Scoring in Multiplayer?

[Rex]

I don't fully understand scoring in multplayer.  As it is, I get every single loss credited, but about 1/3rd of my kills, and every "ambiguous" kill goes against me.  I mean 100%.  

For instance (and these are WW2 Normandy 2.0 examples) , an opponent is flying straight at me and we're both shooting at each other ... before colliding head on and exploding.  I get a death, my opponent gets a kill and a death.

Or I get strafed on the tarmac while waiting to take off ... I get a loss, opponent gets a kill.  Okay, makes sense.  I return the favor and strafe the opponent on the tarmac, leaving him a smoking pile of rubble ... I get no kill.

I shoot down a bomber, but another another bomber shoots me to pieces and I bail.  1 loss, no wins.

Even in straight-out, I shoot the opposing plane, it goes down in flames, I see it crash ... sometimes I get the kill, often I don't.  I don't get it ... It's like the phase of the moon has to be just right or something.

The scoreboard never misses a loss, though. Oh no.  No, no.  If I sneeze during a maneuver I get a freaking loss.  Suddenly the scoreboard knows how to react with immediate pinpoint accuracy.  It's a miracle!

I fly the Bf-109, it almost feels like an Allied vs Reich thing.

I mean, during the war there were over 100 German pilots with over 100 kills, but the best Allied pilot had 40, and the #4 guy was already down in the 20s.  Maybe this is DCS's way of giving them a fighting chance.

The Allies just have to look at us cross-eyed and they get a kill but apparently we have to follow them down, go to their crash site, pull out a stethoscope, and verify expiration for us to get one.

At first I thought I was just being paranoid, or being a whiner (which I'm sure can happen from time to time), but this week I paid close attention and it's overt and obvious.

Does anyone know what the general rule is for kills in MP?  For instance, in a head-on mutual-obliteration crash, who is supposed to get kill-credited?

 

 

Edited October 19 by Rex

[Kang]

It does not always make sense, but here are a few things for your consideration:

1. Planes on the ground are notoriously tricky because the logic deciding when the plane is actually destroyed doesn't always trigger there, as there is no final impact. You need either an explosion, a pilot kill or have your opponent eject, to have a kill counted. In other words: people who just remain seated in their wrecked up plane can screw you over here.

2. Head-ons are a bit of a crap-shoot anyway, and doubly so here. The same logic applies, in that your opponent having a singular lucky hit in your forehead will grant him a kill, even if you are both equally dead. You cannot collect on kills once you are legally dead, so only one of you gets a kill.

3.  Some multiplayer servers don't actually have a full scoreboard going. It is possible that only losses are counted as well.

4. I don't know what to tell you, why should the - arguably not very important - bit of the multiplayer scoreboard, out of all things, work without bugs?

[Vakarian]

Someone actually uses the scoreboard in the sim? 

[QuiGon]

On 10/20/2025 at 9:10 AM, Vakarian said:

Someone actually uses the scoreboard in the sim? 

You must be new to public MP?

[Vakarian]

32 minutes ago, QuiGon said:

You must be new to public MP?

Don't do public MP as 99.69% of the servers are: Take off (if you're lucky), dump all missiles in under 3 minutes of takeoff. Landing optional. 
Not interested in that kind of gameplay. And on the servers that offer this kind of gameplay there is often some custom scoring script running in the background. 

So yeah, I find having a scoreboard in a simulator weird idea to begin with, but everyone has their own fun... 

[QuiGon]

2 minutes ago, Vakarian said:

Don't do public MP as 99.69% of the servers are: Take off (if you're lucky), dump all missiles in under 3 minutes of takeoff. Landing optional. 
Not interested in that kind of gameplay. And on the servers that offer this kind of gameplay there is often some custom scoring script running in the background. 

So yeah, I find having a scoreboard in a simulator weird idea to begin with, but everyone has their own fun... 

I'm fully with you there, but the reality of MP is a different one unfortunately.

[SharpeXB]

On 10/18/2025 at 7:47 PM, Rex said:

I mean, during the war there were over 100 German pilots with over 100 kills, but the best Allied pilot had 40, and the #4 guy was already down in the 20s.  Maybe this is DCS's way of giving them a fighting chance.

You realize this wasn’t just a matter of pilot skill or aircraft right? German pilots never rotated out of action and flew until they became casualties. Germany was at war for a much greater amount of time than the US. They also flew on the eastern front against inferior aircraft and pilots. They did also become very skilled from flying such long tours though. 

[Art-J]

^ Indeed. IIRC Hartmann did about 1400 missions during his career while top-scorer on Allied side, Kozhedub, did about 330'ish (and that already was a massive number for Allied standards). 

If German top aces flew 4x, 5x or more missions than their top ace opponents, it's not strange that their score was proportionally higher.

[SharpeXB]

The Germans, being outnumbered, were in a target rich environment. American pilots had to be really aggressive to even find an enemy. 

[Kang]

And don't forget how many of those numbers came from the very early days of the war, when the Luftwaffe's 109s truly in a different league than many of the biplanes they faced, plus staffed with determined and well-trained combat pilots against ill-prepared and generally surprised pilots. But hey, everyone is going to turn those things the way they want to see them.

[DD_fruitbat]

6 hours ago, Kang said:

And don't forget how many of those numbers came from the very early days of the war, when the Luftwaffe's 109s truly in a different league than many of the biplanes they faced, plus staffed with determined and well-trained combat pilots against ill-prepared and generally surprised pilots. But hey, everyone is going to turn those things the way they want to see them.

Hartmann got all of his kills apart from 2 from 1943 onwards.....

[Kang]

Surprisingly Hartmann was not the only aviator ever, though.

[Rex]

On 10/19/2025 at 3:06 AM, Kang said:

 

2. Head-ons are a bit of a crap-shoot anyway, and doubly so here. The same logic applies, in that your opponent having a singular lucky hit in your forehead will grant him a kill, even if you are both equally dead. You cannot collect on kills once you are legally dead, so only one of you gets a kill.

 

 

Oh bummer, I didn't realize this.   So if you bomb a ship, but get killed before it sinks, you get no credit?  Not sure the logic here, but I guess I better practice my dance moves since Multiplayer is all about Staying Alive.

Edited yesterday at 06:15 AM by Rex

[Rex]

On 10/21/2025 at 6:32 AM, SharpeXB said:

You realize this wasn’t just a matter of pilot skill or aircraft right? German pilots never rotated out of action and flew until they became casualties. Germany was at war for a much greater amount of time than the US. They also flew on the eastern front against inferior aircraft and pilots. They did also become very skilled from flying such long tours though. 

We're not talking about a small difference or even a large difference, we're talking about an order of magnitude difference ... as well there situations which favored the allies, like superior numbers.  Galland, Mayer , Eder, Baeur, and quite a few more were majority Western Front pilots.  Besides, I don't think you know how good the Soviet pilots were, especially if you think every last one of them was bad.  I think the whole "they all sucked" thing is a mental opiate.  Besides, Germany was scraping the barrel toward the end of the war with hundreds of inexperienced pilots, so it's not like every Allied pilot was fighting the Red Freaking Baron every time they closed the cockpit canopy.  The Italians probably weren't the most skilled pilots in the world either.

I think if Allied pilots had accomplished a similar feat, we'd have never heard the end of it, and I don't think it would have been attenuated with excuses.  In fact, they they did not accomplish a similar feat and we already do not hear the end of it.  The library is full of of books about "The Greatest Fighter Pilot of WW2", and most of them are, curiously, Allied pilots.   Thousands of books about Allied pilots, movies, TV shows, I don't think anyone need worry about giving Allied pilots their flowers.  They've gotten them nonstop for the last 80 years.

Lastly, if they were that great, you folks wouldn't be so damn insecure every time the Huns get some well-deserved props.

Edited yesterday at 08:05 AM by Rex

[Rex]

On 10/24/2025 at 7:40 AM, Kang said:

And don't forget how many of those numbers came from the very early days of the war, when the Luftwaffe's 109s truly in a different league than many of the biplanes they faced, plus staffed with determined and well-trained combat pilots against ill-prepared and generally surprised pilots. But hey, everyone is going to turn those things the way they want to see them.

The Luftwaffe and Wehrmacht punched so far above their weight that the world never saw anything like it before or since.  Remember, France and Britain declared war on Germany, not the other way around, so if they weren't prepared, well, I don't know whose to blame for that.  And despite being oh-so-offended that the krauts invaded Poland, the Soviets did the same two weeks later, but the brits and french didn't so much as fart in their general direction, so ... yeah ... the. morale outrage was a bit less than genuine.

But my God, it's been nearly a century of Allies are God and Germans are Satan over and over and over and over and over and over again, so as for "everyone is going to turn those things the way they want to see them.", yeah, I can't disagree with that.  Again, I don't think there is a person alive who can honestly say that the Allies have been lacking in accolades and deservedly so in most cases.

That said, I think Germany had the best individual army in the war, the best submarine captains, and the best fighter pilots.   I'm a huge fan of British and US pilots as well, but I stand in absolute awe of pilots like Erich Hartmann and Hans-Joachim Marseille and if I had personal idols they would be at the top of the list.  I don't think they have equals in any other nation.

I'm no fan of that nation's politics in that era, but during that particular place at that particular time, Germany produced some of the finest fighting men the world has ever known, and even though they lost quite badly in the end, much of the world has remained in a state of shock and wonder for the past 80 years over just how well they did against the most powerful nations on the planet.

There's little doubt there there is much to hate about WW2 Germany, but anyone who can see clearly (at least in my opinion) would also have to admit that there is also much to admire.

Of course, there's many who can't, and who nurse on victors propaganda for the comfort and borrowed self-esteem it gives them.  That's why they need to make up cute words like "Wehraboo".  That, despite benefiting from nearly 100% of the accolades, this group remains so insecure, really underscores my point, IMHO.  You can extol the virtues of the Romainian army all you want, but it's not until you do the same for Germany do they start getting weird.  That's likely not a coincidence.

Edited yesterday at 07:26 AM by Rex

[Rex]

On 10/22/2025 at 6:25 PM, SharpeXB said:

The Germans, being outnumbered, were in a target rich environment. American pilots had to be really aggressive to even find an enemy. 

You realize it's generally harder to shoot down the enemy when you're outnumbered, not easier. Right? 

Target-rich can meant something different when the targets shoot back.

I think the Allied pilots were enemy-starved during the Battle of Normandy, but I'm not so sure about the rest of the war.

 

Estimated Totals

• Kills credited to Bf 109 pilots: roughly 25,000 - 30,000 enemy aircraft destroyed

  • Focke-Wulf Fw 190 – ≈ 15,000–20,000

  • Spitfire (all marks) – ≈ 6,000–9,000

  • P-47 = 7,000 - 10,000

  • P-51 Mustang – ≈ 4,900–6,000

  •  

Note: Kill counts are all over the place, so I don't know what's truly accurate.

Bf-109 Kill Estimates

Source / Historian    Estimate    Notes
John Weal (Osprey – Bf 109 Aces of the Western Front)    ~52,000     Based on cumulative Luftwaffe claims across all fronts
USAF Historical Study No. 85 (post-war Allied analysis)    35,000–40,000     After discounting duplicates and overclaims
Christer Bergström (Eastern Front specialist)    ≈45,000     Includes overclaims; Eastern Front dominates
Most modern historians (average view)    35,000 – 50,000 enemy aircraft destroyed    Broad consensus band

Edited yesterday at 07:59 AM by Rex

[Art-J]

I'd say it's even harder to shoot down the enemy when there's no enemy around to be found. That's the point Sharpe was obviously making, not what happens after the merge, whenever and wherever it finally happens.

What's the actual point of this thread anyway? Did you really start it to provide feedback on sketchy DCS scoring system (which is problematic for 'red' and 'blue' players equally), or to start an off-topic drama about WWII history? Discuss the former here, to help new players figure out how the system does (or doesn't) work but take the latter to chit-chat section.

[SharpeXB]

6 hours ago, Rex said:

You realize it's generally harder to shoot down the enemy when you're outnumbered, not easier. Right? 

What comes to mind is a particular account of the Luftwaffe fighting a rear guard action outnumbered 10:1. This unit just took off and landed, re-armed and went back up. Being so outnumbered the Soviet pilots didn’t even see the few enemy planes ambushing them. I think Robin Olds had a similar experience attacking a large group of the enemy. 

[SharpeXB]

7 hours ago, Art-J said:

I'd say it's even harder to shoot down the enemy when there's no enemy around to be found.

Yeah I recall from Robin Olds book how aggressive an American pilot had to be to even find an enemy let alone shoot them down.

The simple answer to why German pilots had so many kills again is because unlike Allied pilots they had no tour rotating them out of combat. They just flew until they were killed or captured. 

Edited yesterday at 04:09 PM by SharpeXB

[Rex]

18 hours ago, Art-J said:

I'd say it's even harder to shoot down the enemy when there's no enemy around to be found. That's the point Sharpe was obviously making, not what happens after the merge, whenever and wherever it finally happens.

 

I see, okay, point conceded.  Since you feel it is a very important point, I want to make sure you feel completely understood.  It is hereby established that:

1) It is very difficult to rack up a large number of air-to-air kills when your coalition is significantly outnumbered by the enemy

2) It is even MORE DIFFICULT to rack up a large number of air-to-air kills when there is no enemy at all

Look, when you're right you're right, and I apologize profusely for not fully and blatantly acknowledging this. I hope I've fully addressed it now.  Thank you for clarifying, that, it is a very important point to consider.

While we're at it should we also establish that air-to-air kills are difficult prior to one's birth, or that they are highly-improbable on planets without an atmosphere?  Or do you think we risk stating the obvious by going that far?

 

Quote

What's the actual point of this thread anyway? Did you really start it to provide feedback on sketchy DCS scoring system (which is problematic for 'red' and 'blue' players equally), or to start an off-topic drama about WWII history? Discuss the former here, to help new players figure out how the system does (or doesn't) work but take the latter to chit-chat section.

 

I'm responding to responses that were made to me.  Given that the "chit-chat" didn't bother you when others were making non-scoreboard-related comments (in fact you even add to them, as above), it doesn't come off as a good-faith admonition.   We are always more critical of those we disagree with,  human nature, but if you want these "voice of reason"-type posts to be taken in good-faith, you'd have to at least reduce the perception of bias.  Otherwise it just sounds like "I only like reading posts I agree with so go away".  I feel confident that you don't intend it that way.

[draconus]

4 hours ago, Rex said:

I'm responding to responses that were made to me.  Given that the "chit-chat" didn't bother you when others were making non-scoreboard-related comments (in fact you even add to them, as above), it doesn't come off as a good-faith admonition.   We are always more critical of those we disagree with,  human nature, but if you want these "voice of reason"-type posts to be taken in good-faith, you'd have to at least reduce the perception of bias.  Otherwise it just sounds like "I only like reading posts I agree with so go away".  I feel confident that you don't intend it that way.

I agree with your points on WW2 history but I also agree with Art-J that it comes off like you started MP scoring thread just to discuss history more.