Scenario Scorer
Score a transparent A-vs-B scenario matchup
Pick a scenario preset, pick two systems, and adjust the weights. Every point on the board is a published spec, weight times a normalized value, added up into a side total and a percentage split. This is an illustrative, educational scoring exercise, not a predictive combat model.
Illustrative and educational. Transparent methodology, built entirely from the public specifications published on each system page. This is not a predictive combat model, a probability of victory, or an operational or targeting assessment. Always verify against primary sources.
How the score works
Each factor's score is weight times a normalized spec value. Normalization happens within the pair you picked, the better of the two systems on that factor scores 1.0, and the other scores its proportional share, direction-aware so that for a cost factor the cheaper system scores higher, not the more expensive one. The total for each side is the sum of its factor points across every factor that both systems publish. The percentage split is each side's share of the combined total. Any factor missing on either side is excluded from the totals entirely, it never silently counts as zero for one side and full marks for the other.
- 1
Pick a scenario
Air superiority, air defense, armored duel, naval surface or strike range, each sets a relevant factor list and sensible default weights.
- 2
Pick Side A and Side B
Search and add any two systems in the database, same class or different, a cross-class banner appears when they differ.
- 3
Adjust the weights
Each factor has a 0-5 importance slider, set your own priorities or leave the scenario defaults.
- 4
Read the transparent breakdown
A full per-factor table shows weight x normalized value = points for each side, plus the side totals and a plain verdict naming the top contributors.
Scenario data notes
Armored duel uses scorable proxies
Caliber and armor type are published as descriptive text, not numbers, and max firing range is only populated for artillery, so none of the three can be scored higher/lower for tanks. The armored-duel scenario instead weights power-to-weight, top speed, operational range and ammunition capacity, all fully published for every tank in the database.
Naval surface uses shipping fields only
The naval-specific spec group (displacement, naval speed, test depth) is not included in the public data index this tool reads client-side, and warship/submarine records publish radar only as descriptive text, not a numeric range. The naval-surface scenario uses only VLS cells, torpedo tubes and unit cost, the fields that do ship and have real numeric coverage.
Frequently asked questions
What does the Scenario Scorer score mean? +
It is a weighted sum of published specs, nothing more. Each factor is normalized within the pair (the better of the two systems on that factor scores 1.0, the other scores its proportional share), multiplied by the weight you set, and added up. The percentage split is each side's share of the combined total. It is illustrative and educational, not a prediction of any real-world outcome.
Why are some factors skipped or greyed out? +
A factor is skipped when either system does not publish that spec. Skipped factors score zero points for both sides and are excluded from the totals and the percentage split entirely, rather than guessing a value. The coverage note always states how many of the scenario's factors were actually scored, and lists any that were skipped for missing data.
Why does it let me compare two different types of systems? +
Cross-class matchups (a tank against a warship, for example) are allowed because the underlying math only needs two numbers to compare per factor, but a banner flags whenever Side A and Side B are different classes so the result is read as illustrative only, not a like-for-like assessment.
Why is this not a win probability or combat outcome model? +
The Scenario Scorer does not model doctrine, crew training, terrain, weather, logistics, sensor fusion, electronic warfare, numbers engaged or any of the countless factors that decide a real engagement. It sums a handful of public specs you choose to weight. The result is phrased as which side leads on the published specs, never as a win, a defeat or a probability of victory.
Why does the armored-duel scenario not use caliber, armor type or gun range? +
Caliber and armor type are published as text in the database (bore diameter alone is not simply "better", and armor composition is largely classified), so they cannot be scored on a higher/lower scale. Max firing range is a field the database populates for artillery, not tanks. The armored-duel scenario instead uses scorable proxies with full tank coverage, power-to-weight, top speed, operational range and ammunition capacity, that reflect mobility and gunnery reach without fabricating a number for a text field or an unpublished one.
Why does the naval-surface scenario use so few factors? +
The public data index that powers every WeaponSpecs tool does not carry the naval-specific spec group (displacement, naval speed, endurance, test depth) on the client side, and warship/submarine records only publish a descriptive radar text field, not a numeric radar range. The naval-surface scenario is deliberately built only from fields that do ship, are numeric and have real coverage, VLS cells, torpedo tubes and unit cost, so every factor it offers is real and scorable, never a placeholder.