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.

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.

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

Aggressive should mean you get out there and fight.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Good idea though.