It seems to me there is a person on this forum who can’t imagine a thread without having the last word.
Since we were talking about our alliance, I will allow myself a small digression that refers to the issue under discussion.
We, most likely, would not have lost even the last war against IRONHAND if it was not for the betrayal.
A week before the war, a new member entered the alliance. When after tough campaign we were going to take away the island, that guy betrayed us. He grabbed his chests and just left for the enemy’s alliance. The story is dirty because the enemy’s alliance is of “Invite only” type.
By the way, the traitor’s nickname - paradox0413 - and he still remains there. You’d rather remember him - who knows what other alliance he will join in the future :
It is worth saying that despite the disgusting situation, I consider the possibility of such gaming moments a good thing. It brings funny drama to the game without a plot.
I am telling you this only to confirm my moral right to assert that IRONHAND played badly. Having 28 active players (5 of them > 130 lvl), the team could not take a single torch from us. There were only 9 of us with 118 level the highest. Moreover, in order not to lose the island, they took such a dirty step as to invite the only member of the team with the option to get invite. It seems they were pretty scared… if this is not the norm for them.
Their manner of playing is a silly mass rush, without a clue about tactics and accurate internal maths of strikes.
All this is not off-topic! I am getting to the point.
So, Dumpster thinks that a small alliance should not have preferences in the choice of enemy of its weight class. Even if this alliance plays well and the overwhelming number of opponents becomes the ONLY reason for its loss. OK.
Then why a big, badly-performing alliance gets these preferences, even if its number becomes the ONLY reason for its victory?
Do you really see the logic of this question?
It happens because there is an opportunity to increase the number of alliance in the game, but there is no opportunity to get a fair opponent.
During three seasons (12 wars) we had only one enemy that was close to us by number. Therefore I started this thread because I doubted that this was a pure random.
Each our war turned into “300”. And this became rather tiresome for us.
There are no ideal games (probably). There are well-balanced games. The system of alliance wars (at least, in lower leagues) is entirely imbalanced in this game. Matchmaking is its weakest point.
If the system of leagues became a mechanism, which makes the players leak to the top, then the developers should do something to compensate this convection. And matchmaking that considers a number of players could be a good solution in this case. Even the simple checkbox “Skip the war” in the alliance control panel could be a solution for the teams that do not have enough players for effective performance.
Finally, I’ll say why some tips given in the comments above are superficial.
First, a blind recruiting of players can bring to the situation like the one I described with paradox0413.
Secondly, somebody does not increase the number of alliance simply because of being introverts like us.
Thirdly, no one is going to leave our alliance – our decision is to freeze the alliance – to become inactive one by one and log in just to avoid auto-kick and not to participate in war.
After a while, if there are changes, we will come back.
If the system of rat race remains the same – we have a lot of other games to play together online.
And I think there is no sense to continue the discussion here. If somebody wants to be really useful and knows this forum well - he can share his opinion in the thread tracked by the developers.