5 battles max in war

I’m really liking only 5 battles this war. Most everyone is easily doing their rounds and I can enjoy life a little easier. I don’t have to plan life around this game. I hope Flare has more wars like this or makes 5 rounds permanent.

Flare must to change the number of battles in all wars to make all players enjoy Wars (5 battles for the less active and 12 for the crazy ?)

When I beat 3 times, I curently stop because other battles give not more skulls so the Battle number is not to important I think.

5 battles for round is really very good, 5 100% is impegnative but possible and with champions of war they are only 15, more good for who has family / work… Fight all battles is possible so

This is why Champion is for.

you select champion & get 15 turns of attacking.

I’m happy with 5 raids per battle, I don’t have to spend a lot of time raiding :slight_smile:  

It’s good too waste time in raiding then seeing some one whom you don’t like to see.

Hehe you sound like you use RR2 to escape from someone’s presence :stuck_out_tongue:  

Advantage - You spend less food.

Disadvantage - Cramped. You fail 2 raids, no choice but to attack easier players thereby generating less skulls. Also, you earn less skulls for rewards.

Each season should be unique and different.

Try playing up side down

Might be…

It’s more about everyone being able to easily do all rounds. To many people can’t always do 10 rounds, especially if you’re fighting 4 or 5 fiefdoms in one day. A lot of good players have to be kicked because of this. Rules like 3/10 battles each in higher alliance will get you eliminate form the map. Flare need to understand that people have lives outside this game. 5 battles is easy to do and will result in less recruitment and less people quiting.

True. Well I still have to do like 30 battles a day without the farm boost.

5 battles is fine, 6 would also be alright. 10 is just too much if you have 3+ battles on a working day. So I would welcome 5-6 battles every season.

+1. It’s not taxing. Moreover, you can concentrate on other things. The battle in most cases does not give gold. So if the war battles are less, we can concentrate on regular matchmaking or search for players and hit. 


Does not matter, it is auto-adjusting screen. :stuck_out_tongue:  

You can also raid players first outside the war as a test. Only… he must be offline at that moment.

This has several advantages.

  • You can inspect the base so that you know what to expect, not many surprises
  • You can adapt your spells or troops to profit more from weaknesses of towers and defense waves
  • When the opponent is way too strong for you, you don’t waste a war raid.
  • When it’s a close call, you know that it might be smarter to pick another target and when it’s like a walk in the park you can raid him.

I don’t see any problems of 5 or 6 raids instead of 10.

An describes the problem also well, during war season I often get opponents giving no descent loot. with lesser raids we can concentrate also on gathering gold for upgrades. Now I have to empty my farms plus silo (and probably spend some vouchers when there are multiple wars at the same moment) for getting not even enough gold to buy something useless from granny. True, instead I get chests what compensate somewhat, but most important reason is time.

With 3+ wars at the same moment, most have to play 2+ hours on a row to do all war raids, there are days we don’t have the time for that due to work and family. It’s a game, it should not be extremely time consuming.

I do not have any problem with the idea.

Unfortunately, I don’t own the farmer perk. So cannot afford to test the opponent’s base.

As far as loot is concerned, it is supposed to be lower than average but I apart from getting about 975-1k skulls per raid, I’m getting 200k-300k loot. Since my alliance has a very hard map with 2 alliances with 60 members, when others just have 45. I believe that is unfair but I’m going off-topic. By the end of the day, I am having 5M gold. If you have an easy map you won’t get gold. I am level 82 player & I’m raiding lvl 90-95 players so I am getting good amount of gold. If you have easy opponents compared to your level, you won’t get gold.

Hi KKstar,

Farmer perk is handy indeed, but has nothing to do with it. When you have to do 5 raids instead of 10 you definitely can afford to raid outside the war season. Watch my words, “can afford”, you don’t have to, only opponents you are uncertain of are worth investing. When war seasons only have 5 raids per war, you could invest the remaining raids by inspecting bases of opponents or use them to get gold out there, a win-win situation.

Loot for 100+ players like me is always not that high for a war raid, it’s very rare to get 300k+ from an opponent, most times it’s 14k-, but that’s also due to the way we manipulate seasons as a team. We most times have doable wars due to our way of playing. We take only minimum fiefdoms required for winning the season (or being second when the team isn’t interested in first place).

The main mistake that most teams make, they win a season and win 4-5 fiefdoms. This is what happens when you win 5 fiefdoms next season (old algorithm):

  • Some teams 8 fiefdoms higher than your team.
  • Probably they have more members (otherwise they would not have had 8 more fiefdoms last season).
  • They lost 3 fiefdoms, you won 5
  • In league terms they were three divisions higher than you last season, now you have to face them which is totally unfair
  • Based on fiefdoms you could be connected to them

Now the new algorithm holds also reckon with other factors and when a team with more members but less fiefdoms than your team exists as alliance, the chance is that they are opponents of you next season. Don’t only reason from your team position, also from the opponents position. They are way too low based on fiefdoms, so they get more easy seasons to get back to the fiefdoms where they should belong faster. I don’t know if the algorithm holds reckon with alliance level, it should, since number of members is an important factor that influences winning/losing a war. I only know that the algorithm checks that almost every player is able to beat at least three opponents (read not the top of every team, nope also only the bottom three will do).

Is it fair for teams to be on their map? Nope, but it would also not be fair for them to be matched against the top teams time after time again. Those teams would be doomed to fall apart, since they lose most of their seasons plus members.

I read about the very hard map you currently face, it’s indeed to bad it happened. Outcome of the season is obvious, you stand no chance at all. So I would not invest time in that season, activate some offensive boosts and advice members to use it to collect gold out there to improve bases. 

With max 5 raids per war I easily raid more than 5M last weekend by only using bread of my farms. And because we didn’t have many wars at the same moment (2 max), I could easily put my lazy workers back to work.

Not complaining. Well, I must say that we are very lucky that we are still hanging on the map. Unfortunately, we are exactly in between those 2 alliances like a sandwich. I am proud of the effort of my alliance. Thanks to their effort, we are doing a lot of level ups.

I quote @Alysea from Update 2.2

Now Please, What is Player Activity?

If I for example take myself as example, I have been on vacation several weeks. So my activity has been very low during a couple of weeks. I started to fight this season so it would be in the advantage of my team if that’s part of the algorithm. It would even give some teams a nice option to use that to their advantage by manipulating player activity. Make a roulation system between fighting and non fighting players. Have some players in reserve (10) and let them not participate during a season. Let them fight next season and give others a break. This would definitely influence player activity in the advantage of a team.

Also, some team deliberately give up some seasons (only interested in boosts of one season) and members will not have that high activity also as a result of that. When you face them in a season where they are interested in, you could be in the situation you encounter now. When those given up war seasons also are included in the calculation, then indeed it’s no good and time for a change. Even an average of skulls scored will not do any good this way.

Your question is a good one KKStar, we don’t know what player activity means. Is it an overall average, or is it calculated over the last x couple of seasons or a different way?