CVG

Games => Bolt Action => Topic started by: AvogadroTheMole on February 11, 2018, 06:22:26 PM

Title: Escalation League Game Results
Post by: AvogadroTheMole on February 11, 2018, 06:22:26 PM
Figured I would start a fresh thread to collect these in.

Sean, feel free to dispute if your records disagree:

Player: Matthew Fullmer
Opponent: Mean Saloney
Date: 04 Feb 18
Mission: Key Positions
Mission Result: Stalin smiles (Win), 2 objectives taken to 1 for Sean
Units destroyed: 3 to 1:
   Sean lost a veteran squad, his HQ squad, and the 80mm mortar (to a BS lucky exceptional damage on the 1st turn of the game).
   Matt lost the flamethrower squad to overwatch from the German heroes of the haus - a squad who heroically sat still in a cabin for nearly the entire game while boldly not getting ranged in on by my mortar the entire time.

Overall Result - Major Win

MVP votes - Speaking for myself, I would vote for my SMG squad that came off of outflank reserves to obliterate Sean's vets and contributed most of the credit to taking out the HQ. 2nd choice are the stoic heroes of the haus, for boldly staying calm under depressingly little fire and then gunning down a helpless team in the open.

Logistics - I had both bought and painted new units in the leadup to this game, but as this is the 1st round, I assume they should not count for these categories.
Title: Re: Escalation League Game Results
Post by: AvogadroTheMole on February 11, 2018, 06:31:19 PM
Opponent: Bob Rioux
Date: 11 Feb 18
Mission: Top Secret
Mission Result: Stalin smiles again (Win), objective successfully extracted from the table
Units destroyed: 6 to 3:

Overall Result - Major Win

MVP votes - We did not discuss choices, but I would have voted for my SMG squad. I suspect Bob would be on board with the choice as they got the drop on one of his GI squads, killing 8 in a hail of fire (and inducing a panic check which they failed) while simultaneously securing the objective. Two turns later they had removed it from the board without taking a single casualty.

Logistics - I had both bought and painted new units in the leadup to this game, so +1 for each of those, if we are going by week, rather than point bracket.
Title: Re: Escalation League Game Results
Post by: Mean Saloney on February 15, 2018, 02:36:21 PM
I've handed in my result to Chris so I'm going from memory here.

I'm not off to a great start, with my loss to you Matt in the first game, and two "losing" draws to Mike.

First game was at you said Matt. My Veteran platoon has not had a good time in these games. They got smoked by your SMGs first game, smoked by an assault from Mike's Commandos in my second game, and I think they just barely escaped annihilation in the third game.

Learned a lot about the game though, and my list is going to adjust pretty heavily for the next round. Need to break some FoW habits too. Six turn limit means you can't really be patient to get into a good position. Also not a big fan of indirect fire so far. Ranging in takes too long I think given the six turn limit.
Title: Re: Escalation League Game Results
Post by: bigchris on February 15, 2018, 04:09:45 PM
Matt, without disclosing scores yet, is definitely ahead.  You, Mike Cunningham, Mike Laporte (TBS), and myself are all tied for second place.  You could switch to a regular Arty piece.  That give you the option of direct fire as well as indirect fire, and most let you add a spotter.
Title: Re: Escalation League Game Results
Post by: AvogadroTheMole on February 19, 2018, 02:04:10 PM
Player: Matthew Fullmer
Opponent: Mike Cunningham
Date: 17 Feb 18
Mission: Demolition
Mission Result: Stalin smiles (Win), Destroyed Mike's objective while preserving my own
Units destroyed: 3 to 2:
   Mike started with 4 dice (2 crazy tricked out vet commando squads, a vet HQ, and a vet sniper. By the end of turn 6, when I had then contacted his objective, he was reduced to a ~75 point sniper squad and a bunch of cooling bodies in silly hats.
   I lost my LMG squad and HQ.

   Lesson to be learned, a small regular LMG squad in a building is insufficient to daunt a squad of crazies commanded by Mike. The HQ was actually a sacrificial diversion to try and persuade Mike into range of my flamethrower (plus several other support units. Mike's HQ squad almost saved the day for him and almost secured at least a draw on its own with a Cunningham-esque bold charge up the board to support the hammered and heavily pinned assault commandos.

Overall Result - Well, now this is a weird one that might be highlighting the weakness in the scoring system. As I understand it, despite losing 160 points worth of troops to Mike's ultimately ~425 and having 6 order dice left in the pool to Mike's 1, this is still a draw because the kill points are only +1 in my favor (3:2). It seems like having tiny super elite forces will sometimes make it hard to win outright if they are too small to have enough activations. But on the flip side, it will be hard to wipe the table against them and still have a 2+ unit killed disparity. So, commandoes for semi-perpetual draws?

MVP votes - Mike and I did not actually discuss this. Looking back at it, I think the flamethrower is the choice for me. It caused Mike the most vexation in unit activation and movement decisions and ultimately crisped his maneuver squad to cinders over multiple flame attacks. If Mike had won or drawn then I would probably have voted for his bold HQ squad as they would have been the difference.

Logistics - I should count as a +1 in both categories.
Title: Re: Escalation League Game Results
Post by: bigchris on February 19, 2018, 04:24:22 PM
Quote
Overall Result - Well, now this is a weird one that might be highlighting the weakness in the scoring system. As I understand it, despite losing 160 points worth of troops to Mike's ultimately ~425 and having 6 order dice left in the pool to Mike's 1, this is still a draw because the kill points are only +1 in my favor (3:2). It seems like having tiny super elite forces will sometimes make it hard to win outright if they are too small to have enough activations. But on the flip side, it will be hard to wipe the table against them and still have a 2+ unit killed disparity. So, commandos for semi-perpetual draws?

Hrmmmm, The first thing is if you actually won the objective, that kinda trumps (phrasing) everything else first.  So scoring starts by seizus honkus of the scenario objective.The squads destroyed is mostly for breaking ties in the league stats.  But they don't really quantify what a minor win vs a major win is.  I will see about clarification on this from BA.
Title: Re: Escalation League Game Results
Post by: bigchris on February 19, 2018, 08:51:56 PM
Ok, so I conferred with other TO's.  The Win/Loss should be used for the Objective scenarios (Top Secret, Demolition, Key Positions, etc)  A margin of 1 in objectives is a minor victory/minor loss.  A margin of 2 or more is a major victory/ major loss.  The margin should probably be used for the force destruction as well.  though that will have to be worked out between the players as some of us *cough*Matt*cough*  have larger forces.  So the margin of win loss can be adjusted by agreement of the players.  So in my one game so far.  I destroyed 5 out of 6 of my opponents squads, while he only destroyed 2 out of the 6 of mine.  a ratio of 2-5 losses gives me a margin for a major victory.  Draws still get you 2 points.  Scoring is something we will be working on as we play more in this league.
Title: Re: Escalation League Game Results
Post by: AvogadroTheMole on February 20, 2018, 03:53:20 PM
I am not sure I followed that. It sounds like we are deciding level of win/loss twice.

Regardless, I do not think it wise to delegate margin of victory determination to the players at game time. That will lead to inconsistent experiences and opens up the door to disagreements - both honest and exploitative. I think it much better if there is a decision made by the powers that be (and/or with modifications as they see fit) and everyone deals with it.

Todos, some of us have anemic little insignificant forces with so few dice you cannot find them in the sack of retrieval (umm, phrasing?). Why should those of us with reasonable platoons be disparaged for their inability to contribute enough dice to require a full hand to count?

More seriously, the disparity between say Mike and my forces is a perfect example of why margin of victory value should not be determined on the fly by the players. Mike will have every incentive to push for one method, probably with a seemingly well founded conviction that he is completely reasonable and in the right. Meanwhile, I will have every incentive to push for the opposite method, also probably with a seemingly well founded conviction that I am completely reasonable and in the right. Even if we do not end up smashing each other's models with our hardcopy rulebooks, if I persuade him to my way of thinking and we are the only ones to play by those rules, I might gain a big advantage in event scoring, which is un-fair to everyone else in the event.
Title: Re: Escalation League Game Results
Post by: Michael on February 20, 2018, 06:57:40 PM
I think my argument would be for wins as the only criteria, with head-to-head as the tie breaker. Margin of victory only seems relevant in the force destruction missions (of which there are two too many :) )

In any case, I'll be the first to acknowledge your superior skill and tactics. :)
Title: Re: Escalation League Game Results
Post by: AvogadroTheMole on February 21, 2018, 11:45:40 AM
I think my argument would be for wins as the only criteria, with head-to-head as the tie breaker. Margin of victory only seems relevant in the force destruction missions (of which there are two too many :) )

In any case, I'll be the first to acknowledge your superior skill and tactics. :)

I feel margin of victory is entirely relevant. Just like in Flames, not all successes are made the same. In a tournament, once you pass 8 players you risk not settling on a single top-ranked player in a 3-round event. You will also have many ties in the lower tiers. Most of those players will not have played each other. I support having a proportion of forces lost/killed as part of the overall scoring. I do not think anyone would find it controversial to say that a victory where you win with your very last squad limping on its last few men is less decisive than one where you did not lose more than a handful of men scattered across several squads. I was just bringing up a situation(s) where it appeared to be falling short of its goal (especially if it modified a mission win down to a true draw. In a straight kill mission, the 0-1 margin = draw might make sense. But it will still risk struggling with disparate force sizes - much like Flames sometimes did).

I am less worried about beating my chest in superiority as I am in having a sensible system where the whole gamut of force compositions are given a comparable shake in scoring. Ideally, I will never need to think "Hmm, I should really drop this squad to bulk up the other ones" just because I think I will get punished in the soring rather than because I think it will make my platoon better. Likewise, I hope you never need to think "Hmm, I really should break this unit into 2 squads" because of scoring only.
Title: Re: Escalation League Game Results
Post by: bigchris on February 21, 2018, 12:47:26 PM
It seems the scoring system for the winter league is definitely going to be open to interpretation.  But, I should think, that in an objective driven scenario, for which there are several Mike and more missions in Campaign books ;), Achieving the goal of the scenario would constitute a Major win in itself.  Unless there are multiple objectives captured by both sides, in which case it comes down to who had the most claimed. That would seem straightforward enough to figure out Major/Minor victory.  In Force destruction scenarios, it becomes harder to determine the winner as the two opposing forces could be different in size while still fielding the same points.  But since it's by squads or teams, 6 squads/teams aside regardless of the actual size of each squad seems, to me, to be a simpler way to count it out.  A four squad, or more, difference between squads players lost would, to me, constitute a major victory/loss.  A three or two squad difference would constitute a minor victory/loss.  A draw is pretty simple.

And Mike, Warlord does encourage players to write scenarios, and even submit them for consideration for future publication.  here's the link;  https://articles.warlordgames.com/how-to-write-your-own-bolt-action-scenarios/
Title: Re: Escalation League Game Results
Post by: Michael on February 21, 2018, 08:12:10 PM
I am less worried about beating my chest in superiority as I am in having a sensible system where the whole gamut of force compositions are given a comparable shake in scoring. Ideally, I will never need to think "Hmm, I should really drop this squad to bulk up the other ones" just because I think I will get punished in the soring rather than because I think it will make my platoon better. Likewise, I hope you never need to think "Hmm, I really should break this unit into 2 squads" because of scoring only.

That's easy enough, just compare loss differential based on the point cost of the minis. If the victor has lost about the same as the loser, then it's a minor victory. If there is a greater differential, then it's a major victory. At 1000 points, the math is very simple. If both sides losses are within about 300 points, then it's a minor win. If the victor won by more than 300, it's a major win.

For force destruction missions, the breakdown could be a bit more nuanced: 100 points or less differential would be a draw, 100 to 300 a minor win, 300+ a major win.

That way losing a light mortar, a sniper, and a medic is about the same as losing a full-strength Commando squad, not three-times more as it is using squad count.   

UPDATE: I was reading through the rules for the missions last night and came across the section for Attrition scoring. It's very similar to what I outlined above, except they set the boundary at 20% of the point limit rather than 30% (e.g. 200 points for 1000 point games). I think it should work very well for tournaments.
Title: Re: Escalation League Game Results
Post by: AvogadroTheMole on February 25, 2018, 06:17:25 PM
Player: Matthew Fullmer
Opponent: Great Scott
Date: 17 Feb 18
Points: 750
Mission: Demolition
Mission Result: Stalin smiles (Win), Destroyed Scott's objective while preserving my own
Units destroyed: 1 to 2:
  Destroyed Scott's smaller tricked out squad of vets. Would have had a great shot at killing 2-3 more if the game had lasted one more turn. But I feel that one should place winning the scenario over fighting against the scoring system, which is what I would have been doing by trying to extend the game to bulk the killed-loss differential
   I lost my HQ. And because I took the objective on turn 3 and my flamethrower failed its 1st reserve roll I understand it to count as lost as well. Still, I feel going for the scenario win outweighs worrying about kill ratio.

Overall Result - Again, won the scenario but drew on kill points. I probably did not actually kill that many more points than I lost. Although, given one more turn I would have been nearly certain to bag Scott's enormous and super tricked out squad (probably 200+ pts on its own) and maybe one of the half-tracks and HQ in return for a decent chance he gets my PTRD and maybe the damaged SMG squad.

MVP votes - We did not discuss this, but my vote would probably go to the T-34 for how much it terrified Scott's half-tracks and for the havoc it wreaked on the squad I killed. Hitting with the HE 2 turns in a row played a big part in dealing with them (maybe next time I will remember to roll for all the hits under the template, too!)

Logistics - Qualify for both.
Title: Re: Escalation League Game Results
Post by: bigchris on February 26, 2018, 01:05:27 PM
Somebody is going to have to try and stop this Soviet Juggernaut.
Title: Re: Escalation League Game Results
Post by: AvogadroTheMole on February 26, 2018, 03:17:32 PM
I do not think "try" is the operative word in there.

Despite my past successes, we are in a brave new world here at 750. Operatives report the Evil British Empire has constructed a technological terror capable of destroying entire buildings in a single shot. Our armour cannot repel such firepower! And to match it would take half a tank corps. What can Stalin do against such reckless hate? We can only hope that small, 2-man, teams might be able to slip past its formidable defenses and deliver attacks to its vulnerable points. Preferably, its thermal exhaust points.
Title: Re: Escalation League Game Results
Post by: Michael on February 26, 2018, 07:13:36 PM
Do. Or do not. There is no try.  :)
Title: Re: Escalation League Game Results
Post by: bigchris on March 03, 2018, 08:37:17 AM
The guys at Adler hobby sent me a copy of their scoring sheet for league play.  I thought I would run it by you guys and see what you think of their scoring system.

Win 3 points
Draw 2 points
Loss 1 point
Scenario specific points (units destroyed/objectives taken)  I'm assuming 1 point per.

What do you guys think?
Title: Re: Escalation League Game Results
Post by: Michael on March 03, 2018, 03:46:26 PM
That looks fair to me. What do you think, Matt?
Title: Re: Escalation League Game Results
Post by: AvogadroTheMole on March 04, 2018, 05:44:37 PM
Player: Matthew Fullmer
Opponent: Mike Cunningham
Date: 04 Mar 18
Mission: Point Defense
Mission Result: Stalin smiles (Win), All three objectives held or contested
Units destroyed: 4 to 4:
   Mike lost his HQ, his Arty FO, his PIAT and something else that I am forgetting? He said he lost 4 but I cannot recall what that was. His Churchill was defiantly not amongst the ashes. I did not even fire a single shot at it. Although we did game out my panzerfaust shot if I had chosen to stay and blast rather than going for the mission win.
   I lost my free squad to an AVRE 4" blast in the open (they were bunched up). My LMG squad snuffed it to a collapsing building after assaulting the FO. Guess which element in Mike's list could generate 10+ hits on a squad in a building. My MMG had a bad day from the get-go and snuffed it early. My Light Mortar bought in assault on turn 7 as Mike desperately tried to reach a draw. Points killed were probably pretty even since Mike lost none of his really expensive units and my LMG squad adds up to a decent chunk.

Overall Result - Mission win with pretty equal bludgeoning to both sides. Mike feels the scenario is biased in favor of the defender. I am not sure he is wrong. It seems a tough ask to completely take 2 objectives and hold them until the game ends. But I think a key point is that it is not a boolean outcome. The existence of a draw condition may take a lot of sting out for the attacker. From the defender's perspective, it concerns me a little how easy it might be for the attacker to ensure he grabs one objective if he does not really make a bid for the others. Which leaves him (and by extension the defender) with a "do you want to try for the win or accept a likely draw" question. This choice really needs to be made at the start of the game since there is so little time to reposition and redirect the flow of an advance.

MVP votes - I do not think any one unit would earn an MVP nod for my side. Mike's AVRE is an easy choice for him. And I think it might have been man of the match despite being on the losing side. It only connected with two mortar shots (and a couple of desultory MMG hits), but they exterminated an untouched 12-man squad and a 6 or 7 man squad. It also directly impacted almost every activation choice I made in the game.

Logistics - Painting progressed, so another +1?
Title: Re: Escalation League Game Results
Post by: bigchris on March 07, 2018, 09:15:53 AM
Wow, when I left Mike seemed to be in a decent position.  Now I wish I had stayed for the end.
Title: Re: Escalation League Game Results
Post by: Michael on March 07, 2018, 03:57:34 PM
The problem is time. If I had unlimited time to take an objective or two, I probably could have done it. But with only six turns (or seven if lucky) one has to move quickly. I took a cautious approach at the beginning of the game, which, in retrospect, was a mistake. The next time I'm attacking in Point Defense I will send everyone forward at a run for Turn One (and perhaps Turn Two as well).

A few other observations:
Title: Re: Escalation League Game Results
Post by: Michael on April 08, 2018, 07:39:13 PM
Player: Michael Cunningham
Opponent: Matthew Fullmer
Date: 8 April 2018
Mission: Hold Until Relieved
Result: British victory
Units Destroyed: 11 to 2
The Soviets (Matt) lost everything except the T-34. The British (Mike) lost a sniper and an artillery observer. The key to this game was going to Turn 7. At the end of turn 6 the game was a draw, but the Commandos were in good position in the center of the table.

MVP: For the Commandos, probably the Cromwell. It commanded the center of the table and knocked out a number of units that were contesting the objective. For the Soviets, perhaps the T-34? It was the sole survivor.

Logistics: PIAT team painted and Cromwell assembled, primed, and first few coats of green applied. 
Title: Re: Escalation League Game Results
Post by: AvogadroTheMole on April 10, 2018, 10:24:06 AM
Logistics: PIAT team painted and Cromwell assembled, primed, and first few coats of green applied.

It is...It is....It is green.
Title: Re: Escalation League Game Results
Post by: Michael on April 10, 2018, 09:07:46 PM
It is...It is....It is green.

Mr. Scott or Data?
Title: Re: Escalation League Game Results
Post by: AvogadroTheMole on April 14, 2018, 02:03:14 PM
Is Bolt Acion still on the docket for Sunday?
Title: Re: Escalation League Game Results
Post by: bigchris on April 14, 2018, 07:55:29 PM
Is Bolt Acion still on the docket for Sunday?

It is.  Tomorrow concludes the league and next Saturday is the tournament.
Title: Re: Escalation League Game Results
Post by: Michael on April 14, 2018, 08:04:03 PM
I hope to be there, but I'm fighting off a cold so I'll have to see how I feel tomorrow.
Title: Re: Escalation League Game Results
Post by: Michael on April 15, 2018, 08:32:13 PM
Player: Michael C.
Opponent: Scott M.
Date: 15 April 2018
Mission: Key Positions
Result: British victory
Units Destroyed: 3 to 0
The Germans (Scott) lost a half-track, an infantry squad, and their infantry gun. The British (Mike) escaped without loss (due to luck, mostly). The key to this game was the Germans' lack of long-range AT firepower (Scott will be reinstating the Puma in future lists).

MVP: For the Commandos, probably the large infantry squad. It held the center objective and successfully assaulted the German assault squad. For the Germans, it would have been the assault squad, with a bit better luck on the panzerfaust rolls.

Logistics: Bren Carrier purchased and assembled.
Title: Re: Escalation League Game Results
Post by: AvogadroTheMole on April 25, 2018, 01:14:34 PM
Chris,
Mike pointed out to me that I have not been updating this thread with game results. Not counting the teaching game against Jen last week, I finished with 8 wins to one loss and no draws. Three games at each level. At the 1000 point level, as I recall, I faced you once and Mike twice, losing to Mike once and beating him the other time. My logistics scores dried up during the 1000 point segment buying only one product and painting only a unit or two (it is hard to keep the painting rate up when the whole army is in shape).
Title: Re: Escalation League Game Results
Post by: bigchris on April 26, 2018, 09:28:14 AM
Yeah see, that helps.  So now after recalculating results here's how it goes.

Best Overall: Matt Fullmer
Best Allied General: Mike Cunningham
Best Axis General: Scott McLaughlin
Best Painted: Dillon Sparks
Rookie Award: Jen Roy