Please correct war matching

The matching algorithm solely based on fiefdoms is not fair with several alliances.

Smaller alliances can not win, and players loose interest in wars, since one can predict from the very beginning the outcome.

Our matching at present (alliance rank/number of players):







Please adjust the matching in order to allow smaller alliances to have a fair war, where the fiefdoms are won by fair fights and not overwhelming player numbers.

Hun I agree with you, but I think the problem is probably an issue with the alliances themselves. What I guess ‘should’ have happened over time is the alliances with less players would lose season after season until they get together in wars with other alliances of similar size and fiefdoms. However with a lot of jumping between alliances and some stronger alliances taking seasons out or weaker alliances enlisting strong troops for a season the ‘natural’ adjustment hasn’t happened for some reason.

I always said that the match should be by the number of members and the defensive lvl. Matching by fiefdoms is insane.

Members won’t work as you will find alliances will just close down pre war to only strong members, some poor little 40 member alliance might find themselves against a 40 member all max alliance, defensive level is unworkable as again as it can be changed just before a season starts to look weak. Similar to what some alliances already do out of season when they drop membership (and rank) to avoid hard wars.

Still the number of players should somehow be taken into account. Presuming we have only active players, all let’s say 70+, an alliance with 8 extra members will be winning granted.

The system will look for your defensive lvl at best, not only the towers placed in the base, but the LVL of the hero, LVL of spells and lvl of troops (this is how it works in clash of clans, and it’s very fair).

War seasons based on fiefdoms are indeed the reason why war seasons are (sometimes) very unfair. You can win five fiefdoms during a season and just because you were ‘unsmart’ to do so, next season you could be punished just for winning.


You take the risk of being grouped together with teams way stronger than your team can handle. An example, team A has 30 fiefdoms and team B has 38 fiefdoms. Team A wins 5 fiefdoms and Team B loses three. Next season they could be matched against each other. Normally TeamB will have more and stronger members, unless players left the team. In normal situations Team A will stand no chance at all. Is that fair? Nope.


The current war map also is far from being ideal. Two alliances are located in the centre of the map and four at the border. There are a few scenarios. When a team in the centre is obvious the strongest, that team can cut the map in half. Remaining of the season will be very boring, they decide who is fortunate enough to get second or third place. When a team in the centre isn’t the strongest, they are in deep trouble. They can bet that first days of the wars they will have three/four wars simultaniously and even when they manage to win them all, they can be certain other teams still will go for them sooner or later, just because of the loser bonus that gives the teams in the corner the chance to beat them later.


That’s why I suggested another aproach, replace the war map by a competition with divisions instead. In division one the strongest alliance fight for big prices. There could be several divisions one to make sure teams not have to fight same alliances every new season. Work with promotion/demotion rules and after a few seasons teams will be in the division where they belong. When an alliance is growing and gets more members, they could promote. It has several advantages over this war season.


First of all, you will fight every team and not all at the same time. No more situations of teams having several fights at the same time, while others can relax and concentrate on one war. War doesn’t need to be declared, so you don’t need to stand up in the middle of the night (worst case) to declare a war, the match just starts automatically. Another advantage is that the skull loser bonus and skull reward are obsolete, no need for it any longer. And best is that the unfairness is decreasing. In theory you can be in the competition with teams that previously played two divisions higher, just because you promoted and they demoted and by letting them fight on day one, the team that promoted would have the advantage of war boosts.


But like I said, probably there is no one interested in a competition, due to the lack of responses in that topic where I suggested this.

War is always unfair


like said  : you win fiefs (because you win war and get boosts), if you then don’t have enough or strong troops to defend those extra fiefs you loose war (and those nice free boosts)


win some… loose some… it’s a game


the map sometimes gives you a scenario where the outcome seems pre destined, and sometimes it does not…


I sometimes get the impression that there are players that always want to win… if so, well there are some alliances to send your application to, be prepared to invest lots of real money though…


if you re not top 20, you ll always end up in a war where you 're the weakest… for whatever reason… I know people that then just try to make the best of it, have fun, learn and improve,…


I know that there are alliances that have 3 or 4 possible alliance groups, and that they always transfer their strongest players to whatever group that has the least fiefdoms to assure themselves of warboosts

It is not about winning or loosing, but rather about the way you do it. We all play the game since it is fun and wars make it even more exciting. Still in case you have a fair war where you win or loose because you or the opponent is better that is fine. If you loose only due to the simple fact that your team consists of 10 people, the other team of 60, that is unfair. If we would be getting credits for each individual fight (full credit, not only percents) that might change a bit the balance.