Do war strategies really matter?
If, like titans or raids, you get matched based on your win-loss record, wins will increase your score, which will give you harder enemies, and facing harder enemies doesn’t count as any advantage, you don’t get better loot from beating a harder enemy, it just gets you another harder enemy, increasing your likelihood of losing. If you lose, your score goes down, you face an easier enemy, you win, increasing the difficulty of your next opponent. And either way, your alliance eventually balances out to a buoyancy point over a long pattern of wins and losses. Just like each alliance rather easily figures out what size titan they can repeatedly beat but can’t beat the next size up, so they find their buoyancy point. Same with raids, essentially, but that’s a bit more volatile, but you get the idea, your trophy count is roughly representative of your strength, and the higher you go the more likely it is you’ll lose and return to the same point, more or less.
So isn’t one war strategy as good as another? Having a good war strategy just means you have a higher buoyancy point, but you’ll still ultimately average out to 50/50 wins (yes, there will be streaks, but that’s more a probability thing, like flipping a coin). So might as well have no strategy, face less difficult opponents, still ultimately average out to 50/50 wins, but not be confined to a strategy.
Now all that makes sense, except, I have to admit, I’m assuming that war matchmaking is based, at least in large part, on the win-loss ratio. I know roster is part of the formula as well (which is fairly static with a little bit of fluctuation as players continue to improve their roster; but they’re really just very slightly improving the average of their top 30, as their new heroes get slightly better stats for the matchmaking formula than the hero that they knock out of the top-30 ranking for the formula, as I understand it to be).