Clan War Coordination Experiment

Ok, listen, because there are a lot of people playing this game, and very few have seriously taken time to devise a mathematically and strategically sound way to organize your clan war.

First, the object of clan war is to get the most stars for your clan. Let's just get that out of the way. You have to think about what each person in your clan is capable of achieving realistically. Having an active clan leader and group of elders who understand the capabilities of each individual player, along with a good attack strategy will help immensely here. But, where a lot of people get tripped up is in the organization aspect. Leaders who are micromanaging battle by battle really don't need to do that. Since you will be dealing with human error, inactive members, and often times a diverse set of time zones and periods of clan activity, it DOES NOT MAKE SENSE TO ASSIGN YOUR PLAYERS TO OPPONENTS. A clan war is really a much more fluid thing, and you could be assigning and reassigning for 24 hours straight in order to squeeze the most stars out of the war. If one player has the time they will use two attacks in one sitting before another player can use his first attack. It's virtually impossible to find a clan who will so meticulously order their battles.

Don't sweat it. (phew!)

Here is what you do: if you are the clan leader, tell your clan to attack the most difficult bases they can attack while still getting 3-stars. A few variables come into play here, type of base, type of troop used to attack, and so on... but there is one tried and true way of measuring and comparing bases, and you want to use it when deciding which base to attack. Experience points.

EXP POINTS DON'T LIE. A player receives points when they become better in some way, and also with each donation. There are other ways to get EXP, but they become largely inconsequential especially in the higher levels. In the profile of each potential opponent in a clan war, you can see how much of this players EXP has come from simply donating. It's found in the "Friend in Need" achievement. Interesting math here: with each level you advance, getting to the next level will require 50 more experience points. You need to account for this when deciding which base to attack. This means that the higher your EXP, the more it will take to make it to the next level. (Pretty easy concept, right, but again we're just trying to keep our logic in front of us).What you're seeking to find is kind of a "true EXP", i.e. how good is this player in a real mathematical sense, and after you have found this number you need to compare it with your own "True EXP". This is the best way to decide which base to attack. The way to figure out any base's "True EXP" is as follows.

(EXP LEVEL x (EXP LEVEL - 1) x 25) - TOTAL DONATIONS

So, for instance, my exp level is 88. To find out my "true EXP", I multiply 88x87x25 , which is 191,400, then I subtract the number of troops I have donated , 25,300, from 191,400 which gives me a "True EXP" of 166,100.

Here's where I'd like to enlist your help with this science experiment. My gut is telling me, based on playing the game for over a year, that using an optimal attack scenario, i.e. one that is planned well and executed well, drawing out the clan castle and heros if needed, with premium troops (the best you have), and placing your spells correctly, a person should only attack bases that are somewhere between 30,000 and 50,000 below your own True EXP number. That, in theory should give you a base that is beatable but not too easy.

Ironically, the game itself has a system of recommending targets, which seems to be fairly similar in outcome when using this system. If you're looking for practical advice on how to orchestrate your clan's attack simply ATTACK THE BASE THAT THE GAME RECOMMENDS FOR YOU and you should be fine. I'm sure there is a more complex equation than this "true exp" equation that figures the recommended target for you. I'm not sure what it is, but it works just fine.

But for the sake of argument and (pseudo)science, please try this way out, report your results in the subsequent thread here, and let's get to understanding what makes a successful clan war. Just list your "True Exp", your opponent's "True Exp", and the outcome of the battle in stars and percentage. In the pursuit of pure data, this should be plenty of information to begin to find a way to easily coordinate your clan's next war.

Thanks and I hope to hear from a ton of you ! Suggestions on improving the experiment are welcome as well.

Happy Clashing!

You assume that every one perform the troops updates in the same order, and this is not true. Before the wars started I was focusing on farming - so my dark troops, especially hogs, were neglected. I used DE to upgrade BK so I entered the wars with lvl 1 hogs and lvl 1 dragons. I simply wasn't using those troops.
On the other hand constant research of farming troops + base updates placed me high on the experience and recommended list.
In short - experienced farmer is not the same as experienced pusher.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by antonka

You assume that every one perform the troops updates in the same order, and this is not true. Before the wars started I was focusing on farming - so my dark troops, especially hogs, were neglected. I used DE to upgrade BK so I entered the wars with lvl 1 hogs and lvl 1 dragons. I simply wasn't using those troops.
On the other hand constant research of farming troops + base updates placed me high on the experience and recommended list.
In short - experienced farmer is not the same as experienced pusher.

---

EXP is used here as a general measure of how good your base is. In short- it doesn't really matter what you did with your DE. We are testing this theory of EXP being the only number that matters when deciding who to attack. You can test it too, you also may contribute ideas to make this test more accurate. Thanks.

You make a number of good points here. You are right that the rankings for each clan factor in all buildings and researches so it would roughly equate to the true exp you are talking about. I would point out though that a couple of flaws here.
1- when it comes to attack only camps, heroes, cc, sf and research actually count, and skill of course.
2- for a successful team strategy you also need to consider other guys in your clan. Our wars are typically 20-20 and I rank about 15. On that basis I should be attacking someone at my own ranking. If no 20 is recommended I would ignore that as our no 20 also needs a target he has a chance at.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Syr1nax

You make a number of good points here. You are right that the rankings for each clan factor in all buildings and researches so it would roughly equate to the true exp you are talking about. I would point out though that a couple of flaws here.
1- when it comes to attack only camps, heroes, cc, sf and research actually count, and skill of course.
2- for a successful team strategy you also need to consider other guys in your clan. Our wars are typically 20-20 and I rank about 15. On that basis I should be attacking someone at my own ranking. If no 20 is recommended I would ignore that as our no 20 also needs a target he has a chance at.

---

Well you are very generous and probably a nice person. But really if the goal is to win the war, you should not worry about what your 20 th ranked player can or can't do. You have two attacks, and you should take as many stars as you can. Using EXP lvl of your potential opponent allows to get a fairly good idea of how good he or she really is. It works out usually that the top tier guys don't get attacked, and the bottom tier guys shouldn't waste the resources unless to try to find the traps for someone to later come in and clean up. Thanks for reading and offering some thoughts. Maybe give the method a try for the next war and tell me how it went.

As a slight modification to this formula. In order to not be working with such large numbers, which really isn't that big a deal, but numbers as big as 166,000 aren't really easy to work with. You can convert that "True Exp" back into an experience lvl number like this:

My exp lvl is 88.
So I would take 88x87x25=191,400

then I subtract from that my total donations: 191,400 - 25,300= 166,100

Then I work backwards. Dividing by 25: 166,100 / 25 = 6,644

And taking the square root of that number: square root of 6,644 is 81.5 etc.. or just 81.

81 is my true experience lvl.

Now figure out your opponent's true lvl and
Attack bases that are somewhere between 12-15 true exp lvl beneath your own.


Give it a try and give me some data. Thanks

I have lead my clan for about 11 wars. We only war on weekends, due to members busy work during weekdays. Maybe it is not a good sampling number, but i found out that we win a war mostly when i command members to attack their recomended target. First come first serve.

Im still finding good winning formula. Hopefully your info sharing here can help.

Nice one OP

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by remired

I have lead my clan for about 11 wars. We only war on weekends, due to members busy work during weekdays. Maybe it is not a good sampling number, but i found out that we win a war mostly when i command members to attack their recomended target. First come first serve.

Im still finding good winning formula. Hopefully your info sharing here can help.

Nice one OP

---

Yeah, cool. I'm glad to hear that. The game's recommended target does seem to be the best option for each individual and the clan. I have no real idea how it is calculated, but this little experiment seems to net the same or similar targets, depending on what is available and makes sense. What is your clan's name? Feel free to try it and post the results and info please. I wish more people did these kinds of Shared experiments. Thanks for the input!

This is interesting, but really you have to take into account the skill of each attacker and their ability to preform with high level strategies, I don't think it's a mathematical formula that will solve this. I think that the best solution is to check all people above your recommended target and see who you can two star, if not let others get first choice on lower people, such as the lower people in your clan. Also, don't attack anybody twice until every person on the other team has been attacked and if you do, improve the amount of stars by the largest margin possible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pjd412

This is interesting, but really you have to take into account the skill of each attacker and their ability to preform with high level strategies, I don't think it's a mathematical formula that will solve this. I think that the best solution is to check all people above your recommended target and see who you can two star, if not let others get first choice on lower people, such as the lower people in your clan. Also, don't attack anybody twice until every person on the other team has been attacked and if you do, improve the amount of stars by the largest margin possible.

---

Thanks for the input. This test, and it is a test (experiment), assumes that the player will attack using his best troops, in a manner that is appropriate. But skill will only take someone so far in this game. Therefore I designed this test to eliminate the skill aspect from the battle, within reason. Yes there are variables like skill, luck, and so forth, but we are not particularly interested in these variables during while testing the theorem. Give it your best shot, and report your findings. We want to figure out how to guarantee a three star victory. This is done by averaging lots of data.

It's science y'all, which means that to prove it wrong you have to try it. Thanks.

Well the xp part wont work as I am level 55 so if I get my real level that would 54 since I donate little(I am ashamed my clan is inactive) So 30000 xp below me would be a level 25-30. My clan is going to kick me if I attack a level 30

current lvl 82x81x25 = 166050 - 31760 = 134290/25 = 5371.6√ = 73

Nine level gone to donation, what the.......

Basically the logic is true it's show power of someone base with number, but i'd like to say my 73 pure level is not same with others 73 pure level, accumulation power is same but the power divide into 2 section: att & def. which is that mean same i don't have pekka barrack, the others maybe have. i don't have hog riders lv 2, other 73 maybe have hog lv 3 cause everyone has a different purpose in their prioritize

And the last factor i can think is 73 & 73 may not have a same time playing. Assuming that i play 5 month to reach lv 73 pure lvl, the others play 1 year to reach lvl 73 pure lvl, this one year player maybe have weak wall or some premie def because of low activity/day but he might have lv 5 hogs, lvl 3 pekka & etc because the research has been process for 1 year. Not that simple to compare the attack element and the defense element

However, this simple number can give some sight for picking opponent more wisely

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 Exp," 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.

To my experience, clan wars is mostly about hogs (we do 25vs25 or 30vs30, lv range 50-100). Hog level, the no. of healing spells and experience of using them, are the most important factors for how many stars a particular player can possibly take from a specific base. I try to instate some decision rules on my clan members to make them decide the right base to attack. For example, 30 hogs lv1 can 100% a th8 base with no rooms for giant bombs inside the base, not a hog ring design, and if the wiz towers are not max level. There are exceptions to the hog rules, like bases that are more suitable for air troops. Everyone are not willing to spend the DE, so these people can do mass dragon or mass bloons on the air bases. The base layout have a big impact on these decisions and that will not show in any EXP based calculations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoWiWi

Well the xp part wont work as I am level 55 so if I get my real level that would 54 since I donate little(I am ashamed my clan is inactive) So 30000 xp below me would be a level 25-30. My clan is going to kick me if I attack a level 30

---

If you are a True Exp lvl 54 try attacking any base between true lvl of 38-42. If they kick you for getting 3-stars you don't need 'em. Good luck. Tell me how it went.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fladeva

current lvl 82x81x25 = 166050 - 31760 = 134290/25 = 5371.6√ = 73

Nine level gone to donation, what the.......

Basically the logic is true it's show power of someone base with number, but i'd like to say my 73 pure level is not same with others 73 pure level, accumulation power is same but the power divide into 2 section: att & def. which is that mean same i don't have pekka barrack, the others maybe have. i don't have hog riders lv 2, other 73 maybe have hog lv 3 cause everyone has a different purpose in their prioritize

And the last factor i can think is 73 & 73 may not have a same time playing. Assuming that i play 5 month to reach lv 73 pure lvl, the others play 1 year to reach lvl 73 pure lvl, this one year player maybe have weak wall or some premie def because of low activity/day but he might have lv 5 hogs, lvl 3 pekka & etc because the research has been process for 1 year. Not that simple to compare the attack element and the defense element

However, this simple number can give some sight for picking opponent more wisely

---

You said it right there in your last sentence! Give it a try and see what results you get. Then please return and list 1) your true lvl 2)opponent's true lvl 3)result of battle in percentage and stars. Thanks very much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElToro

Yeah, cool. I'm glad to hear that. The game's recommended target does seem to be the best option for each individual and the clan. I have no real idea how it is calculated, but this little experiment seems to net the same or similar targets, depending on what is available and makes sense. What is your clan's name? Feel free to try it and post the results and info please. I wish more people did these kinds of Shared experiments. Thanks for the input!

---

We don't go to war very often,.. we are mainly a farming clan... we go to war once every two weeks. But we do have a war strategy that is working for us. It took us a few wars to fine toon it,.. and we have been removing all the non participants from our clan... thats a major factor.

We first take a look at how hard the opponent is,.. then the top ranked member in the war map takes a look at how low he can go in the attack to get a 3 star,.. it varied between 5-7... and thats our lucky number. we then let everyone know what that number is,.. and everyone has the assigned first target,.. were they stand to get a 2 or 3 star... and its always lower then the games recommend target

We have people all over the world in our clan,.. not everyone is online at the same time.. so having an assigned target,.. works great... it helps from having players going to low and taking away from other lower players attacks... or having players only going for resorces.

We give our clan about 12hr for them to make there first attack,.. then the second attack is cleanup time. Taking care of any non participants attacks is first on the list... then any villages below your first attack that only has 1 star is next,.... and last going for a village that has a 2 star to convert to a 3.

If anybody wants to experience it first hand,.. let me know... come join our clan so you can see how it all works

Quote:

---

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.

---

Thank you for your very well thought out response. I do appreciate your input as to how to make the test more accurate in this regard. You make some very interesting points, so let's go through and try to address them one by one. Yes, a base that is spending all of its resources on it's army and laboratory rather than its defenses is going to be easier to attack. Besides the fact that defensive buildings outnumber army barracks, army camps and the laboratory and therefore will contribute a greater amount to the true exp level of any given base, this experiment seeks still to average the exp level, and give you a good GENERAL idea of who to go for. It is merely a honing in on finding a base that would be appropriate to attack. There will of course be discrepancies between individual bases, and anomalies. Again, I am seeking to test only for the one indicator, and as such will establish what is a solid guideline for finding out what a clan member is possible of achieving realistically.

I assure you that this is not my first clan war. Let's try to keep the tone of this thread to constructive criticism. But here's the thing with 3-starring a base as your first attack. IF EVERYONE IN YOUR CLAN 3-STARS ONE BASE ONLY, YOU WILL HAVE GOTTEN 100% OF THE STARS POSSIBLE. If the clan members can three star a base on their first attack, it is then advisable to try a harder base for their second attack, any stars beyond three is just bonus for your clan in a theoretically perfect scenario. So, if you are unlucky enough to have been paired up with a tough clan, and your average true exp level is below that of your opponent's, it is best to MAKE SURE THAT EVERY LOWER LEVEL BASE BELONGING TO YOUR OPPONENT HAS BEEN 3-STARRED. Theoretically even, if the top half of your clan attacks twice, it can do better than allowing the bottom half to do unsuccessful attacks on bases that are better than them. This gives you the best chance you have when matched up against a stronger clan. There is a lot of strategy involved here, but my favorite is using low level players to find the traps on opponents' bases. Even still the point here is to eliminate the variable of strategy from the equation and try to find a way to guarantee success in battle no matter what. That is the point of this post and the point of the test.

I appreciate that you admit it is tedious work trying to assign and reassign. It's micromanagey and silly in the long run, but if that's the way you want to do it, I would strongly suggest that you recommend the bases that this equation gives you. If not, tell your team to just attack the base that the game recommends, and do so in the best way they know how. It is tremendously difficult to predict what will happen on each individual turn with traps and the like, but by averaging lots of data, we sort of round the edges out. Just like in poker, yes you can get a bad beat like 10% chance of winning actually sometimes wins, but if you have a 90% chance of winning you better take that bet. The point of this test is to simplify and reduce all of the variables and give you a good idea of who to attack (ie, where is your best bet.)

I tried to answer everything here, but I'm sure you have more to add, so feel free. And man, do me a huge favor before you say "it won't work". Just try it.

Then come on back and list 1)your true exp 2)your opponents true exp 3) results of the battle in percentage and stars. Thanks much, and if you have any ideas on how to refine the experiment that are constructive please let me know.

My exp lvl is 83.
So I would take 83*82*25=170,150

then I subtract from that my total donations: 170,150 - 27934= 142,216

Then I work backwards. Dividing by 25: 142,216 / 25 = 5688.64

And taking the square root of that number: square root of 5688.64 is 75.42 etc.. or just 75.

Last two wars here are my attacks:

1. lvl 81 - 1 star TH9 - gowipe 48% -
2. lvl 70 - 3 star th8 - drags/minions
3. lvl 65 - 3 star th8 - mass drag
4. lvl 69 - 1 star th8 - bloonion 72%

The only one that was not a recommended target was attack #1. I attacked him in the latter half of the war when we had the war won and was going for the higher bonus. I was one hit away from a two star on that as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElToro

Then come on back and list 1)your true exp 2)your opponents true exp 3) results of the battle in percentage and stars. Thanks much, and if you have any ideas on how to refine the experiment that are constructive please let me know.

---

Ok, I did not go out in a war and attack people at 30,000-50,000 "True Exp" below me, but I went ahead and calculated the "True Exp" of myself and the people I attacked last war, and the results should be good enough to put you out of business.

My "True Exp" is 313,600 and my first attack was one someone with 209,600. That's a gap of 104,000, more than twice your recommended gap, meaning I should be able to 3-star in my sleep, right? Nope. I got 59% and 2-stars with a full-on GoWiPe (I did save a freeze spell because I didn't use it and I didn't have my barb king available), as close to getting 3 stars as I was to getting 18%. Was my attack perfect? Absolutely not, but even with both heroes and 5 spells I wasn't getting over 80% without many miracles.

Maybe that's a fluke, right? After all, you did mention there would be fluctuations in the usefulness of the formula, and even a result as ridiculously far away from what you predicted as mine was has to happen at least a couple times in a million. Well, my second attack should set those concerns to rest.

It was on the next target down the list, someone with a "True Exp" of just 171, 300. That's a whopping 142, 300 below mine, and I had the added bonus of having not one but two replays from clanmates on the base, so I knew exactly what the cc troops were and the locations and nature of some of the traps/hidden teslas. This should be the easiest attack ever, a 3-star in 90 seconds max, right? Wrong. I got 47%, one star, extraordinary failure. Was this a terrible attack? Of course, one of the worst I've done in a long time. Was there any way in the world that I was going to get 3 stars? Not a chance, 65% would've been a very nice attack. 5 spells, incredibly expensive army, someone 142,000 "True Exp: below me, 47%. There's no way your formula works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BigPapiSolis

My exp lvl is 83.
So I would take 83*82*25=170,150

then I subtract from that my total donations: 170,150 - 27934= 142,216

Then I work backwards. Dividing by 25: 142,216 / 25 = 5688.64

And taking the square root of that number: square root of 5688.64 is 75.42 etc.. or just 75.

Last two wars here are my attacks:

1. lvl 81 - 1 star TH9 - gowipe 48% -
2. lvl 70 - 3 star th8 - drags/minions
3. lvl 65 - 3 star th8 - mass drag
4. lvl 69 - 1 star th8 - bloonion 72%

The only one that was not a recommended target was attack #1. I attacked him in the latter half of the war when we had the war won and was going for the higher bonus. I was one hit away from a two star on that as well.

---

Thank you! This is very interesting, the only one that is actually close to 12-15 lvls below your 75 is the 65 one, and it was a three star. But more importantly, just thank you so much for trying it and reporting the data. That is awesome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrScribbler

Ok, I did not go out in a war and attack people at 30,000-50,000 "True Exp" below me, but I went ahead and calculated the "True Exp" of myself and the people I attacked last war, and the results should be good enough to put you out of business.

My "True Exp" is 313,600 and my first attack was one someone with 209,600. That's a gap of 104,000, more than twice your recommended gap, meaning I should be able to 3-star in my sleep, right? Nope. I got 59% and 2-stars with a full-on GoWiPe (I did save a freeze spell because I didn't use it and I didn't have my barb king available), as close to getting 3 stars as I was to getting 18%. Was my attack perfect? Absolutely not, but even with both heroes and 5 spells I wasn't getting over 80% without many miracles.

Maybe that's a fluke, right? After all, you did mention there would be fluctuations in the usefulness of the formula, and even a result as ridiculously far away from what you predicted as mine was has to happen at least a couple times in a million. Well, my second attack should set those concerns to rest.

It was on the next target down the list, someone with a "True Exp" of just 171, 300. That's a whopping 142, 300 below mine, and I had the added bonus of having not one but two replays from clanmates on the base, so I knew exactly what the cc troops were and the locations and nature of some of the traps/hidden teslas. This should be the easiest attack ever, a 3-star in 90 seconds max, right? Wrong. I got 47%, one star, extraordinary failure. Was this a terrible attack? Of course, one of the worst I've done in a long time. Was there any way in the world that I was going to get 3 stars? Not a chance, 65% would've been a very nice attack. 5 spells, incredibly expensive army, someone 142,000 "True Exp: below me, 47%. There's no way your formula works.

---

Ok that's interesting information! Thanks man for the info. And try to do the whole formula, dividing by 25 and then taking the square root. Then attacking a village. It could be that in the higher levels, the formula may need adjusting. If we get enough data we'll be able to see, on average who was most successful. One or two results does not disprove this theory, but thanks so much for contributing. It really helps us all try to get a better plan together.

First attack for me here.

My True Exp is 81
I attacked a base with true exp of 66
3 Stars 100% with 45 secs to go.

second attack I went for higher true exp opponent. True experience level nine below mine.

Mine : 81
Koby: 72
2-stars 55%

I am a level 79 and my true exp was 76. I attacked a guy with a true exp of 72 and got 3 stars.

I really love this, just some simple arithmetic sequences and series...I just used this to figure out how much "better" I am than my friend. Currently I'm level 101 (True XP is ~94.5) and my friend is level 98 (True XP is ~86.9) so I'm currently feeling very good about myself, I like having a lead of ~7.4 levels on him as compared to just 3 levels. And if only I got XP for upgrading walls, I'd be up by a few more! ;)

Anyways, good work man! I love this True XP for judging the quality of a base/player, a way to incorporate wall level would be nice but you know, it's hard to make a perfect system. I was just revisiting this thread to figure out how to approach this idea of seeing how much "better" I am...lol :)

I like this concept.

My clan is in some desperate need of a morale boost and a war win at the moment, and I've been pondering how I can instruct my members more strategically. I'll try this, but I think I'm going to tell them to hit someone they can attack while still getting 2 to 3 stars, because usually by mid-war it's hard to be choosey about your opponent for us.

I also like it, but there are two "buts" in my mind:
1. the heroes are not considered in the experience calculation, but can make a big difference for both defense and offense
2. experience points can be skewed in other ways as well: for example doing the single player campaign over and over.

My personal idea would be something like this:
- weaker players attack first
- attack first round to go for 3 stars
- attack maximum 10% places below your own level (in a clan of 50, that would be 5 places below your own level, in a clan of 20 it would be 2 places)
- attack second round to maximize the number of additional stars you can achieve

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ElToro

Well you are very generous and probably a nice person. But really if the goal is to win the war, you should not worry about what your 20 th ranked player can or can't do. You have two attacks, and you should take as many stars as you can. Using EXP lvl of your potential opponent allows to get a fairly good idea of how good he or she really is. It works out usually that the top tier guys don't get attacked, and the bottom tier guys shouldn't waste the resources unless to try to find the traps for someone to later come in and clean up. Thanks for reading and offering some thoughts. Maybe give the method a try for the next war and tell me how it went.

---

I wasn't being generous, I was using this as an example. Victory in a clan war is not about your individual performance, it's a team effort. Does it help if you get 6 stars but your clan loses the war?

You said in your original post that you wanted to...get to understanding what makes a successful clan war. It has little do with the minutiae of target selection. It's about activity and strategy. Actually I agree with most of what you said but it's small picture stuff, the big picture is strategy. Next time your up against a good clan look at what they do. What % of their attacks get used? Is it upper or lower members who attack first? How do they select their targets during each stage of the war? Does that strategy change during the early and later stages? What do they do with their second attacks?

For the record, my clan goes to war every 2 days and we have won 18 wars(soon to be 19). At the beginning we did poorly but we got our act together and have won 8 of our last 10 wars(soon to be 9 of 10). Obviously we must be doing something right. In our current war we have 47 out of a possible 60 stars and we have defeated every base on the opposition map.

im not sure why you talk about wasting resources. I will get 630k gold and lix and 2k de in loot from the current war. The loot bonus is very handy. All you need is a solid strat to win both battles and your clan wins consistently. As a th8 I prefer to use de for upgrades only but with GiWi or GiWiPe I can 2-3 star any th8 and some th9 bases.