@Konijntje, the optimum strategy gets a lot more complicated than you’ve made it.
…which might be the strongest argument against this proposal: it’s more complicated than it would be desirable for a simple game with good graphics that people can enjoy without having to think a lot.
Why would the whole game need to be “without having to think a lot”? Why would that be a good thing? There are plenty of mindless things to do (maps, easy quests) and quite a few that require a few brain cells moving in the same direction (raids, titans, hard quests), and then a few things that require some actual thought and planning - events and AW.
Maybe not the whole game, but I guess AW needs to function with less thinking. Here’s what makes me wonder: why was there a need to kill the 1* hero defenses (talking about the changes announced on Beta: five heroes required for defense teams and bonus points of at least 20)? Either the 1* hero defense works sometimes (with variations like a single 2* hero, or a single 3* hero, or three 1* heroes, etc.) and in that case it adds to strategy and probably shouldn’t be killed, or it never worked but a lot of players thought it did, which means a lot of players (and alliances as a whole) were incorrect (in stronger words, a lot of players failed at the thinking part).
It needed to be dis-allowed because it simply wasn’t fun. Who wants to have to waste a flag attacking something you know you’re going to kill with one gem match? And especially since it would end up being the lower tiered players in the alliance doing it, (assuming a competent matching) you’re taking away suitable matchups for the lower end of the other alliance. It was simply abusing game mechanics in a manner that wasn’t meant to be played, because when you code a game, you can’t literally think of every possibility.
Yes, ofcourse it is more compicated, and it changes for every opponent (which is the case now already), but still, one-shotting will give more points and I don’t like that part for the strategy, because it does leave the strongest opponents for the weakest members mostly.
I think for most alliances there is enough strategy involved already too. And the 1 hero defense works sometimes because people don’t read up about the point system, so making the points more complicated might not be a great idea either.
It is not that I dislike the idea, because I think it would be fun maybe for the top alliances, but for the average alliance and player it wouldn’t, because of the points I made.
At this point replying just because it seems polite:
@Dante2377 you didn’t tell if it was helpful (as in score) for the alliance doing it. If it was (that’s kind of how I’d interpret your answer, but not sure), even if it’s not what SG originally had in mind, then it added to strategy and if the game is supposed to be about “brain cells moving in the same direction” then it shouldn’t be dis-allowed. From what I’m seeing the game is not supposed about that many brain cells moving in the same direction – some, but not too many. 
@Konijntje so you’re more worried about the non-cooperative players. Okay, but they would only able to kill the easy targets only if they’re also more active. So, maybe, it’s not all bad if the more active players get to have more fun? Regarding “fun maybe for the top alliances” but not others – I don’t know, in the top alliances there’s a smaller gap between the strongest and the weakest defense. Seems easier to find targets that you can one-shoot when you’re not in a top alliance (provided you’re online at the right time).
Just because something is possibly “strategic” doesn’t mean it’s good for the game. one thing all game designers are wary of is allowing people to actually play their game a bit.
In Magic the gathering, when prison decks (decks which lock out opponents resources and don’t allow them to play any cards) start putting down consistent turn 1 or turn 2 locks, they get nerfed because no one wants to play in a tournament and not get to even play your cards simply because they lost the die roll and didn’t go first and no one wants to watch that either.
Throwing out one hero or all one star teams deprives the opponent of getting to play against real defenses for all their hits. Thus, whether it’s “strategic” or not, it’s simply not fun.
Not sure where you got this part. I am not worried about the non-cooperating players? I was saying that with your proposal it would make more sense to go for the targets that you can one-shot, leaving the hardest targets for the rest. No idea what cooperating players have to do with this. In my alliance we work pretty well together, the less developed players can try the easier targets for themselves or mop up on the tougher targets, this is a strategy we all like, but wouldn’t give the most points in your system. So, not fun!
In the next part you make the same point:
Yes, it is very easy to find targets I can one-shot, but I would be taking away those targets from other members, so instead of going for those targets, I pick targets like @havok333 that are a challenge 
.
Again: what you propose takes all the fun from the less developed players, because the fun strategy, that now gives good scores, won’t then, because it will be about one-shotting the most targets.