1

I was suspicious about the effectivity of my troops when attacking, I always attack with the same army, kind of troops, strategy, etc. Also I always pick similar targets, with similar defenses and fortifications. The problem is that the more I attack the less effective are those attacks, to the point where just out of curiosity, I placed my level 13 King in a hand-to-hand combat with a level 10 King, no defense towers or anything near by, just the two Kings in an epic battle, but my King lost by a obvious margin. That’s when I said …Aha!, gotcha!

So, what can I do, or what do I need to avoid in order to improve or maintain the effectivity of my troops between consecutive attacks?

  • When you had the level 13 and level 10 Kings face off, how much time did your level 13 King spend being distracted by some shiny building before switching to the level 10 King? Also, did you use the level 13 King's ability? – Ellesedil Jul 2 '15 at 13:41
  • @Ellesedil I can't recall exactly but it was something like this: I attacked with all the troops but the king nor Queen; about 45 Hog Riders lvl 5 that got destroyed pretty much every defense building, those don't engage in fights with defender troops unless attacked, then I dropped the King beside the attacker's King, also didn't use the Kings power. – rraallvv Jul 2 '15 at 13:53
  • @Ellesedil I took a screenshot of the fight, but couldn't find it, it's kind of lost in the cloud :( I'll try to reproduce the fight again but this time I'll get it recorded in video. – rraallvv Jul 2 '15 at 14:00
  • I ask because the stat difference between level 10 and level 13 is almost immaterial. If the level 13 King spent any time being distracted or indecisive, then the level 10 King will likely win. So, this experiment wouldn't really tell us anything. – Ellesedil Jul 2 '15 at 14:00
  • @Ellesedil I see, I'll try the experiment several times to get an idea of how much relative power worth a King's level, if it's not worth it I'll stop leveling up the King and Queen. – rraallvv Jul 2 '15 at 14:07
1

This might be due to your opponent's king attacking yours first. A level 10 king can defeat a level 13 king in 13 hits while a level 13 king can defeat a level 10 king in 10 hits. The opponent's king strikes first and thus when your opponent's king strikes the 13th time, your king is destroyed and and the other king has around 200 health left, which is 1/11th of the health of the other king. Proof: Clash of Clans Wiki and a calculator.

Your strategy's effectiveness will be determined by the base you raid. Sometimes, bases that look similar to the one you 3 star-ed will actually destroy your troops and make you lose. Try to adjust your strategy to be able to use it appropriately with different types of bases.

This is a huge worldwide sensation. If this was figured out, chaos will sowed and the end of Clash of Clans it is.

  • 3
    Close. A level 10 would actually need 14 hits to kill a level 13 (2,286 HP / 171.6 per hit = 13.32) while a level 13 would need 12 hits to kill a level 10 (2,123 HP / 182.4 per hit = 11.64). Even under these numbers, the level 13 should still survive with ~55 HP, even if the level 10 struck first. – Thebluefish Jul 21 '15 at 23:21
  • unless the attackspeed of the defending king is enhanced, then most likely both kings will hit the same number of attacks in the same period of time. in an Average senario, unless the number of hits to kill is identical, the one that struck first does not matter in a king vs king fight without an attack speed modifier. the first swinging king will only ever be half a swing ahead of the other king, not even getting his 11th swing before the other king hits his 10th. – Ryan Feb 19 '16 at 16:39
0

Your attack effictivness doesn't change based on the amount of times you use that specific strategy.

If supercell wanted this to happen, this would mean they'd need to set up a system that would:

a) count how many times you used the same amounts of troops/same army

b) this would then need decide whether to change your troops attributes (DPS/movement speed/HP)

*note: if supercell implemented anything like this, this would defeat the fairness of the game thus they would be cheating in-app purchase customers which they would be strongly penalised for and possibly have legal action taken against them.

It would be unfair for example: You gemmed your Barbarian king to level 20, attacked a base with a level 10 Barbarian king, all of a sudden your level 20 gets tanked by the level 10 and you are a lot less likely to win your battle.

The reason you think your strategy is less effective is because you may have seen your strategy 3 star enemy bases, then all of a sudden met bases which are much stronger, you just haven't realised and now you are like oh and the only solution you could come to is that there must be some sort of strategy balancing.

  • That wouldn’t be the first time a game make temporary changes to discourage some strategies, for instance in Blood and Glory 2 I was able to find a few opponents where it was more profitable to lose those fights dozens of times in a couple of minutes than to try to win a single time with trial and error. Then after gaining a quick profit the game restarted and in the next launch they would balance the rewards for those arenas. I’m not against that, being a game developer myself I also learn from those kind of things. – rraallvv Jul 4 '15 at 14:52
  • In Blood and Glory 2 I was able to finish the game in online mode, and it was equally fun. – rraallvv Jul 4 '15 at 14:52
  • @rraallvv like I said though, if you paid for gems, then gemmed your troops or barracks, then the game made it much less likely for your strategy to work, supercell would be unfairly treating customers – BillNyeTheSnanceGuy Jul 4 '15 at 14:56

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.