Forums / Questions and Answers / Most Fearsome Ruler

I have a Q about this. I saw it a while ago but couldn't really be bothered to ask about it.
Why is it seperated on each world by the amount of troops killed when it comes to position in the top 10 BUT, then why does it still say the same amount of troops killed and etc. For example:

Fant
1. Sir Perkunas has won 98 battles, captured 71 cities and killed a total of 552167 men and women.
Zeta
1. Sir Perkunas has won 98 battles, captured 71 cities and killed a total of 552167 men and women.

Or again:
Mant
Mr. Sleepyhead has won 68 battles, captured 41 cities and killed a total of 185315 men and women.
Starta
Mr. Sleepyhead has won 68 battles, captured 41 cities and killed a total of 185315 men and women.

Now, they haven't killed the exact same amount on each world. That was be crazy luck.

So why does is the kill-count not seperate, but the rank on the world is?

Can I ask why? Shouldn't a seperate kill count be in order? :P

...unless you killed a lot of people on another land and everyone was like "Oh mah gawd, its Wilbernub from Fantasia! He is gonna keel us all!"

That table has it all wrong! :-(

All worlds
1. Sir Sean Connery has won all battles, captured every city and is quite capable of killing all men and women.

Zeta
2. Sir Perkunas has won 98 battles, captured 71 cities and killed a total of 552167 men and women.

LMAO

Another thing why does killed 1k Nazguls count the same as killing 1k farmers?

yeah nazgul are farmers in disguise, just tell your troops that and you'll be fine.

shh marius... its my secret tactic for next era ;)

ty :D