Normally, one of the more enjoyable parts of ORIGINS each year is the Air Superiority tournament. Having participated in the last three national tourneys, with memorable if not winning performances, I have decided that the tournament scoring system is in dire need of restructuring. JD has tried various schemes in the past, some poorly explained to the participants, to rank the performances of the players, but all have suffered from one deficiency or another.
I would not go so far as to say that the tournament winners have been poor players in any year, but I do think that the best pilot has frequently been placed out of the running by a deficient scoring system. Recently, JD and I have discussed the possibility of sanctioning regional tournaments which would allow players to have a national ranking and be awarded recognition for exceptional play. In addition, we though it would be wonderful if the ORIGINS tourney was seen as a legitimate national championship building on the results of tournaments held elsewhere during the year.
In order to make this work, it is necessary to devise a scoring system that is simple, fair, and which in some way accounts for the strength of the players entered in the tourney. Ideally, the system should permit a fair ranking to be made, even with relatively few rounds being played (because they do take some time) and with unbalanced scenarios (because balancing a scenario is a tricky proposition). I personally like the idea of a team ranking system as well as individual scoring, because that permits groups of friends who play together often (certain Canadians come to mind) to show off their cooperative piloting skills and be rewarded for them.
At first, it may seem that this is a difficult task, but a scormg system exists for handling just such a set of requirements and has been in use for several decades. The system presented below is an extension and modification of the system used by the ACBL (American Contract Bridge League) for scoring duplicate bridge tournaments. If any of you are duplicate players, you will recognize its features almost immediately.
I have played duplicate for ten years now and have never seen a better system for fairly evaluating the skills of individuals and teams in a straightforward way. The system is broken down into two parts, corresponding to individual ranking and team ranking. Some future prospects for a national Tournament and player Ranking system are given at the end of the article.
Individual Points (IPs)
Single Player Scenarios
This style of tourney requires that the same scenario be played by several tables. Each table has a single player on each side, regardless of the number of aircraft being used in the scenario. The scenario is scored at each table using the victory point guidelines given in the Air Superiority Scenario Booklet plus any additional VP awards deemed suitable by the scenario designer. In fact, it is not even necessary to use the Air Superiority guidelines.
The scenario may be scored using one of the various system invented by JD for ORIGINS tournaments (see previous tournament recaps in issues #2, #6, and #7 of AIR POWER), or even something invented by the tournament director. The key requirements are that the scoring system should emphasize aggressive play (defensive air battles are dull), should reward success in terms of achieving stated objectives, and should be detailed and variant enough that it is difficult for two players at different tables to wind up with the same numerical score at the end of the scenario. Giving points for "ride time" (turns Advantaged) or valid shots usually accomplishes this.
At the conclusion of all scenarios, each player receives Individual Points (lPs) as follows. All players which played on the same side at each table are ranked in order of the scenario victory points they received. Each player is they awarded one IP for every player he beat, and 0.5 IP for every player he tied. An example may help clear this up.
Example of IP Scoring
A six table tournament is conducted (twelve players participate) involving a scenario pitting Blue forces against Red forces. The scenario victory point scoring at the six tables is as follows:
Each player receives the number of IPs listed under their table number. If this were the only round in the tournament, we would now have our winners decided. Red player #6 wins the tourney with 5 IPs, followed closely by Blue players #6 and #2, tied for second with 4.5 and Red player #3 is in fourth, We should notice some important features of this scoring system that represent its strengths.
Losers Can Win
In this case, the tournament winner actually lost the scenario by a 25-20 score! This is in part due to the fact that the scenario was unbalanced, probably making it difficult for Red to score points. However, despite these difficulties, Red player #6 managed to chalk up 20 VPs against his opponent and in so doing, outperformed all other Red players. This is the basis for the victory. Winners Can Lose. The only Red side winner, player #3, finished fourth overall. Is that fair? Well, if Red player #6 was able to score 20 VPs versus his opponent, it seems reasonable to conclude that Red player #3 could have done better than 18 VPs, especially considering the fact that he won the scenario.
What can happen in a situation like this is that the opponent is a weak player and winning the scenario is not a significant accomplishment. It is arguable that a really proficient Red player could have scored more points against a such a weak opponent.
Balance is Assured
Despite the scenario being heavily slanted towards the Blue team, there are 2 Red and 2 Blue players in the top four positions, and a Red player as the overall winner. This will almost always be the case, making it much easier for the tournament designer who need only develop interesting scenarios, not necessarily well-balanced ones.
Round Scores Add
The scores that a player receives in each round may be simply added together to get their total for the day. If the players are shuffled and another scenario is now played, there will still be a possible top score of 5 and bottom score of 0 for the next round, no matter how many VPs may be racked up in the next scenario. This makes life for the designer easy again, since it is not necessary to compensate for the extra scenario points available in a modern 2 v 2 as compared to a 1 v 1, or even an early 4 v 4.
Consistency Beats Flash
Red player #3 has scored 18 points against Red player #I's 9. In a traditional scoring system, this poses a real problem for Red #1 as he must now try to make up those 9 points in subsequent rounds. Using IPs, however, the scores are 4 and 3, respectively. As long as Red #1 plays consistent games in later rounds, he will fare better than a player who scores big in one game, and then poorly in the rest. Ile scoring is not distorted by a single superb performance by any player.
Deemphasizes the Draw
If you and your friend are about equally good players, but one of draws the National Champ and the other draws the Club Turkey, you're doomed, right? Not with IP scoring; at least not necessarily. You may be able to score a lot of points against the Champ, even though he beats you, and wind up with a better score than your friend. If the tournament is held over multiple rounds, the draw is rendered even less important. Remember that even if you get pasted in the battle against the Champ, you are still only a few IPs behind, and consistently good play in subsequent rounds will still give you a shot at a win.
You Play Against the Field
No matter what happens, the best part about IP scoring is that you play against the entire field. In the game listed above, each player actually has 5 opponents rather than 1, and furthermore, every player is competing against "opponents" who have exactly the same advantages and disadvantages since they all start with the same aircraft in the same scenario. This lends an entirely different flavor to the game, one that I find enjoyable when I play duplicate bridge. It's more intriguing to try and outscore a lot of opponents, and even exciting to try and anticipate what they will do, given the same equipment and conditions.
Multi-Player Scenarios
Multi-player scenarios are scored exactly as single- player games, with all players on a side receiving the IPs awarded to that table. This permits single-player and multi- player rounds to be conducted as part of the same tournament without distorting the point count since each individual has the same possible maximum score per round, regardless of the number of players involved.
One potential problem that arises is the possibility that one strong player on a team will carry the rest to victory. This is not as likely as it seems, though, since a team with one Ace and three Turkeys is probably not going to score more points than one with four Regulars, especially if the Regulars cooperate as they should.
The advantage to scoring the scenario using IPs, is that everyone is served by cooperating to the fullest extent possible. If your side scores well, even if you are splashed in the process, you will score well in the IPs. This prevents the Top Gun-style "he cut me off" kind of flying that predominates in tourneys with individual scoring in team contests.
It is possible, of course, to devise a system which allows individual "bonuses" to be awarded in multi-player games. Let me inform anyone who attacks this problem that it is a real thicket. I have thought long and hard about it without success. The problem is that a system must be devised which avoids the big win phenomenon that places a player out of reach because of one outstanding game. If you get any good ideas, write them up and send them to me.
Team Scoring
I love Swiss games in bridge. Also known as "team of four", this is the most delightful form of duplicate play for me. When I began to design this scoring system for Air Superiority, I decided that I must have some provision for team scoring which would allow me to combine the fun of Swissstyle Warn play, with the excitement of jet combat gaming. I think I've got it.
The tournament director must make special provision to have a separate team game to use this scoring system. Some announcement must be made as to the number of players which will be required to form a team, and this must be a even number. For the purpose of describing team scoring, we will assume that the tournament involves four-man teams.
The tournament designer must develop scenarios which pit to half-teams against one another. For four-man teams, this means 2-on-2 scenarios will be used. This does not imply that the scenarios must involve two aircraft versus two aircraft, just something that requires two players on each side, with well- divided responsibilities.
A round consists of each team playing a set of scenarios, with each half playing the same scenario once from opposing sides. The difference in scoring in these two playings forms the basis for the awarding of Team EPs, or TIP& Again, it is easier to explain using an example than to state in words.
We presume we have two teams of four players each, the Jets and Sharks for definiteness. Each tearn is divided into two halves, A and B (which contain two players each, of course). Two 2 v 2 scenarios are devised which pits Red and Blue forces against each other. We number the scenarios 1 and 2. Here's how a single round is played.
First, the teams are assigned to two tables and play a scenario at each table, as follows:
The key is that one half of the tearn is always Red forces and the other half is always Blue forces. Both halves of each team play the same set of scenarios, one half always playing the Red side, the other half always playing the Blue side (at different tables). Let's suppose that the scoring from the second playing of the scenarios looks like this:
| TABLE | 1 | 2 |
|---|---|---|
| SCENARIO | 2 | 1 |
| Red | (Jt A) 59 | (Sh A) 48 |
| Blue | (ShB) 5 | (JtB) 50 |
The final tally record for the two teams looks like this:
| SCENARIO | 1 | 2 |
|---|---|---|
| Jets A | +4 | +54 |
| Jets B | +2 | -47 |
| Sharks A | -2 | +47 |
| Sharks B | -4 | -54 |
After the round is over, the team gets back together to compare their scores. The Jets notice that they have a total of +6 for scenario I and a total of +7 for scenario 2. 'Me Sharks are correspondingly -6 and -7 for the two scenarios. The point differences are compared with the following TIP Score Table:
| Difference in VPs | TIPs Awarded |
|---|---|
| 1-2 | 1 |
| 3-4 | 2 |
| 5-6 | 3 |
| 7-8 | 4 |
| 9-11 | 5 |
| 12-13 | 6 |
| 14-16 | 7 |
| 17-18 | 8 |
| 19-21 | 9 |
| 22-25 | 10 |
| 26-30 | 11 |
| 31-37 | 12 |
| 38-45 | 13 |
| 46-55 | 14 |
| 56-65 | 15 |
| 66-75 | 16 |
| 76-87 | 17 |
| 88-100 | 18 |
| 101-112 | 19 |
| 113-125 | 20 |
| 126-150 | 21 |
| 151-175 | 22 |
| 176-200 | 23 |
| 201+ | 24 |
The Jets win 3 TIPs on scenario 1 and 4 TIPs on scenario 2, winning the round by 7 TIPs.
Ideally, a tournament is played by having more than two scenarios in a round and by having more than one round in a tournament. This becomes a problem in Air Superiority because an individual round takes so long to play. In a Swiss bridge tourney, one usually plays seven hands per round with eight rounds forming the whole tournament. While 56 hands of bridge takes about eight hours, a similar number of Air Superiority games would take several days! (By the way, an odd number of hands per round is chosen to minimize the risk of a tie - it sometimes happens anyway).
My guess is dig a good Air Superiority team tournament would be conducted locally over a period of several weekends. It does not seem immediately suitable for convention play.
Scoring for the whole tournament can be done in a variety of ways. The most basic is "win-loss" scoring, each team being awarded a "W" for each win and an 'L' for each loss. For our single round tourney above, the Jets are 1-0 and the Sharks are 0-1. This results in a lot of ties in a multi-team tourney, however, which must usually be resolved by ranking the teams in order of total TIPs scored.
The problem with using total TIPs, though, is the "blowout" phenomenon discussed in individual games. A team may clobber its opponents in one round so severely, that it accumulates an enormous number of TIPs and coasts through the rest of the tourney with an insurmountable lead. In addition, some scenario will lend themselves to potentially wide swings in VPs, leading to correspondingly wide swings in TIPs. While the TIP scale is designed to reduce this problem, it does not eliminate it and this poses a problem for the scenario designer.
The solution adopted by the ACBL is the use of an additional point scale for scoring Swiss games. I call this the "Win Points" scale, and it is given below:
| TIP Points | Win Points |
|---|---|
| 0 | 10-10 |
| 1-2 | 11-9 |
| 3-4 | 12-8 |
| 5-7 | 13-7 |
| 8-10 | 14-6 |
| 11-13 | 15-5 |
| 14-16 | 16-4 |
| 17-19 | 17-3 |
| 20-23 | 18-2 |
| 24-27 | 19-1 |
| 28+ | 20-0 |
Using our results from the one round tourney, the 7 TIP win by the Jets gives them 13 WPs and the Sharks 7 WPs. These points will add in subsequent rounds, with the winner being the team having the highest total number of WPs at the end of the tournament.
With this scale, every round carries a maximum of 20 WPs for each team. A single superb performance by a team can produce no more than a 20 WPs swing, and, as is the case for individual scoring, consistent play will beat erratic "flashy" play. A close loss will not cause a team to suffer significantly (as is the case for win-loss scoring) but a blowout is worse for them (as isn't the case in win-loss scoring).
Team games are really delightful. Here, unlike individual scoring, you are competing against just one team, but you are doing so under the influence of the kind of performance to be expected Erom your teammates. When you set up a scenario, you must examine it from the perspective of what you think your teammates will do when they play the scenario from the other side. It does you no good to win by a small margin if you think your teammates, due to their styles or the complexity of the scenario, will lose by a larger score at the other table. Relative levels of aggressiveness, tactical knowledge, cooperative ability, and many other factors influence how you fly in each scenario. You must know the other half of your team to do well. And you must know them without any communication, none being allowed between team halves until the end of the round.
Tournaments & Rankings
Hopefully, all of this scoring and point assessment will eventually lead to a national Air Superiority Ranking system that will give people a chance to compare themselves with other Air Sup gamers and to give incentive to participate in tournaments and conventions.
JD and I have considered the possibility of using AIR POWER or a subsidiary publication to act as the clearinghouse for such a ranking system. We would print tournament results, give national player standings, sanction tournaments and give information about upcoming tournament times and locations. Of course, we will not take major steps in this direction without some feedback from our readers, so we!d like you to comment. We could do this in AIR POWER without too much space being used up (it is a small print item, after all) and without too much of my time being dedicated to the task. What do you think?
If you are interested in sponsoring a sanctioned Air Superiority Tournament, or if you have a local hobby shop that might be interested in doing so, please write in and ten us about it. We will even act as a front for you, if you just get us the name of your local shop, we'll contact them. Sometime within the next two months, I'll be producing an Air Sup Tournament Pack that contains guidelines for setting up scenarios, running the games, scoring, and resolving disputes (you realize there'll be disputes, don't you?). If things work out, it would be nice to have Certified Tournament Directors who will be responsible for conducting the tourneys and reporting the winners to us. I'm pretty excited about the prospect, and with 2nd Edition coming out soon, we'll be in a great position to start everything from scratch. What do you think?
Back to Table of Contents -- Air Power # 10
Back to Air Power List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Magazine List
© Copyright 1990 by J.D. Webster
This article appears in MagWeb.com (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com