[JimKongIl]

Since TE was intended to be a more aggressive version of CN we should factor casualties into the formula for who "wins"

I propose we use (Nation Strength Rank + Casualty Rank) / 2 to determine an overall ranking.

Nation Strength is just an arbitrary number and it does not best reflect who played the most effective round in TE.

If you finish #1 in NS and #9 in casualties your overall rank is 5, if you finish #6 in NS and #2 in casualties your overall rank is 4 and the ruler with the highest overall ranking is declared the winner.

Simply put the nation who finishes #1 in NS with minimal attacking and defending casualties does not embody the true spirit of TE as much as the high NS nations who really mixed it up.

This would be a major disincentive for avoiding war for nations with high NS.

[Mesteut]

Umm... Having more casualties means you're playing the game wrong. Less casualties are always better.

Nation strength is fine for determining nation leading skill - which is what should be factored.

[JimKongIl]

Mesteut, on Aug 30 2009, 03:12 AM, said:

Umm... Having more casualties means you're playing the game wrong. Less casualties are always better.

Nation strength is fine for determining nation leading skill - which is what should be factored.

Wrong. High casualties with low Nation Strength means you got stomped and you are playing the game wrong. High Nation Strength and low casualties means you have avoided battle and focused solely on infra and you are playing the game wrong. High Casualties and High Nation Strength means you are playing TE absolutely right and you have excelled in both nation building and warfare.

[Janitor]

High NS and low causalities means you should stick to SE not TE.

Aggressive should mean you get out there and fight.

[Marco Pang]

Still, war can reap its own benefits like tech, land and cash. So I do not think there is a need to put an actual ranking on casualties farther than a position in the Awards section.

[PierreG]

I checked half an hour before reset: The nation on #1 at that moment had a total of 0 casualties!

I don't think that the goal of CN:TE is to show the world that you are the best nation builder, this is the War version of CN.
OK, it is not his fault that nobody declared war, but fighting skills an fighting results should/could be taken in account to calculate the ranking.

BTW: congratulation to the winner of last round.

[Desperado]

Mesteut, on Aug 30 2009, 04:12 AM, said:

Umm... Having more casualties means you're playing the game wrong. Less casualties are always better.

Nation strength is fine for determining nation leading skill - which is what should be factored.

Number of Soldiers Lost in All Wars. 1,356 Attacking + 636 Defending = 1,992 Casualties
Casualty Rank: Ranked #1 of 2,062 Nations (0.05%)

Does this mean I am doing it wrong?

Edit: And its only day 2.

This post has been edited by Desperado: 25 October 2009 - 02:06 AM

[Vhalen]

The problem with this idea, even if it were implemented, is that it's easy to inflate casualties at the top ranks at the endgame, simply by buying full soldiers each time you're nuked. Hiring soldiers and placing them at ground zero to be irradiated isn't tactically sound at all, and shouldn't be rewarded.

[Ghuxalia]

JimKongIl, on Aug 30 2009, 01:45 AM, said:

Since TE was intended to be a more aggressive version of CN we should factor casualties into the formula for who "wins"

I propose we use (Nation Strength Rank + Casualty Rank) / 2 to determine an overall ranking.

Nation Strength is just an arbitrary number and it does not best reflect who played the most effective round in TE.

If you finish #1 in NS and #9 in casualties your overall rank is 5, if you finish #6 in NS and #2 in casualties your overall rank is 4 and the ruler with the highest overall ranking is declared the winner.

Simply put the nation who finishes #1 in NS with minimal attacking and defending casualties does not embody the true spirit of TE as much as the high NS nations who really mixed it up.

This would be a major disincentive for avoiding war for nations with high NS.

What if there is a tie? who would win in (#1 NS, #2 casualties) vs (#2 NS, #1 casualties)?

Good idea though.

[Liman Von Sanders]

Ghuxalia, on Nov 16 2009, 04:25 PM, said:

What if there is a tie? who would win in (#1 NS, #2 casualties) vs (#2 NS, #1 casualties)?

Good idea though.

Given that it's TE and as such Casualties > NS
The guy with #1 casualties would win.
I mean come on, #2 casualties means you weren't trying hard enough. TE is all about getting out there and mixing it up. Nation building alone is pointless (Unless your building for war/Nukes etc.) since it all goes away and we all get ZI'd/ND'd every 2 months anyway. what counts is doing damage.

ND = Nation Destroyed

[maicke]

i like this idea. the whole point of this game is war, and casualties show whos been warring the most

[arch3004]

How about basing it off of offensive casualties with defensive being a tie breaker if it ever arises. This way you can't just have your friends nuke you to win the flag.

[Owned-You]

I think it's a bit dumb to be honest. There are much more arbitrary and effective ways to influence the NS rankings; casualty counts being least among them.

[Lord Brendan]

I think the problem is that the best way to win Tournament Edition is not to fight at all. Rather than give an arbitrary value to casualty rank, make it so that fighting wars is a viable alternative for winning.