We recently learnt that setting up a very weak defense team – just 1 very weak hero – for the half of our alliance (usually for the players that don’t have very strong teams), will result in the opposing alliance consuming their war flags with strong teams and getting just 8 points per defeated team. Meanwhile, we are fully attack them and every defeated team we get at least 80 points.
We won 2 wars like this.
As much as this can be considered a tactic, this seems to be a game flaw.
So, developers, please be aware,
It is a poor tactic and you faced alliances wth no strategy
While they got few points for your lower teams, they could kill with unlevelled heros and only use 1 flag, saving flags and strong heros for your defenses that were worth over a hundred points
Well, few of them did that.
But when they started to attack strong teams they couldn’t take down more than 4 out of 15 in the first war and just 1 out of 15 in the second war.
We won with a gap of ~2500 points.
We had a entire one hero defence alliance. We won that war by 39,000 points. We are currently at war with an alliance trying to use Fabian’s suggested tactic. We are 6 hours in and so far are 2000 points up.
It does not work. Why on earth do people keep thinking they can restrict the oppositions points scoring activity to try and gain an advantage.
It is a dominated strategy and you should never play with a dominated strategy…
We broke our 27 member team into 3 units of 9. 27 attacks. Each unit had 5 bottom ranked and 4 mid to top ranked players in them. The opposition have 27 members doing a Fabian defence. Our first unit killed all the opposition, causing a respawn for the next unit to attack. In the first unit we used our 2 weakest teams and second best team to attack. Unit one got the respawn done within 3 hours. So now unit two is attacking the respawned defenders.
So for the second half of the war, we will be attacking with our best, 3rd and 4th teams. We should score as well in the second half.
This has been discussed dozens of times in the forum, yet players continue to post about the tactic as if it has some chance of success.
Thank you for providing a patient, clear, comprehensive explanation of how to thrash this dumb defence, with screenshots. It’s not rocket science but some still seem to find it hard to grasp. From now on I’ll just point them to your posts on this thread for the answer and an end to the conversation.
Really, it don’t works. You and your alliance probably win the same even putting all of you your best defence on the line (i say “probably” because every raid is a small lottery).
You and all the people that try this kind of things put so much effort in something that’s really simple:
Put your best team on the table
Talk to your comrades an plan how to attack
Plan how to use your deck
See how the war proceed and talk again
If you both win or loose, have fun and try to learn from your mistakes
You guys are really try to cook a really good lobster with some strange recipe.
Put that thing in the pot and boil it, the flavour is already good.
6000 point win against a Fabian defence.
I find it very hard to believe that the OP won two wars using it.
Single hero defence is the kiss of death to your alliance in war…
Here is the picture of our winning margin ( there were 30 minutes left)…
My alliance is currently facing one such defence. I thought those were a thing of the past… Needless to say, we are currently winning by about 7000 points.
My alliance faced an alliance with a variant on the Fabian* strategy: they had only their 8 or so weakest teams field a 2 hero, 3 hero or 4 hero defence.
Like with the full Fabian* strategy this also allocates more points to the more powerful teams. A bit less pronounced but still. And likewise this appears attractive at first glance. However, needless to say we defeated them easily.
Our alliance (full defence): 3.378 points out of 123 attacks.
Their alliance (partial Fabian*): 2.732 out of 116 attacks.
Compensating for our 7 attacks more than them still makes us win with 448 more points.
Our attacks were worth 27,5 points each on average. Their attacks were worth 23,5 points each on average. This is where the difference is made: the point shift because of the partial Fabian* strategy allowed us to score more points per average for each attack.
What was your total team power compared to theirs?
Last war we had 64,000 total team power matched against 79,000.
Average player power 2350 compared to 2888.
When you guys provide qualitative rationale for why Fabian doesn’t work, you never seem to include one of the most important indicators of Team effectiveness. (I said “one of” ! I know it isn’t the only!)
So, please take the time to include this in the future.
And @Petri - how about making our lives a little easier and providing this number somewhere ??
Edit; I’m not sure if Fabian works at all or not. I’m guessing it doesn’t but really not sure. The matching and other variables seems like too big of a barrier to really properly assess the effectivenss of a partial Fabian working.
Total alliance team power is not a publicly available metric. Total alliance war defensive power is publicly available (and this seems to be what you are quoting), but that will often be extremely misleading (exponentially so when a Fabian strategy of any kind is used, but also more pronouncedly so when certain other genuinely effective strategies are used).
One of my alliance mates alternate accounts alliance did a partial 1* team in their war (meaning the weaker teams did this and the stronger teams did not - he vocally was against it). They ended up winning, albeit by less than 100 points, and even then, it’s probably because the other team wasted attacks on the singular 1* team vs. attacking the ones that mattered.
I To calculate this I looked at each player’s current defense Team from their main alliance page.
That there is margin for error is accurate, but I do believe it is a strong indicator of expected outcome. Especially with equivalent activity from both sides.
If you disagree that’s fair. But I don’t see how it would hurt the discussion to have this number included. I think it would be valuable to consider the effect of this proposed “strategy” within the context of relative team power. At minimum, I don’t see what it can hurt to look at it from this perspective.
I agree that it would provide an additional data point, which could be useful. But there’s a real danger of being badly misled by it.
We already know that the two alliances have near identical Titan scores. If one has a higher score for their aggregate raid defence teams’ power, then the most likely (though not sole possible) reason for the match is that their benches are markedly weaker than their opponents’.
We can’t measure this in any way, but it’s an offsetting factor that ought always to be taken into account. And when one thing is measurable and another, arguably more important thing (for wars, anyway) cannot be measured, there’s a tendency to overweight the former and underweight the latter.
Moreover, of course, simply summing raid defence strength fails to account for intra-alliance strength distribution, a far more important factor than alliance aggregate strength, for wars. And we already know that these alliance fare equally well, more or less, where Titans are concerned.
So while more data points are usually good, this particular one has so little relevance to the considerations at hand, and such a high probability of being extremely misleading, that I wouldn’t waste my time with it. Any time it was used it would need to be caveated to death, so there’d not be much point to it.
