War Balance (Large vs Small teams)

Small teams can get repeatedly attacked by large teams with no chance to win. Even if our players are higher, if they outnumber us 2 to 1 then it doesn’t matter how well our attacks go, they will win by default. There needs to be some balance in war.


I’ve never really understood the appeal or logic in how wars are in this game. It does get to the point where if you don’t have 50 members you’re SOL. It would be nice if you could form teams in this game that could perform at a high level without this implied necessity of maxing a team roster.

1 Like

If you can’t maintain 50 you don’t deserve to be higher simple as that. If you can’t beat the team you’re up against you shouldnt be in that league simple as that.

On the flip side, If you maintain enough points to be in that league you deserve to be there. Simple as that.


That’s a really narrow minded view of “can’t beat them”. I would argue in a more logical war system a team of 15-20 high level players SHOULD BE BETTER than a team of 50 with one giant player and 49 scrubs that have the benefit of their one giant holding their hand.

Unfortunately those in platinum or higher don’t care. They don’t deal with the issues of recruiting people that partcipate in wars or have issues filling rosters. I mentioned finding a way to balance it better but they insist on mocking and can’t provide constructive criticism beyond ‘fill your roster and stop whining.’ Our team is in the same boat and slowly filling back up but cuts still have to made for new people not partcipating. My suggestion is to lower the minimum and auto accept. Drop dead weight as you fill to avoid too many teams that lack the courage to fight for a win. Best of luck and feel free to reach out to me in the game to vent or advice.

1 Like

Those in platinum or higher have had to deal with the same exact issues. So we’re speaking from an experienced view point.

Your tips are correct. Make it auto accept, kick non participants, build a core of players (team chat is very important), make friends and grow together. There’s no short cut.

Good luck


You keep providing the “solution” but it’s nothing more than “deal with it.” The issue being brought up here has less to do with “how do we stay competitive in war” and more to do with “this whole manner in which war is being waged and scored in this game is kinda stupid.”

So you think a “team” of one level 600 should be top of Diamond 1? Think before you speak

Just as the original author stated, there should be some sense of balance to where one singularly dominant player won’t win every war they are in but also where a team of 50 players regardless of their abilities can essentially win by default against a team half the size full of good and experienced players.

But thanks for the patronizing tone.

What would you propose then? I don’t see any solution here only whining.

Any proposition coming from me would involve a complete rethink of what war is and how it should be waged in this game. I’m sure others probably have their own ideas that would lean more towards tweaking the rules and/or scoring methods to offer some sense of balance.

  1. Running a team is tiring; it takes a lot of work. Decide if you’re willing to dedicate the time and effort it takes to build up and run a team. Set reasonable expectations.
  • If your team is largely L50s (random example), it’s not going to get to diamond. Once you do start getting some higher levels, more are likely to follow.
  • Be wary of higher levels immediately demanding officer roles; people should prove themselves first. Once you do get some higher levels, it’ll be easier to attract more.
  1. Fill your team to stabilize. Recruiting sucks, but you have to do your best.
  2. Make a description team description.
  3. Chat up LC and use auto-recruiting. Use official social media channels, such as facebook and twitch, especially during livestreams but within reason and include details (league, level range, activity requirements, etc.). There are also facebook groups and LINE chats for recruiting, though I’m not familiar with these. You’ll have to go through a lot of people; that’s the way it is.
  4. Set activity rules dependent upon your league. e.g. In platinum, maybe you let people miss two or three a month (vs diamond, where it’s pretty much make war or get kicked)

There are more, but these are just some quick ones off the top of my head.


the higher you go, the stricter it gets. You just dont get to Diamond II with 50 level 50. You have to work hard and need to level up before you get to higher leagues.

every mistakes will make your team fall so having 1 missing member will result in 10 war declarations. This is why I only stay in Gold since I am not online everyday.

Also, aiming for higher league would mean that there shouldn’t be any casual especially if you are aiming for sapphire and up. Every day war is going to happen and 1 absent would mean a lot of team rating going down if that day happens to have 5 wars.

I’d like to hear it - really. Because there have been zero suggestions (as far as I’m aware and I’m on here a lot) that can actually work. If you have an idea you should share it. Otherwise we’re all stuck with the current war and team mechanic.

It’s like playing Chess. You get eight pawns and 5 different type of Characters, 16 “players” in total. If you only begins with 4 pawns you are going to be in a noticeable disadvantage (especially knowing each pawn can potentially become a Queen!).

In this game you should thrive to keep as much resources as possible, and a team most valuable resource is players. Wars work like they do following rules accepted by the majority, and it may not be perfect but filling player slots is encouraged because more people on a team create a flurry of activity and ideas. They can help each other better and achieve higher goals.

Why not make all teams start out as 0 flames and earn from there then get the bonus flames to 250 if they clear the whole roster. My team has lost wars by 1 attack just because they had free flames but didn’t have the same participation. For 2 full teams like what happens in higher leagues it wouldn’t really affect you. A 35 roster team with an active core could compete evenly with a 45 member team that has activity issues.


If we all start at zero, how would a team get 250 flames then vs a team of only 35 players?

If you read what i wrote if the team of 45 is able to defeat all bases with 5 flames vs the team of 35 then they would get the extra flames to make 250 as a reward. Still not a perfect solution but it would give the smaller team a fighting chance and make teams pick wars based on strategy and not bully tactics for an easy win. Just like you think a team without a full roster doesn’t deserve to move up neither does a team that can’t handle an opponent closer to their size.


:thinking: that may be an interesting change actually…wow - the first idea I’ve seen that could actually work!

What does everyone think about this?

A while ago, I proposed what I considered to be a workable solution, and one which would prevent the “team of one 600 level player” scenario, but it was still met with the “fill your roster” response. However, since you asked, here it is again:

If the teams are balanced, no change.

If the declaring team has FEWER players than the team declared upon, no change. (This prevents the “team of one” scenario.)

If the declaring team has MORE players than the team declared upon, then they must chose which players on their team will participate, and which will sit out so that it is an even war. (This prevents the vultures pouncing upon teams who may have had the misfortune to lose a player or two.)