nsimms wrote:
1 - The difference is the Win/Lost Result (WLR) in the formula because in a 300 turn battle, you get it once but in thirty 10 turn battles, you get it 30 times. The divisor should be adjusted to make it more equitable (but I lost this discussion about 15 years ago).
Makes sense to make short/long scenarios equal. I guess instead a certain value a percentage modifier could do the job.
The question here would be if we need to support playing certain games, if the club generally prefers to play smaller scenarios we should support playing more longer scenarios by granting more points compared to shorter scenarios and vice versa, so inequality might be useful even if it doesn't look fair on the first view. But for this we will need to see if the DOR can provide a statistic that allows us to draw such a conclusion.
nsimms wrote:
2 - There is too much emphasis on won/lost and not enough on the quality of the wins. That is difficult to achieve but Commanders can pay more attention to such. For example, someone that takes two years to win a 300 turn battle that they were supposed to lose usually gets absolutely nothing, but over the same two year period someone who wins thirty 10 turn battles that they should have won anyway will get recognition in the way of medals, etc.
Of course if the scenario designer did his job the Union should win if it did so in history. For example the Union should win Gettysburg and if the Confederate wins it that is surely more worth than a Union victory. But this conclusion can only be drawn out of historical scenarios. But the mass of the scenarios are variants & what-ifs who often try to equal the chances for both sides and to judge the quality of a victory here is hard if it's possible at all.
nsimms wrote:
3 - If those two examples just happened to be recently graduated cadets, the large battle participant would remain a Lieutenant for two years while the short scenario participant would climb through the ranks like normal to Lieutenant Colonel.
Indeed this discrepancy is bad in this example, but would a new member really start with a monster scenario?
The quick rise in rank by smaller scenarios has its benefits as new members likely stay with small scenarios for a while, if doing so is reward by a quicker rise in ranks it likely makes them more attached to the club what can only be good.
nsimms wrote:
4 - I can't speak for the Confederate side of the fence (been too long) but on the Union side, Army reports are based partly upon victories. An army full of short scenario guys looks a lot better (or worse if they are losing) in those reports than those that fight full battles.
But does that matter at all? I don't remember that we ever compared the victories/defeats of Union & Confederacy, and regarding awards it also seldom plays a role, at last for the Union the number of victories only plays a role for some game Ribbons and not even for the mass of ribbons.
nsimms wrote:
5 - This same discussion can carry over to multi-player (MP) games where every participant gets the same number of points as if it were one on one battling.
MG Mihalik is right here and it fits my assumption under point 1, rewarding the commitment of doing an MP is OK with me as these are played seldom. If now everyone sticks to it and pulls it through to the end it should really deserve more than just a fair point reward by splitting the OBD points under the team, rewarding MP game in such a way would surely kill any MP battles.
nsimms wrote:
6 - However, based upon the discussion in the Smoking Room on AI games in the future of the club, do we really need a point system anyway. We might need to think outside the box a bit. The basic question is 'what exactly does this club exist for and are we fulfilling that need'. If we are fulfilling it, no tinkering is necessary.
AI is really no topic for a club that fosters human versus human games. We surely fulfill fostering games between humans that but that doesn't mean we can't adjust the club to do it even better.
nsimms wrote:
7 - The person who wrote the programs for the Department of Records hasn't been a member of the club for years. Ernie and maybe Joe/others know enough about the program to keep it operable but is anyone capable of doing a major change to the programs? That alone could dictate a 'don't tinker with it' policy. But if so, commanders could at least make recognition more equitable even if the system can't.
Yea big question, but if we only talk about adjustments we might still be able to do so even without a programmer.
_________________
Lieutenant General Christian Hecht
Commander I Corps, Army of the Potomac
"Where to stop? I don't know. At Hell, I expect."