Something is seriously wrong with warscore calculation from battles.

[Pellucid]

Exhibit A:


Exhibit B:


So roflstomping 3K Swiss idiots is worth 3.46, but defeating the entire Austrian main force is worth 1.26? Castille keeps landing little squads of 8K guys in Istria which are losing me 4 warscore each time they're roflstomped, too.

This can't be WAD?

 

[CaptainChiatrol]

It is weird. I can't found the times I feel I shoudl be winning the war but I'm losing in warscore and I can't calculate it, but since I don't know the math it is using I don't know where or whether to criticize or adjust my own tactics.

 

[atwix]

its tied to the size of the country. 5k losses for a tiny country gives more warscore then 5k losses for a big blob.

 

[Pellucid]

its tied to the size of the country. 5k losses for a tiny country gives more warscore then 5k losses for a big blob.

Austria is huge though. I worry that it's counting Spain's colonies which, obviously, are not involved.

 

[Tacticus101]

Did they stackwipe that small army, maybe it was because of that?

 

[Pellucid]

Did they stackwipe that small army, maybe it was because of that?

Yeah, but should stackwiping 3K men really be worth more warscore than winning a battle decisively against 50K?

 

[Achanei]

The scaling really is off though for very large nations. wiping the entire FL doesn't even give 5 WS or so, and a huge 300k vs 300k battle gave a paltry +1.something. makes it pretty much impossible to get to +40 score from battles. I find myself mostly taking the wargoal, sieging some big provinces & peacing out for as much as I can since with truce timers full-occupying ottomans+prussia(a rather large one) would leave me worse off in terms of territory/time than blitzkrieg.

 

[Tacticus101]

Yeah, but should stackwiping 3K men really be worth more warscore than winning a battle decisively against 50K?

Well, stackwiping the entire army of a small state would probably be quite effective at driving them out the war.

It shouldn't just be about size of battle though, or late game battles would end up giving obscene amounts of warscore. It should be more about how decisive a battle was, which I suppose the current mechanic does do a bit.

 

[IIWW]

Well, stackwiping the entire army of a small state would probably be quite effective at driving them out the war.

It shouldn't just be about size of battle though, or late game battles would end up giving obscene amounts of warscore. It should be more about how decisive a battle was, which I suppose the current mechanic does do a bit.

But the battles WS is considered only by war leader. So destroying 5k of secondary participant is somehow more important than winning 50vs50 battle with war leader?

 

[atwix]

by the way, what cb are we talking about? score from battles varies if ou use conquest/reconquest or holy war or another superiority cb like overseas expansion.

Warscore with superiority gets screwed up if you don't control allies or vassals. Since you need 80% of battles won on superiority cb, a few tiny stacks of allies or vasssals that get stack wiped might make it impossible to get ticking warscore..

If you are using superiority cb, make your vassals attach to you, and guie ally armies with a 1k stack from province to province. Not worth it if you hate micromanaging. In the end, with enough occupations you ca ask 100 warscore worth of provinces with superiority cb too.. All comes down to matter of playstyle. For quick gain wars, make sure vasals or allies don't remove ticking warscore when you declare with superiority cb.

 

[Loha4]

It's probably not just that it was a stackwipe of 4k troops, the uneven number probably means that was a much larger stack that got beat down over time so that could be any number of individual battalions being wiped out at once which actually is worth the score while in the more important fight only a few batallions worth of men were actually killed (batallions with zero troops might count as well, cant easily tell).

 

[josh127]

In a show superiority war every land battle is worth at least 3. It will show up in the battle screen as +1.4 or whatever it would be, but when you go to the overall war screen and find that battle it will be worth 3 more. This makes it rather easy to get in trouble or get out of trouble fast in these wars since you can run around and pick off enemy units being built (or they can do that to you or your allies).

If you find that first battle in the overall war screen it should be +4.26.

 

[Pellucid]

It's probably not just that it was a stackwipe of 4k troops, the uneven number probably means that was a much larger stack that got beat down over time so that could be any number of individual battalions being wiped out at once which actually is worth the score while in the more important fight only a few batallions worth of men were actually killed (batallions with zero troops might count as well, cant easily tell).

No, it was definitely 3 battalions. Maybe 4. Switzerland was having trouble keeping any units afield in that war, and after their first stackwipe never had more than 4 active at a time until Castille finally landed a significant force that didn't get instakilled, at which point they attached to the Castillian army (mine was too big for them to want to attach).

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It's bad right now. Ws from battles should be a function of total alliance strength in the war, not the FL of a scrub minor. I'd be surprised if the latter is wad.