Unfair matching for Rebels

[DarthMat]

I have an Imperial Squad (Justice_League) and we have only a single loss (which we avenged) and over 40 wins, but that's about to change. Our breakdown is this:
1 - 9: Newish with only a few upgraded weapons and troops.
2 - 8s: Newish with only a few upgraded weapons and troops.
2 - 7s: 100% maxed except Droideka.
4 - 6s: 100% maxed except Droideka.
5 - 5s: 100% maxed.
1 - 4: 100% maxed.
I believe that the more your squad wins the harder your match-up becomes. The squad rank and trophies have nothing to do with it. Our current war is completely unwinnable, they are going to 100% us and we hold all the outposts. They have: 1 maxed 10, 5 maxed 9s and an 8. The only reason we beat them the first time was that they didn't try very hard.
Their total HQ level is 104 compared to our 92, and again, they are maxed out at the top. War search both times in getting this squad was really quick, minutes and we've got them back to back. There has to be some alternate number that they are using to determine the wars, and I think it's got something to do with your win percentage.

[Boog]

That's not that much of a mismatch.

[Spirit]

If you read all the posts from us Imps constantly getting bad matches, it is not 1 sided. Virtually every war for the last few years that I have fought in has matched us again a bigger reb army.
As others have pointed out, it is not always the end of the world, but you just sometimes want at least a fair matchup.
So no more whining you rebs, we all get bad matchups.

[DarthMat]

Not that unfair? Can you math?
Our top HQ 9 has three attacks to spread out against six bases that are far more advanced. All of our top attacks are punching up one to two HQ levels.
They have 18 attacks equal or better than our best 3, giving them the ability to punch down. Which they did and they 100% us.
The Justice_Leagues second loss, and it wasn't even close to being fair.

[Boog]

Yes, it's not that unfair. I've been in wars where we had ONE level 9 base, the rest 8 and lower, and we faced 12 10's and 3 9's. Their lowest base score base in that war was higher than any of ours. That was impossible. You just haven't been in enough wars to know what a truly bad matchup for you is. My squads have always had a few high medal players, and if we put those bases in the war squad, we immediately face a top-200 war squad with 10+ level 10's and the rest 9's. (Our squad with at most 2-3 level 10's).

My main base is a level 8 with 80 K medals. If I put it in a war, it's all over, we have zero chance to win. I have a level 8 minibase with 1 medal that I use for wars.

With your war, you just have to sack up, coordinate your attacks on OP's and then get attackers to all move in at once. If you're disorganized and the other side is organized, you'll get slaughtered. And also, make sure no idiots on your squad take back outposts from the other side when your attackers aren't ready. The biggest loser move of all is to 'defend' the outposts early in a war to try to 'slow' the other side down. All that does is guarantee your side loses. Quit complaining and just war. If you are organized and know what you're doing, you'll win.

[DarkRebel]

The biggest loser move of all is to 'defend' the outposts early in a war to try to 'slow' the other side down. All that does is guarantee your side loses.

It depends.

If your squad is active and have many players on at start, with multiple players assigned outpost role, AND that your opponent does not have as many players, then this "defending the outpost" strategy may work and may frustrate them.

Note that for some squads, it is not as easy to get many players online at the same time, especially for international squads.

If you outnumber them, then control the outpost, and you force them into attacking without outposts as they may never get 5 players on at the same time, and you have all your players ready at the gun.

Look at it this way, I would happily trade my lower level attacks with their L10 attacks, if they only have high level players on at start.

If you face an uphill battle against a very active squad, or have less players on at start, then ignore what they do and focus on what you can do.

So what am I saying ? It's not always the biggest loser move of all, Boog.

To me, the loser move is to attack a hard base (above your league) without outpost control, and ended up planting and getting nothing for it. I would prefer inactive folks who can only be on by themselves to trade attacks on taking outposts than trying to take on a base and get 1 start (or 2 star in Tako war). Those are much worse than getting an outpost.

[Boog]

I hear that, but most good squads have their attackers ready at the start of a war, and aren't playing the waiting. However, there is a hidden cost to attacking outposts early for defense that a lot of players don't see: it drives up the outpost level, and later in the war, when your attackers are ready to go, the weak ones may not be able to retake Tat or Tako anymore. Now, you're in the situation where a better player takes the post so weaker players attack.


The other issue is that it makes it more difficult for the better player to reload and then go for a base. If you've left tako or tat at 6, then most players can take them with four buffed jumps. If they've precooked their replacement troops, they can grab the post and immediately hit a base. If they are taking on level 9 Tat, they probably need to recook and entire load out.

[DarkRebel]

I hear that, but most good squads have their attackers ready at the start of a war, and aren't playing the waiting. However, there is a hidden cost to attacking outposts early for defense that a lot of players don't see: it drives up the outpost level, and later in the war, when your attackers are ready to go, the weak ones may not be able to retake Tat or Tako anymore. Now, you're in the situation where a better player takes the post so weaker players attack.


The other issue is that it makes it more difficult for the better player to reload and then go for a base. If you've left tako or tat at 6, then most players can take them with four buffed jumps. If they've precooked their replacement troops, they can grab the post and immediately hit a base. If they are taking on level 9 Tat, they probably need to recook and entire load out.

With armory equipment effective on the outpost planets, this doesn't really matter much. I mean, if your L7/8 players can't take outposts with buffed jets/jumps, then you should take them to the side and teach them how
But I see your point, L4-6 players may not be able to grab L10 outposts. We don't have players that low level in my squad.

[Midge]

Not that unfair? Can you math?
Our top HQ 9 has three attacks to spread out against six bases that are far more advanced. All of our top attacks are punching up one to two HQ levels.
They have 18 attacks equal or better than our best 3, giving them the ability to punch down. Which they did and they 100% us.
The Justice_Leagues second loss, and it wasn't even close to being fair.

LOL ... you literally JUST beat them. How is it unfair?

They have ONE base significantly higher than yours. You both have only NINE bases over 1000 base score.

This is a pretty even match. They are a little bigger than you, but you guys have clearly warred a ton more and for a lot longer. I get it though, if you lose ... it is unfair ... no doubt.

http://ksod.us/squad/9c6bc5fa-c810-11e7 ... 19/members

http://ksod.us/squad/8e560900-afe6-11e5 ... 50/members

[Boog]

Lol, as I said, that was no mismatch.