|
Post by quickstrike on Aug 22, 2005 15:57:16 GMT 1
Honestly, neither India nor Tripolitania deserve to win because they are both dead. If they were truly the best, they'd still be alive. Best country is not allways the one surviving the longest, but the one who performed the best considering the circumstances . Sweden and France however where protected by dk/holland a lot during the age and India eventually became a target as they had planned even before the invasion of asia... they never had any intention of killing australia, but wanted to get rid of ukraine/india from europe and preferably get rid of ukraine/india altogether. Hence they disagreed with the fact the nap was still valid... It also resulted in sweden hc/ukraine hc/india hc only trusting eachother anymore and also in the destruction of all countries eventually... Considering the amount of allies and friends Tripolotania and India have had during the age and the way they managed to stay allive I would say they are amongst the better and maybe even the best countries of this age... This does not mean I disrespect other countries... but its merely my opinion which you don't have to agree with
|
|
emp
Normal Member
Posts: 74
|
Post by emp on Aug 22, 2005 16:19:42 GMT 1
This discussion is rather strange, since a country isn't really anything. If you say a certain country wins the most logical for me would be the players who are happy that country wins are the winners. This however would most likely include their allies. Those who think all the players in it are the winners and noone else surely haven't given it much thought. If they did they would have figured out that nothing they do really matters, as long as they make sure they choose to join the winning country in the end. Other than that it's kinda weird that you can be in many defeated countries and still think you're a winner, but it's evenly peculiar that a country that gets the most of these losers is most likely the country with the highest combined wage. Of course with these rules having the biggest and strongest army doesn't mean you'll have the best chance of being ranked #1, which makes looking at the rankings even more laughable.
|
|
cesar
Normal Member
Posts: 101
|
Post by cesar on Aug 22, 2005 16:26:00 GMT 1
in age 2 ottomans ( and spain) won , age 3 mongolia (and russia , thailand) , this age i think it's Fs (and Bs)
i don't think cities are a good thing to look at to determine the winner cause it depends too much on who is online alot the last 24 hours .... i think the winner is the country with the strongest main army and with the most officers in the top 25/50 of the individual ranking and the country who dominated the age (if it's still alive ) , anyone can take cities , but not everyone can built up a huge main army or can get players in top 25 of the ranking
|
|
|
Post by miirshak on Aug 22, 2005 16:29:51 GMT 1
As long as there are no clear victory conditions set out. The nation with the most points wins. In this case being Dk
|
|
|
Post by orodreth on Aug 22, 2005 16:40:22 GMT 1
in age 2 ottomans ( and spain) won , ... U are forgetting Ireland (yes the country TNSe loves so much ) in age2, u spainlover
|
|
|
Post by rambertiv on Aug 22, 2005 16:43:58 GMT 1
indeed, anyone can take cities. that's why i'm so surprised no-one does... SC did it a weak ago, the "dutch rebellion" started doing it, but it caused a civil war. if everyone would do it, it would be a lot harder to just take some cities.
|
|
cesar
Normal Member
Posts: 101
|
Post by cesar on Aug 22, 2005 16:44:47 GMT 1
nah , i was in ireland that age , and no i don't consider us a winner ..... we switched sides near the end to survive , we didn't win .... ottomans were clearly the real winner
|
|
|
Post by freewilly on Aug 22, 2005 17:21:54 GMT 1
... i think pissing everyone off so they kill you doesn't make you the winner. i'll admit, they were impressive, but who wouldn't be impressive with a huge active core? It is very cheap and untrue to say that no merrit goes to the people in tripolitania itself ... I won't proclaim Tripolitania as the best country, but it was a country that lived and died with honour, taking on its equal by its own merrit and by the mistake of the enemy... A lot of people forget that a 3 country alliance was already made against Tripolitania in the beginning of the age and clayQ and our offline army disappeared from the scene just a couple of hours before kickoff if I remember correctly. I also know that any country currently alive (FS, BS, SC, ...) has the player base to have the same active core as tripolitania had in those days; it is the merit of mainly KGC and Lionheart who kept leading those attacks to keep people interested. Just ask any former tripolitanian to draw a graph of his activity in TLK ... If we made a lot of enemys, it maybe was my fault because i wasn't online enough ... i do not know, but none of it was intentional (i didn't mean to piss people off) and we remained loyal to our allies and stuck to our agreements. Now that i know that BS and Holland had a secret alliance, i get why Holland and Denmark wouldn't side with Tripolitania against the american 4; but that it ruined the rest of the age for all the players... Also, my vote for best country goes to Australia.
|
|
|
Post by egregius on Aug 22, 2005 17:28:47 GMT 1
Mehh, the alliance thing confuses things too much.
Last age mongolia+Russia+Thai were doing pretty neatly, but so were Transylvanians. It was just that at the moment of one snapshot, which was coincidentally also the end of the age, Trans were ahead.
Let people decide for themselves on this one.
|
|
|
Post by chincana on Aug 22, 2005 17:51:12 GMT 1
freewilly: If you weren't trying to piss people off, than why did you attack Holland? Being in FS I understand from Draco, that he was about to ally Tripolitania. When Trip attacked Holland, he decided not to do that.
|
|
|
Post by quickstrike on Aug 22, 2005 18:08:08 GMT 1
lol. The funny part is Freewilly was almost cmed to death before tripoli died. So basically he was unloved ourside and inside tripoli...
|
|
|
Post by freewilly on Aug 22, 2005 19:02:22 GMT 1
freewilly: If you weren't trying to piss people off, than why did you attack Holland? Being in FS I understand from Draco, that he was about to ally Tripolitania. When Trip attacked Holland, he decided not to do that. We attacked Holland because they were attacking our allies the Ottomans ... also, a proposal to alliance would have been refused because i knew FS already had 4 american allies i knew off and i thought that was enough for 1 country ... an ally is someone you should be able to rely on
|
|
ogilvy
Apprentice Member
Posts: 5
|
Post by ogilvy on Aug 22, 2005 19:36:55 GMT 1
i think we did really well in aussie.. sure it was only 2 enemies at a time, but those also had massive main armies that we sent back to their capitals again and again and again. The fact that we survived with all our homeland is a miracle if you ask me lol
|
|