see above.
1-299:  5-4
300-749:  6-3
750-1199:  7-2
1200+:  8-1


I plan to start using this 9-point system for three reasons:

1)  It makes a victory worth a tiny little something, even if it isn't much.  (Two marginal 4-5 losses and one 6-3 victory and you're ahead).  It never sat 100% right with me that the "loser" of a scenario does every bit as well as the winner.

2)  It divides up the extremely wide 4-2 range into smaller chunks.  Surviving with over half your army intact should count as a more impressive victory than surviving with just under 20% of your army standing.

3)  With a 9-point system, the math is simple.  Just multiply any campaign VP requirements by 1.5.  For scenarios, it takes seconds to convert any card to the 9-point system.

With this system, "draw-resistant" card variants become unnecessary. 

Comments welcome!

[Kevin]

Minor update:  per mutual agreement, Jaime and I are converting our current campaign to the 9-point system.

[gull2112]

What I like about this system is that if you're losing you lose quickly, and visa versa. This is a big deal because no one wants to spend 20+ hours losing. In a campaign you want a series of interconnected battles that have meaning, but you don't want a long drawn or slow death. This is always seems to be the catch-22 in a campaign game. Maybe this is the final solution!

[ajax98]

Interesting.
Hannibal, perhaps for the Kublacon event.

[andrewgr]

I posted my design notes here: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/332528/design-notes

To make a long story short: I have participated in many campaigns for many different rule systems over the years, and I don't believe a single one of them was ever played to conclusion.  I have spoken with many other gamers that have had very similar experiences.  The main two causes of campaigns falling apart are: (1) Diplomacy leading to the games themselves being irrelevent, and the campaign is won at the pizzar parlor over beers; or (2) one or more players that lose the first couple battles get discouraged and either quit outright, or else attend so sporadically that the campaign grinds to a halt.

The lack of any means for ganging up on an opponent is intended to address the first concern, and I believe it has proven to work.  It comes at a cost, of course; but on the whole, I'm very satisfied with how that design decision has played out.

There are two facets of the system that are intended to take care of the second problem:

(1) The system of buying new abilities for you army--even if you're losing, hopefully the cookie of "but this week I get to use my Elites for the first time!" is enough to keep you playing.
(2) Relatively wide bands for outcomes and relatively low spread of VPs between those outcomes-- by the time a player feels that it's hopeless, the campaign is almost over.

For two player campaigns, both of these concerns are considerably lessened: diplomacy is not an issue, and if one player concedes, the other player is presumably happy that he won, and no one else is impacted.  So I think there's much more latitude for successfully making changes like this if you're playing in a 2 player campaign.

tl;dr: I think this would work fine in a 2 player campaign, but I have reservations about how well it would work with more players.

[Curufea]

Having had all campaigns I've been in fall over for these very reasons, I'm interested.
I've not yet had a second game of BFW, but have arranged to introduce 2 new players to it soon (with luck next weekend)

The system doesn't mention abilities however is it different from the regular Kingdom earning of gold to buy resources?

[Kevin]

OK, the last two comments are a little bit confusing.  This "system" is just an alternate way of translating scenario points into victory points.  I problably should've called it the "9-point scale" rather than "9-point system."

It gives a bit better "resolution" and makes a scenario victory count for a little something.  It has nothing to do with using gold to buy goodies, two-vs-many sides, etc.

I see its main uses in two-sided campaigns and in tournaments, where a draw would be annoying.

[Curufea]

Ah, so you are recommending that people develop their own victory incentives, or you have some ideas for how to put them in, but haven't yet written them up?

[Kevin]

Note that the 9-point system is up on the Monthly Kingdoms page.  http://www.yourmovegames.com/pages/the_monthly_kingdom.html Download the full version, which contains the point splits for each scenario.

As to your question, I'll quote from the initial post above:

3)  With a 9-point system, the math is simple.  Just multiply any campaign VP requirements by 1.5.  For scenarios, it takes seconds to convert any card to the 9-point system.

[andrewgr]

If I am understanding your proposal correctly, it will have two effects:

(1) It will be easier to get extreme outcomes-- a margin of victory that used to be a draw becomes a marginal win, a marginal win can become a decisive win, etc.

(2) The spread between the winner and loser for each category is magnified.

Both of those things together mean that it's possible that after round two of a campaign using the cards as written, a player might be down 7-5 (a marginal loss and a tie), but using the 9-point scale with the same results might be down 12-6 (the marginal loss was at the high end so it becomes 7-2, the tie becomes a marginal loss).  So it's my contention that a player that is losing 12-6 after the first two rounds and has lost both games is more likely to get discouraged and lose interest than a player that is losing 7-5 and has a tie to his credit.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding something?

[Kevin]

The only "misunderstanding" is that, since the points magnify slightly more, it's easier to turn it around if you start winning.  If you're down 12-6, and you win an 8-1 victory (what under the current system is a 5-1 victory), you'll be winning 14-13.  As opposed to the 6-point system where a big win, a minor loss, and a (losing) tie would put you up 9-8.

(And of course that 14-13 assumes the player "lost" the tie.  Depending on who won the tie, and depending on which half of the 4-2 range the other game landed on, the split will be 14-13, 15-12 or 16-11.)

Doesn't seem like much a a difference, no?

[andrewgr]

The thing is, I'm not worried about the better players maintaining interest.  No matter what system you use, they're going to be winning often enough that they'll be vying for the lead, and presumably be reluctant to drop out.

What I'm worried about are the poorer players.  How long can you keep them interested and feeling like they're relevant?

You need to expect these players to be losing more than they're winning.  Their odds of pulling off a decisive victory aren't that high.

The tie band is large so that the better player can "beat" the worse player on the board, but both players can emerge with the same number of VPs.  That's not done because I believe that both players played equally well; it's done so that the poorer player doesn't fall behind so easily.

Using the example that we are both considering, the player that is behind 7-5 after two rounds only needs to win a single marginal victory to be tied 9-9.  Using the 9 point system, after a single marginal victory he'd still be down 17-10.  Or if instead of getting the lowest victory, he got the 6-3 level, he'd still be behind 15-12.

Or put another way: if you start with the assumption that there are varying skill levels in the campaign, and that the worse players will lose more often than they win, how dire does the situation look to the players that are behind?  Part of this analysis is mathematical-- how many turns of marginal wins, how many turns of crushing wins, etc., would it take to catch up, and how likely are those results?  The other part is psychological-- regardless of what the math says, a person that is down 12-6 is more likley to feel helpless than someone that is down 7-5, because being doubled just "seems" worse.

Of course I haven't tried it.  I could be entirely mistaken.  I'm not really trying to prove that you're wrong or discourage anyone from trying the system.  I'm simply giving you the logic for why it's written the way that it is, so that you can take that into account when you consider making changes.

[Kevin]

You're taking very specific permutations which make it harder to catch up, but there are others which are easier.  For example, let's say that in 3 total warfare games, player A wins two games with 325 points.  Under a 6-point system party A is ahead 8-4, and even a blowout victory to player B can only get an 9-9 tie.  Under the 9 point system, player A would be ahead 12-6, then if player B wins a blowout victory B pulls into a narrow 14-13 lead.

Can't really speak to the psychology of being "doubled."  You may well be right. 

The real question in my mind is should a bigger thrashing count as more victory points?  In other words, should ending with over half of your army intact count as a larger victory than wining with 1/6 of your army still standing?  To me, the answer is yes.  Ditto on whether annihilating the opponent and having a unit standing (which, after a real battle, meant your wounded get treated while the enemy wounded get killed/captured and stripped of gear.) should be considered something other than a tie.

In any case, I'm not concerned with with what people do in their campaigns.  It would, however, tickle me pink if the 9-point system became standard for tournaments, where 8 players playing 3 games will probably results in a VP tie more often than not if the standard 6-point system is used.

[Torrg]

For my past, I have been on the losing side of game systems that were something similar to the purposed 9pt system. I agree with Dru’ahn, the system he devised allows “poorer” players more hope of being able to compete with the more experienced gamer. With BGFW, your unit placement and overall generalship matter to a greater extent than most other “popular” game systems at this time. A poorer player in a campaign at the 3rd round with 3 or more players that is down 6-12 and let’s say knowing his next battle is against the person in the lead is going to be more apprehensive and understand the odds are really against him/her achieving the blowout victory needed to keep him/her competitive in the campaign. So after this battle the poorer gamer is likely to be down 18-9, or worse 19-8 and this player is not going to want to continue. 

Dru’ahn’s system is great for underdogs and marginal players to still keep interest and that should be the goal. I think the idea is to have people want to get together and game, as it should be.

 In a 3 round tournament or if 2 players agree, I can see the need for a larger point differential to declare an overall winner plus for the testosterone, chest thumping and bragging rights.

[Mexico]

The reason I like this system, and the reason I think Kevin devised it, is that (the last game aside - post forthcoming) we tend to play VERY close games.  It often comes down to a tie when one or the other feels like they've won a hard-fought victory, and in the (relatively) rarer times that one of us does well against the other, it's almost always a 4-2 split.  So for us, two experienced players who fight each other to a standoff on a regular basis, this is a way to keep the game fresh and actually force us to fight for those last few points again.

I'm not sure about using it in the context of a tournament, myself, except among experienced players who already have a decent idea of their competition already.