War: defence teams and points: hero choice for conceding less / targeting for greater gains

edit: as shown below, the part of the premis of conceding less is flawed. However, given the lack of consistent correlation between team power and points awarded, if alliances are able to repeatedly target teams with low team power and high points awarded, they may be able to gain a significant number of points on net.

I haven’t yet seen a discussion on this, apologies if there already is, and please advise if there already is one.

What do you guys think? Is there a case for developing war defense teams that consist of a (potentially attacky type of) tank backed up by glass (or, more specifically, soft centred) cannons?

I’m asking this because, in war, points seem to be awarded not directly in proportion to team power but more specifically in proportion to the health points of fielded heroes. (I’m guessing that they do things this way to make things easier with the math/s).

I was curious to check how things worked so, during the last two wars, I conducted the following in-alliance survey:
Initial letters of members’ player names
Bonus points for victory (first war - 20 opted in)
/ Max Current available points (second war - 19 opted in)
Bonus points for victory (second war…)
Total health points (second war…)

4617 Ma 32 / 60 30 7919
4765 JG 31 / 59 30 7818
4682 wo 31 / 59 30 7783
4538 *M 31 / 58 29 7668
4608 T.I 30 / 56 28 7457
4582 Sp 30 / 56 28 7390
4236 Dr 30 / 56 28 7300
4104 Ra 29 / 55 28 7230
4352 Ju 29 / 54 27 7181
4376 pa - / 53 27 6934
4078 Ja 28 / 52 26 6903
4004 bu 27 / 52 26 6810
4193 Wa 27 / 51 26 6682
4089 .RE 26 / 50 25 6608
4063 Ge 27 / 51 25 6620
4057 Ru 27 / 50 25 6601
3622 De 26 / 49 25 3627
3263 6th 20 / 39 19 5010
3779 Il - 50 25 6605

With similarities to those drawn from the first war, here are some comparisons that I drew from the second war:
one alliance member’s defence team will concede 60+30 points for tp 4617 while another’s just 59+30 points for tp 4765 with a proportionate difference of, ((60+30)/4617)/((59+30)/4765), 4.3%.
one member’s defense team concedes 58+29 for tp 4538 while another’s just 56+28 points for tp 4608 with a proportionate difference of, ((58+29)/(4538)/((56+28)/(4608), 5.1%
one member’s defense team will concede 56+28 for tp 4236 while another’s just 54+27 for tp 4352 with a proportionate difference of, ((56+28)/(4236)/((54+27)/(4352), 6.5%;
one member’s team conceded 52+26 for tp 4078 while another’s just 50+25 points for tp 4089 and 26 with a proportionate difference of, ((52+26)/(4078)/((50+25)/(4089), 4.2%, or, according to first war relevant data, (28/4078)/(26/4089), 8%.
In consideration that most wars are won by small margins, the stats above look pretty significant and it seems to me that they may call for a slight paradigm shift. Instead of solely fielding teams that a difficult to kill, we may be better fielding teams that can provide the greatest possible defence for as practicably low number of health points as possible.

What are the practical implications on all this on teams to develop and to target?
Which heroes would best/better service a soft-centred glass cannon role by having proportionately great strength in attacks and shielding in relation to their health point totals?

The biggest problem here is that the total amount of points is fix. It’s around 1500 per side with some small rounding errors.

So if one player tries to have small health heroes this team will be worth less points but some others will be worth more.

If everybody uses class canons instead of hp monsters all the teams will be worth the same points again like with a lot of HPs.

So you shouldn’t try to aim for least hp but just for the best team. Doesn’t matter if it’s worth more points than some others if it’s hard to beat.


This is exactly what I wanted to mention. You also do a great job throwing in the additional caveats that come with war.

Essentially you won’t gain an advantage from doing this. Worst case scenario is something with only high health heroes that aren’t actually that good. That’s a soft target with a lot of points.


I am trying to understand something, how the team points are giving?
TP 4135 gives 38+19
TP 3721 gives 39+20

My consideration was along the lines of: “…alliance member’s defence team will concede 60+30 points for tp 4617”.
Wiping out the team would concede those points but only after the team had been defeated.
At this stage it’s a moot point

Because TP is irrelevant during war, exactly as during everything else in the game.

Both sides are worth 1500 points.
Those points are divided into 1000 points for the teams and 500 bonus for the kill.
Both sides put heroes on the field and troops. The combined hp (health) from troops and hero is what matters for the points you are worth, always rounded up.

The more hp one team has compared to someone else the more points it will give.

Here an example:

Two teams, one with total 10 000 Hp (team 1) and one team with a total of 5 000 hp (team 2).
So now you have a total of 15 000 hp on your side.
Divide the 1000 points through 15 000 and you get 1 hp is worth 0.066666 points.
And 500 points through 15 000 for the kill bonus gives you 0.033333 points/Hp.

So the 10 000hp team will be 10 0000.066666= 666.6≈667 points and 10 0000.3333= 333.3≈334 bonus points for the kill.

The 5 000hp team will be 5 0000.06666= 333.3≈334 points and 5 0000.03333= 166.6 ≈167 bonus points for the kill.

In total you can see the whole side is worth 667+334 =1001(team 1) points and 334+167=501(team2) points and total 1502 points.

There you have the small rounding error 1502>1500 you can see in wars.

1 Like

The premis remains that if alliances can repeatedly defeat teams that give a relatively high reward of available + bonus points in relation to a relatively low team power then the alliance may still make substantial gains.
All an alliance needs to do is to start by targetting teams whose main asset is their health points and then wait for the respawn of those teams to allow them to be hit again. By my reconning hitting high health teams may be at least 5% more profitable than hitting teams whose greater assets relate to their attack potentials, shielding and other abilities.

Cookie Settings