Instead of posting "kills" and "deaths" for your country, we all know and recognize that there is some competition to have the most "kills" in a war, a kill being defined very narrowly as the final strike that kills the last of a countries population, and there are some players who wait until that last strike is just about to occur, and they jump in there run ONE attack for the whole day, and get a kill by cherry picking the kill from some poor schlub who was actually running war turns trying to earn that kill.

Now, don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying that the "kills" entry in a statistic is indicative of this type of player or not it's individually managed I'm' sure.

just wanted to know if I was the only one skeptical of using "kills" as a measure of a countries or even alliances skill and power in the game.

as a player. not at all.
its a lot harder to kill the 5m troops the country has, then to get the last GS in.
as a clan...not 100% solid, but a good base point.
if a clan get 400 kills in a war, you probably got a decent clan.
again, not 100% rock solid, cause if they are only ankle biting and not killing anything of value, its just #s

every war is different... how wars are won in FFA vary greatly than in 1a cause of the amount of countries involved.

ouch!!! leave my ankles alone.

I look at the total networths of the alliances as the indicator of who is winning the war.

Kills and deaths aren't too important, what matters is not what you've destroyed or what you've lost, but what is still remaining.

This aint 1a and that dont wash Rockman...

or you would have clans FAing one country out of range and then claiming they won tthe war cause they had a higher NW...

it plays a part but not the key indicator.

Killing inactive 200k countries to rack up kills is though?

killing inactive countries is a waste of anyones time and wont help you win a war in the long run. If numbers are close you kill the inactives so if they do come into the war you are not faced with countries with full turns, and they wont restart so you get a true measure of what you are up againest,as we have seen on all wars of late the numbers that start a war is not an indication of what the active numbers are later in a war.


Most 200k NW countries in any war are active restarts and need to be killed,only a dumb alliance doesn't kill them.

I dunno about anyone else but best to kill 200k countries that are more active than 1 mill NW country that is semi active,these days activity wins war and that means turns killing...

also lots of ppl in this server dont keep restarting and you kill them out of the war..

Why doesn't that 'wash'? Its a strategy that would be far more successful on alliance than on FFA.

If you try FAing one country out of range, then it will be sitting around with a few thousand networth per acre and no one that can FA it, to have just a couple of days where its out of range before the other alliance catches up.

On alliance, there are few enough countries in a tag that one or two super big countries in networth could have more networth than the entire opposing tag. On FFA you'd need probably at least a dozen superbig countries just to keep your tnw above another alliance that's beating you in a war. The only way that one or two countries on FFA could have that much of an effect on TNW is if they'd been getting FAd stockpile for at least a week by a bunch of very big other countries.

FAing one country up just to have more TNW is a very poor war strategy, and has never been tried, and will likely never be tried, thus rendering inconsequential your objection to my criteria for winning a war.

Assuming that all the high networth countries are active, then TNW is the key factor, more than anything else. And in my opinion, assuming the top countries are active is a fairly safe assumption to make, but maybe thats because I'm new to FFA and am naive enough to think that FFA players actually use all their countries in war. Are you telling me that despite how condescending I am towards FFAers, that I am still giving them too much credit?

no. because u can use a 2m NW country to break a 4m NW country no problem.
so just because u have n o NW does not mean u are winning necessarily. just means you are bigger atm.

And the 4m networth country will have an even easier time breaking the 2m networth country. So what's your point?

NW in combination with target selection, activity and restart rates are probably the biggest factors..

1 Target selection
2 Activity
3 Restart Rate
4 Networth difference

In that order

<- steals kills

and u just made my point but are clearly to stupid to see it LOL

So more networth is better. How does that make TNW not a good measure of who is winning? Or did you mean yes when you said no?

TNW is a good war stat to include but I don't think it is the most important stat unless daily hits are relatively close. For example, a few restarts back when NBK warred SOF, NBK has less total nw but won the war. SOF had about 40-50 big countries left (if I remember they were like 7-15mil nw whereas NBK only had restarts left but had grown them to about 1-3mil nw. We were lemming killing a few of their big ones everyday and then spent the rest of the time killing their restarts so they were not able to kill very many of ours daily cause they only had those big breakers and not much else. Over time the NW gap closed and NBK eventually pulled ahead and SOF surrendered but for all but a day or two in the war SOF was pretty far ahead in total nw because of those higher nw countries.

Unless your clan is all at 200 mill nw and someone suicides you of course.

In general TNW is a good indication but if everyone is not actively hitting or sucks at the game in general it can skew things.

I would say networth killed along with just the total number of kills combined are good keys.

Clearly, turns are one of the most valuable commodities during a war, so killing one 2M NW country isn't probably as important in the longrun as two 1M NW countries (I guess it could, as every situation is different).

Overall, this is one of those arguments that's just kind of silly to get too worked up over. There are so many variables when looking at this type of thing that no one stat can tell the whole story.

I've always looked at TNW to determine who is winning once a war has been ongoing .. at the beginning obviously you can't weigh NW as heavily, as other factors havent had time to effect it yet

SOF had 40-50 large countries left and you were all restarts? Sounds like they smoked your asses and you claimed victory by raping their restarts after the big ones were pretty much out of range.

What set was this?

Not really, SoF lost (activity+restart rate) and got lemming down and killed.

I believe is in the wiki as the greatest war of EE FFA ;)

NBK left the inactive big countries for last and in the end paid off

same as CC did to IMP. took out the mids then got to the big ones in the end.

its a good stratagy and works well in long wars. with so many targets on offer the other side will always have some breaking strength,this is where FFA differes in a big way to 1a wars.

lol walding they surrendered on ffat. We don't just declare victory cause we feel like it. Here read this:

http://forums.earthempires.com/...ares-a-ceasefire-with-nbk

So synoder hows the job? What hours you working now a days?

^^ lol

synoder works 24/7

yeah i work way too much :( I have trained my wife to wall for me tho so no easy kills for you!


if only that were true ;)

pfft. PAN and FoCuS vs. NBK has to be the best war at this point.

I liked them both. The sof/nbk war was really close the entire war so I would give it the edge but the pan/focus vs nbk war was bigger and last longer and was epic as well.

Synoder remains wise before his time! :O)
Originally, a Kill4Free war strategy. He deserves the credit for NBK's success in that war. He'll go down in history for that war.
I don't believe it's ever happened before, and was epic.. Even heroic, in my book! It was a great war to fight, and tons of nervous fun!

Faith in your crew's activity will go a long way too.. The amount of successful attacks which show in the HPK, and the number of countries killed, are just 2 of the many stats to look at.

As the song goes. 'We will not go quietly, we will not lie down..' ;O)



Obviously, Rocko, the ways to win a war, are limited in Alliance. Probably as limited as the countries allowed there. I hope you are learning something in this thread. By you saying, 'Kills and deaths aren't too important..' just pisses some people off..

(From the link Synoder referred to)
============================================================
I do hope the answer to the question of a winning strategy is also now more clear. It has little to do with networth, as debated elsewhere on FFAT.. You must have more than netgaining talent.. First, you need well built countries, to kill more countries. Then ruin the opponents' desire to war by, yep, you got it, killing more countries than the opponent. Lastly, you need an unbelievably amazing bunch of most excellent players on your crew. This, is the FFA, and we, are the Natural Born Killers!
===============================================================
Okay.. lmao.. That may may have been over the top.. But not by much! :P

QM Diver - why should that piss people off? Its easy to just start killing restarts to boost your warstats. Its easy to kill the wrong countries if you don't have good leaders that know how to pick the right targets. By saying that the ways to win a war are limited in alliance, and less so here, you're implying something rather odd. That killing weak countries and restarts rather than dangerous active countries is a way to win a war. And that is something I would have to disagree with.

I guess that would piss off an alliance that FSs and then starts killing restarts a day or two later. Are there really that many alliances on FFA that would do that? It should only piss people off if they are that incompetent, but I hadn't thought FFA was that bad.

the main difference between FFA wars and Allaince wars is that with having 16 countries people will stop restarting whereas in 1a its pretty easy to restart just 1 country. So you can win a war by pummeling people into the ground and making them stop restarting then work your way back up (granted it doesn't always work and does take a while). However, with the new auto startups it makes it a lot easier to restart and I am not sure if that strategy would work anymore. When you had to run 50-60 manual startups in a couple week period its takes a much bigger toll than just clicking a few buttons now.

100% behind QM and synoder...


kill and keep killing... people stop restating and you win....

FFA you can always kill breakers with turns played,1a you cant....


nothing worse than fighting a clan thta keeps coming back at you,activity is the key here in FFA...

NBK are by far the best proponants of that in this server,but k4f is still a nub ;)

Keep killing my restarts. I will murder your breakers and restart using my breakers to FA. I dont see how your logic works other then I will eventually grow tired of killing you and at that time you will claim victory over our 50 large countries that you cant kill.

It sounds like to me this is a way of covering a lack of war skills......


I killed 500 of your restarts we win.....

You killing all my countries means nothing we just restart until you grow tired of killing us and we win.....

I couldnt handle your breakers but that does not matter.....

Woot another restarter dead!!!

they are kinda hard to kill when you guys keep loggin in at all hours of the day

but i give it to ya... if it wasnt for those wallers, you guys would be gettin slaughtered :)

Im not a waller... I just know how to keep them alive =D

its hardly all restarts we have killed.
i think you are patting yourself on the back to early, and to hard.
u had 30% # advantage..if u cant get our originals before we get yours thats sad...clearly restarts play a huge part in this