Did war coordination once whiling drinking with another coleader. Worked out well actually.
Yeah UFOs have great WiFi but you can only connect to Galactic Empire and Asteroids a cheap copy of E&P
3 Likes
Maybe they forgot their towel? 
2 Likes
I have top score in that game
1 Like
I had no idea this was even a strategy 
I can’t see us as an alliance deciding we want to try to game the system like this. We like the matchmaking, and feel like we get good competitive wars 
The only reason I can think of why we might just take a Loss ‘on purpose’ is if for some reason a bunch of alliance members weren’t gonna be able to participate or something. (I’m thinking holidays). We could just have everyone opt out though. So doubt we would even do it in that sorta circumstance
2 Likes
I didn’t think it was a strategy either, but I’ve had enough opponents lose against us when they easily could have beaten us, I was just wondering if this was a “thing”, or if they were just being lazy/sloppy or something.
I’m just wondering at what point you decide to lose… I’m picturing 2 alliances deciding at the start to throw the match and then competing for the lowest score 
Also people that don’t even use one flag are cutting down their war chest participation % so I just don’t get it 
2 Likes
The only way I see this working is really to create a new alliance every so often. There are still disadvantages though and I’m not convinced it’s worth it.
1 Like
LOL yeah I don’t get it either… my alliance has won 3 wars in a row now against all higher level opponents…
The first team actually tried to win, but unfortunately for them, their backup benches were pretty wimpy compared to their main defense teams.
The second team sort of tried, but left some flags behind.
The last team we fought could have beat us with their arms tied behind their backs. It seems like they not only tied their arms behind their backs, but also their legs, and then proceeded to shove their heads up their… uh well basically it almost looked like they threw the war on purpose. Which was cool for us, we weren’t expecting to win at all. 
2 Likes
No loss on purpose, but I’ve been accused of trying to encourage it.
I don’t really care about wars, however when I’ve opted in, i’m as serious about it as the next competitive player. I’ve a love/hate relationship with it. Mainly because of Battle Aids<<< the latter word gives it so much more meaning.
Nevertheless, I really really have been trying to get everyone to tank Kash or Boril, just once for S&G’s. But, sadly I’m continually rejected and if they could throw sticks and stones at me, I’m sure they would.
1 Like
If you’re going to go mono tank, I’d go with Boril over Kash. Blue tanks are really annoying, since the majority of green heroes don’t tend to be all that powerful offensively (some exceptions of course, but greens are usually more support-oriented). Kash can be annoying too, but green tanks are usually much easier to bust.
1 Like
Nope, absolutely not. We rise to the challenge or die trying.
2 Likes
Never ever would we lose on purpose!
My friends started a new alliance and although war matching was not favourable for our opposition (We won by 4k 
), they still used most of their flags.
1 Like
That makes no sense. If they win the war, they start the next chest at 4 points. Losing to fill up the chest faster doesn’t work. Basically, you’re forcing yourself to lose even though the matching system will eventually cause you to match to a stronger alliance once you start winning. I mean what’s the thought process? We win 2, deliberately lose 1, then win 2, deliberately lose 1, etc. It would take 6 wars if you are lucky. But likely 7 or 8 because there is no guarantee you will win the “guarantee” win matchups.
1 Like
The theory I’m working off of is also based on W/L margin. I theorize that matchups don’t only take into account W/L ratio and hero/troop strength, but also the margins and participation levels with which you win or lose wars and match you against people who have similar stats. IT’S A THEORY and one I have not tested because of above comments. But if you lose and score 3k, I bet you get matched with a team that commonly scores 3k with every flag used. If you win and score 4k, I bet you get matched with a team that scores 4k with a percentage of participation. If you commonly let 6-12 flags sit on the table, I bet you get matched with teams that do the same. So the idea would be to lose scoring 3k with all flags used (intentionally losing) so you would get matched with a team that scores 3k with all flags used, because on average, your team scores 4k with all flags used. Then you slowly increase the win margin so you keep matching against alliances who’s best scores at full participation is below your alliance’s average score with full participation so you can fill the next war chest as W-W-W-L-L-W-W instead of (80% of last W)-L-L-W-W-L-L-W-W or hypothetically 7 wars instead of 8. But again, it’s all just a theory.
DID I MENTION THIS WAS AN UNTESTED THEORY. It’s also probably full of fallacies, but this was my thought process when I made my above post. A thought puzzle my husband and I have played around with a few times.
I like theories. Let me know what you find out!
My alliance almost always uses every flag, so I won’t be able to test it myself.
1 Like