it seems like ww balance leaves no possibility to win a war when the odds are stacked against your alliance. I have only fought 20-30 ww' s so am no expert.
the way I understand scoring, stronger players can earn 10 stars by destroying 2 bases. Shouldn't it be that each player gets 2 attacks but only the best attack counts for scoring, seems like this would completely change the dynamics of ww play and allow strategy to help determine the ww winner. Allowing a player to score on both attacks allows a team that has a super strong top half to add a few Iron Age bases to lower their average and get matched with wars they are guaranteed to win. The top half determines the outcome since they each can attack twice and have both battles count for scoring, the bottom half can do nothing but get wiped out by strong players. It seems like a simple change that would allow a balanced team to use attack strategy to actually beat a stronger opponent.
I am near the the bottom of my alliance 108 gunpowder age, I can hold off similar ranked opponents to 2-3 stars, which is awesome but then am wiped out by a high ranking opponent who then has two 5 star wins, they gain 10 stars from each strong player and the bottom half of the roster has all of their efforts erased and doesn't get to contribute at all.
please help me clarify my understanding of ww and why it is the way it is. As I see it, it is completely unfair to lower ranked players and the deck is stacked so much that a strong top half is all you need to win, no strategy, no planning needed, just add an Iron Age or two and climb the leader board.
If only one of your ww battles counted toward the win score then a stronger bottom half could contribute and turn the tide of war in their favor by fighting hard and using strategy.
As it is now strategy plays zero role in determining the winner. Unless of course a 51 level Iron Age base is a stratagy and not a average lowering 'cheat'.
Or am I missing something and understand wrong?
the way I understand scoring, stronger players can earn 10 stars by destroying 2 bases. Shouldn't it be that each player gets 2 attacks but only the best attack counts for scoring, seems like this would completely change the dynamics of ww play and allow strategy to help determine the ww winner. Allowing a player to score on both attacks allows a team that has a super strong top half to add a few Iron Age bases to lower their average and get matched with wars they are guaranteed to win. The top half determines the outcome since they each can attack twice and have both battles count for scoring, the bottom half can do nothing but get wiped out by strong players. It seems like a simple change that would allow a balanced team to use attack strategy to actually beat a stronger opponent.
I am near the the bottom of my alliance 108 gunpowder age, I can hold off similar ranked opponents to 2-3 stars, which is awesome but then am wiped out by a high ranking opponent who then has two 5 star wins, they gain 10 stars from each strong player and the bottom half of the roster has all of their efforts erased and doesn't get to contribute at all.
please help me clarify my understanding of ww and why it is the way it is. As I see it, it is completely unfair to lower ranked players and the deck is stacked so much that a strong top half is all you need to win, no strategy, no planning needed, just add an Iron Age or two and climb the leader board.
If only one of your ww battles counted toward the win score then a stronger bottom half could contribute and turn the tide of war in their favor by fighting hard and using strategy.
As it is now strategy plays zero role in determining the winner. Unless of course a 51 level Iron Age base is a stratagy and not a average lowering 'cheat'.
Or am I missing something and understand wrong?
