Originally Posted by
MrScribbler
Ok, I recognize you're trying to do an experiment here, and I'm sorry that it won't work because nobody wants to risk losing a war for the sake of some random forumer. However, you make some points that, while interesting if true, are unfortunately false. These, rather than the experiment, are what I'd like to discuss.
First off, you assume that all non-donation exp is equal in terms of how much damage you can do to a base. It's not, and in fact it is so far away from being equal that it destroys the entire premise of your hypothesis (this was touched upon in an earlier comment). Take, for example, a maxed th 10 with a level 1 spell factory versus a th 10 maxed except for archer towers and cannons, but with a level 5 spell factory and all spells maxed. These people would have roughly the same "True Exp" (if they don't, add wiz towers/mortars/whatever to the list, it's not important) but the person with the level 5 spell factory would be miles ahead of the other one, able to do at least 20% more damage to the same base.
While I admit this is an extreme example, it is still applicable. There are other th 10s in my clan who are relatively close to me in terms of "True labrotory," but either don't have level 5 spell factories or have low-level freeze spells. They, frankly, get destroyed by infernos, meaning that a base I could easily 2-star would be nearly impossible for them to get within 5 tiles of the th on. If you would like more reasons why "True Exp" is a bad way to measure attacking skill, I have plenty, but I'd like to move on to your war strategy.
That strategy, that people should attack the toughest bases they can 3-star, makes it seem like you've never been in a clan war. Let's take a second to think about a clan in a war with Quantum's Web. Guess there wouldn't be a whole lot of attacking going on in that one. Since I realize you're not really talking to the top clans, I'll use my own, populated mostly by people from level 70-105 (yes, I'm not in that range, I said mostly).
We do 40-on-40 or 45-on-45 wars, and our stars range from the low 70s to the mid 80s (we war once a week, with near-universal participation). Having watched attack after attack by my clanmates, I think I am now a pretty good judge of what they can and can't do, and our stars per war have been trending upwards. I assign my members to targets, looking for bases I think they can 2-star (and reassign and reassign, it does get a little tedious but it helps the clan), but towards the end of the war, I often ask people with attacks remaining to do exactly what you say: 3-star the toughest base they can.
The results (which may or may not help you in your study) are rather disappointing: some people are spot on, others take targets that are too easy and 3-star in 2 minutes, and others sometimes fail to even get 2? Do I get mad at them? Not really, because it's insanely difficult to predict what will happen in an attack before you make it. Hidden teslas, spring traps, finger slips, troops attacking walls for no reason: any number of things can happen, and many of them are out of your control.
Why is my method better, you might ask? First, while I allow feedback on targets, I'm a fairly objective observer, and can offer an outsider's perspective on people's abilities. This, when combined with people's knowledge of their own skills, is a valuable tool. Second, I can coordinate: sure, player X can 2-star this base, but so can player Y, who is a weaker attacker in general but uses a troop combo that would work great on the base in question. Finally, 2 stars is really a sweet spot: there's plenty of room for error, but my clan can still rack up stars on 85-90% on enemy bases, and still have attacks left over for the 3rd star on a few bases (not to mention the members that go above and beyond on the first attack on the base). Is it the best strategy possible? Does it win ever war? Of course not, but it's better than a go-for-everything free-for-all.