Should lend lease count toward war score?

[Tarnoyan Warrior]

I was playing in the kaiserreich mod as entente India and trying to retake the continent, but since I didn't start with any steel, It was almost impossible to fully supply an army to take on my enemies. Thankfully my allies sent me craploads of infantry equipment, and I was able to take out my opposition with a lot of struggle and a lot of deaths. If my allies hadn't been sending me infantry equipment, I would have lost the war because my enemies could make guns and I couldn't really. Based on that, should they have gotten war score? I feel they should, but I don't think they should be able to actually Annex anything. Thoughts?

 

[elektrizikekswerk]

They recieve army XP for their quipment which you use.
I think war score should not be a thing, because you can send stuff around without being at war.

As a side note: You can - if they are in the war with you - grant them provinces from your war score in peace conference.

 

[Drewoid13]

I think getting a small bit of warscore for lend leasing is warranted. One is after all helping a nation win and should get some (small) credit at the conference.

 

[5688]

I think getting a small bit of warscore for lend leasing is warranted. One is after all helping a nation win and should get some (small) credit at the conference.

Yes, but at the same time it is going to be a bit hard to calculate. For instance, imagine a division with 50% of its equipement being lend-leased, does that then mean that half of the warscore that division 'creates' goes to the person lend-leasing? Or what if I lend lease you a ton of stuff but that stuff is only used in division that do not actually fight, why would I then get warscore for it?
Furthermore, you could actually discourage lend-leasing like this. Why would you willingly give some potential enemies warscore? Why would I as UK accept lend-lease from the USSR if I know it means that they get more territory later on. At the same time, you can't really afford to not accept the lend-lease as you're needing it. It's a bit of a double punishment for doing badly in the game.

 

[safe-keeper]

At the very least, logically it should count towards war participation.

 

[Tarnoyan Warrior]

Yes, but at the same time it is going to be a bit hard to calculate. For instance, imagine a division with 50% of its equipement being lend-leased, does that then mean that half of the warscore that division 'creates' goes to the person lend-leasing? Or what if I lend lease you a ton of stuff but that stuff is only used in division that do not actually fight, why would I then get warscore for it?
Furthermore, you could actually discourage lend-leasing like this. Why would you willingly give some potential enemies warscore? Why would I as UK accept lend-lease from the USSR if I know it means that they get more territory later on. At the same time, you can't really afford to not accept the lend-lease as you're needing it. It's a bit of a double punishment for doing badly in the game.

You could just give warscore based on the percentage of guns in your army that have been lend leased. That way a Russian tank division made up of allied tanks doesn't just give warscore to the allies. Otherwise if that tank division captures Berlin, that warscore doesn't go to the allies. But to avoid exploits, it would only give you warscore when you have a deficit of equipment.