It's up to you since it's your ranking, but really if you include the Mini-NWWC in this ranking then you should have the NWEC "Pilot". It's described as a "Pilot" but it had plenty of teams in it and a really high level of competition, more so in my opinion than the Mini-NWWC. The real 'tester' happened before it in 2011, during Mount & Musket, the only reason it was called a "Pilot" was because Napoleonic Wars was a new game and it was the first time larger squads were being used. The tournament actually worked like any other NWEC or NWWC tournament.
Yeah I totally agree , we had most of the european countries attending it .
I got mixed feelings about this. Having people attending the tournament back in 2011 really doesnt say anything about its level of competitiveness(is that even a word?) If you compare players today with players back then there's a very big difference skillwise. With that being said I think I see your point, all tournaments should count towards the ranking however I still think you're opinion about the m-nwwc is a bit too dismissive. Im just curious as too why you want to deminish the importance of it?
The 5v5 format sure doesn't make it less competitive, the fact it didnt have a groupstage didnt mean much in the end anyway except from saving us some time and effort and the players are more skilled today than they were back in 2011 also players not participating due whatever reasons is just part of life, ppl are busy with life, retire or move on. With that being said the m-nwwc(the most recent tournament) should, if anything, be more accurate and just as important than any of the old ones. Thoughts?
Who won the first 2?
I believe that would be the UK and The Netherlands but Im not 100% sure. The memory is starting to fail this old man
