|
|
Post by NetherFreek on Nov 4, 2017 18:23:48 GMT
As stated in this post: european-war-4.boards.net/post/162366/threadI have the plan to add city-related world records for wc4. However, how much categories would you like to see for that? Simply say yes or no for each option in the poll to let your vote count. Note: every conquest year will get these records. These categories will definitely be added: *Winning with the most amount of cities *Winning with the least amount of cities These categories might be added and are electable: "Winning with the most amount of cities using no generals. *Winning with the least amount of cities using no generals. *Winning with the most amount of cities using a 1-star nation. *Winning with the least amount of cities using a 1-star nation. *Winning with the most amount of cities using no generals and a 1-star nation. *Winning with the least amount of cities using no generals and a 1-star nation. |
|
|
|
Post by NetherFreek on Nov 4, 2017 18:26:48 GMT
I voted yes for the no-generals one. Because then we already have 4 records per conquest related to either having the biggest winning empire or the smallest winning empire which seems enough to me. The other categories seems to niche for me as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by NetherFreek on Nov 8, 2017 19:28:42 GMT
The vote will come to its end soon, so vote now!
|
|
|
|
Post by soonerjbd on Nov 9, 2017 22:58:08 GMT
I don’t understand what is significant about getting the most amount of cities. All that means is that you were slow, so all your allies got conquered, and you had to re-take all their territory. Least number of cities indicates you cooperated with your allies and kept them alive.
|
|
|
|
Post by Leonid Govorov on Nov 9, 2017 23:32:40 GMT
I don’t understand what is significant about getting the most amount of cities. All that means is that you were slow, so all your allies got conquered, and you had to re-take all their territory. Least number of cities indicates you cooperated with your allies and kept them alive. It is a measurement of success, though. Maybe most cities within 65 rounds or something, and that'd me more reasonable to you, would it not? |
|
|
|
Post by soonerjbd on Nov 10, 2017 8:10:12 GMT
I don’t understand what is significant about getting the most amount of cities. All that means is that you were slow, so all your allies got conquered, and you had to re-take all their territory. Least number of cities indicates you cooperated with your allies and kept them alive. It is a measurement of success, though. Maybe most cities within 65 rounds or something, and that'd me more reasonable to you, would it not? You conquer all the enemy cities. If you stop them before they can take your allies, you don’t take as many cities. I don’t see how it is any measure of success. Maybe you just sit and defend and wait until all your allies are gone just to increase the challenge? I don’t know. I’m just not seeing it. |
|
|
|
Post by Leonid Govorov on Nov 10, 2017 8:11:37 GMT
It is a measurement of success, though. Maybe most cities within 65 rounds or something, and that'd me more reasonable to you, would it not? You conquer all the enemy cities. If you stop them before they can take your allies, you don’t take as many cities. I don’t see how it is any measure of success. Maybe you just sit and defend and wait until all your allies are gone just to increase the challenge? I don’t know. I’m just not seeing it. I know what you are talking about, but like I said, if we do a time limit then one cannot wait. |
|
|
|
Post by Nobunaga Oda on Nov 11, 2017 0:57:04 GMT
Maybe most amount with 1* nation, w/o using gens & in the least amount of time possible?
|
|
