Generally, what is a "good" rank?

[HighlanderAttack]

I rather like major =)

How long will it last--sure it won't last long. Oh and you forgot the dubs lost but I guess you would not count that one--lol

[Army of GOD]

I rather like major =)

How long will it last--sure it won't last long. Oh and you forgot the dubs lost but I guess you would not count that one--lol

Well, I didn't lose captain once since gaining it. And that was on Fuedal, where Godsav was still pretty much teaching me how to play.

[Tennisie]

So what am I trying to say here. Well mainly, its doesn't make sense to criticize how people get there points. Anyone who consistently maintains a rank above captain or colonel does at least one of these or something similar, so why criticize what method they use. The moment you start making private games because you can't get your points any higher in public games, then you are manipulating points.

I apologize to anyone who may be offended, I'm not saying anyone is wrong for what they are doing, I'm just pointing out that this is the way to get above major, we all know it. You don't go joining public escalating singles games and make brig. You don't make brig by playing ass doodle. It just doesn't happen. Being able to get to general does show skill, but it doesn't neccesarily mean that you are more skilled than a colonel.

My goal is to become Conqueror without gaming the system or manipulating dice - I'll do it only through superior strategic and tactical skill. But randomness prevents me at the moment, so I propose the following suggestion to Lack:

This suggests some alternatives, one of which is to use the Axis and Allies game's method where one die is rolled for each attacking army piece and one for each defending piece. This would require more dice rolls during each attack and thus more random numbers, thus reducing the effects of lucky and unlucky streaks.

Lack, please consider adding another selection to the Start A Game form: "Intensity Cubes" with the options "Classic" (current system of 3 attack dice and 2 defense dice) and "One Per Army" (Axis and Allies system).

[pascalleke]

a cook bcs its easy to gain rank wenn ur at the bottom

[Joodoo]

So what am I trying to say here. Well mainly, its doesn't make sense to criticize how people get there points. Anyone who consistently maintains a rank above captain or colonel does at least one of these or something similar, so why criticize what method they use. The moment you start making private games because you can't get your points any higher in public games, then you are manipulating points.

I apologize to anyone who may be offended, I'm not saying anyone is wrong for what they are doing, I'm just pointing out that this is the way to get above major, we all know it. You don't go joining public escalating singles games and make brig. You don't make brig by playing ass doodle. It just doesn't happen. Being able to get to general does show skill, but it doesn't neccesarily mean that you are more skilled than a colonel.

My goal is to become Conqueror without gaming the system or manipulating dice - I'll do it only through superior strategic and tactical skill. But randomness prevents me at the moment, so I propose the following suggestion to Lack:

This suggests some alternatives, one of which is to use the Axis and Allies game's method where one die is rolled for each attacking army piece and one for each defending piece. This would require more dice rolls during each attack and thus more random numbers, thus reducing the effects of lucky and unlucky streaks.

Lack, please consider adding another selection to the Start A Game form: "Intensity Cubes" with the options "Classic" (current system of 3 attack dice and 2 defense dice) and "One Per Army" (Axis and Allies system).

thebest217 is one of the few players in my opinion who managed to achieve the title of "Conqueror" without being cheap.

[Commander9]

Okay... in a site where everything is pointless, other pointless aspects such as signatures and the point system look at medals and say "Wow, he makes the Kardashians' contribution to society seem valuable."

+1

When I lose, it's the dice.
When I win, it's skill.

I'd usually it's vice-versa for me


I won't contribute anything new to the discussion, except another meaningless word - Major.

[Mr Changsha]

It is pretty much a matter of perspective. Upon joining the site, captains seem like very big fish indeed. Once you've reached colonel or higher then major seems just like par.

At this point, I see players who are capable of having 2500+ in perpetuity, while playing solid opposition, as 'good'. If one is unable to to reach 2,000 points even with preferred game styles then one must reluctantly conclude that those players are 'not good'.

Therefore, a major is quite good and no more than that. Once a major hits the 2,300+ level and can maintain it (for I have always considered a bouncing rank to lack legitimacy) then I would consider them to be good enough.

Therefore, breaking on to the first page is good, while 2700-3100 or so is very good and beyond that any player who is within the top 50, or has ever been there, must be considered to be excellent.

[Army of GOD]

That's Army of GOD, 1, Highlander, 0.

Current score is:

Army of God, 5, Highlander, -1.

[john9blue]

if you play a variety of game styles: any officer ranking

if you play primarily one game type: major/colonel (depending on how much you're gaming the system)