Anyone Feel Like the Scoring is Awful?

[Aluminum Elite Master]

I mean, it barely matters what the final score is in Paradox games as far I am concerned, but still.

Like, the USA and UK get high scores every game thanks to just owning a bunch of planes... meanwhile, I'm over here taking over Europe, Asia, and Africa as the Soviets, and I get just 350 points? USA gets like 2500 points for planes, but owning 3 of the world's continents (including the biggest one, Asia) is worth just 350 points?

Again, not a big deal, and probably easy to correct, but it's hilariously out-of-whack that owning planes is worth more than owning land.

[Camerons101]

I guess that it's kind of like an indicator for which nation is strongest by the end. So even if you own a lot of land if the UK or US could easily take it from you then I guess your land is irrellevant. That's what i've always taken the scores to mean anyways.

[Aluminum Elite Master]

Originally posted by Detective Inspector Hector:

I guess that it's kind of like an indicator for which nation is strongest by the end. So even if you own a lot of land if the UK or US could easily take it from you then I guess your land is irrellevant. That's what i've always taken the scores to mean anyways.

Yeah, I can half-way see that.

But diplomacy and land should matter more than they do. If as the Soviets I can grab a ton of land while keeping the Allies happy, that should be worth more than it currently is. That's all. Nothing wrong with getting a trillion points for having the world's biggest air-force... but then having the most land should be worth more than just a couple hundred points.

I'm really just talking about the balance in scoring, if anything. Just feels like having the most land should be at least *equally* important to having the biggest air-force... and right now, the most land ends up being worth remarkably little in comparison.

[Camerons101]

Makes sense

[Zukkus]

scoring is not great. Strategic bombing is also over valued in war score

[Yaldabaoth]

Will be fixed in next patch.

[[NL]Ibahalii]

Originally posted by Detective Inspector Hector:

I guess that it's kind of like an indicator for which nation is strongest by the end. So even if you own a lot of land if the UK or US could easily take it from you then I guess your land is irrellevant. That's what i've always taken the scores to mean anyways.

Bull, the airplanes won't 'take' any land from you.
This massive overproduction of planes is a bug that needs to be fixed.

Planes just like troops have a limit on how many can join a battle depending on the width of a combat area.
and even then they don't join that often(even with CAS) unless you have a dedicated doctrine for ground-warfare support(which is far more common on the Axis, then the Allies). Allied nation won't just take land from you with war planes. and as Zukkus already mentioned Strategic bombing is OP in the scoring. as well as the plane scoring where 10 planes make up 1 point. but you also need 8Armies(rougly 80Kman) to get 1 point.

fixed or not next patch, it is a reason why a week ago i already made this:
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=706778367

[Aluminum Elite Master]

Is that true?

8 divisions for 1 point is hilariously imbalanced when 10 planes are 1 point. I mean, planes take little manpower, need no extra equipment aside from the plane itself, and the natural resources the smaller planes use aren't too hard on the economy.

Seriously, 8 divisions for 1 point is stupidly UP compared to 10 planes for 1 point. I can build dozens and dozens of planes every couple days... in contrast, spamming divisions will run me out of manpower in no time at all, no matter how badly equiped they are.

[[NL]Ibahalii]

acording to the difine file(the file i had to edit to get the warscores down)
Default:

ARMY_SCORE_MULTIPLIER = 0.15,					-- Based on number of armies.
	NAVY_SCORE_MULTIPLIER = 1.0,					-- Based on number of navies.
	AIR_SCORE_MULTIPLIER = 0.1,						-- Based on number of planes (which is typically a lot).

So yes, you really need 8 armies not divisions. to get 1 point.
while 10 planes make up 1 point.

[Muhabla]

Originally posted by NLIbahalii:

acording to the difine file(the file i had to edit to get the warscores down)
Default:

ARMY_SCORE_MULTIPLIER = 0.15,					-- Based on number of armies.
	NAVY_SCORE_MULTIPLIER = 1.0,					-- Based on number of navies.
	AIR_SCORE_MULTIPLIER = 0.1,						-- Based on number of planes (which is typically a lot).

So yes, you really need 8 armies not divisions. to get 1 point.
while 10 planes make up 1 point.

Probably an oversight on the Devs part

[[NL]Ibahalii]

no not a oversight, the officel comment in the file is litterly

-- Based on number of planes (which is typically a lot).

Comments in the code box, are not mine. they are of the dev's themselfs.
They really thought that having a 1 to 10 point ratio for planes would be a good idea.
and for each strategic bomb dropped a point value of 0.5 was solid as well(despite losing troops(dead soldiers) counts as 0.4 and the full capitulation of a country is also mesured as 0.5. for the war score generation during the war.

So somehow the dev's litterly thought that.
Losing soldiers counts less towards a countries involvement in the war, then dropping a strategic bomb.
and that 10 planes(regardless of model and type) count for more then 8 armies.

It's not a oversight, they placed this in it. the tested it. they show cased the game in Alpha state with it. they released it with it.
Now in 1.1 they will reballance and 'fix' it.

[Muhabla]

So they are just dumb... they put 0 emphasis on air forces in hoi 3 and in hoi 4 they overdo it completely

[[NL]Ibahalii]

Originally posted by Muhabla:

So they are just dumb... they put 0 emphasis on air forces in hoi 3 and in hoi 4 they overdo it completely

i love this game, been playing HoI series for 14years, but yes. i cannot agree with you more.
the current developers really had a brain fart on this one. and as you rightly state, from useless in HoI3, to OP in HoI4.

[osheamat]

its bad, would prefer some type of "Contribution to the conflict score"

[[NL]Ibahalii]

Originally posted by osheamat:

its bad, would prefer some type of "Contribution to the conflict score"

contribution now is decided by 3 things.
1 Occupation of land.
2 casualties taken
3 strategic bombing
those 3 create values, those 3 make up the final war score and % of war score commitment.
very little modders can change about that now(or at this stage)

[Aluminum Elite Master]

Originally posted by NLIbahalii:

Originally posted by osheamat:

its bad, would prefer some type of "Contribution to the conflict score"

contribution now is decided by 3 things.
1 Occupation of land.
2 casualties taken
3 strategic bombing
those 3 create values, those 3 make up the final war score and % of war score commitment.
very little modders can change about that now(or at this stage)

This brings up another, semi-related issue: casualties CAUSED should be vastly more meaningful than the ones you took yourself.

If I'm reading this right, then, somewhat counter-intuitively, the best way to get war score is to barely win after taking a ton of casualities. It means you can game the system too much... get beat up, then win the war right before time expires, and you get an awesome peace deal and there's no time for those who took fewer casualties to declare war on you.

One thing I want to add, though: these are largely balancing issues... only the casualties taken part is worse than simply tweaking values, as I'm reading things.