I question if Sandbagging works and here is why

[Necksahn]

I was in an alliance where we did a good amount of sandbagging. The great majority of our opponents did the same. My assumption was everyone does it and you got mad when the other side did it better. A few weeks ago I moved to an alliance that does not sandbag and (in all the wars) only one alliance had any sandbagging and that was minimal. Could it be that the War match making accounts for this? Has anyone else noticed this? Not sure if this is just dumb luck or not.

I was also thinking that maybe sandbagging is worse in wars with more players as my current alliances does do smaller wars (25 v 25 while my sand bagging alliance would usually do 30 v 30)

 

[SiuYin]

Other Problem is that, if we dont do Sandbagging, we never got matched.

 

[Necksahn]

That is opposite of my current experience. In the sand bagging alliance it could be hours to find a match. In current alliance it has been almost instant every time. That is another factor I forgot to mention so glad you brought that point up.

 

[SiuYin]

It depends on your alliance's strength.
general speaking, half AA half GA is easy to match.

 

[BeerMan]

That is opposite of my current experience. In the sand bagging alliance it could be hours to find a match. In current alliance it has been almost instant every time. That is another factor I forgot to mention so glad you brought that point up.

We don't intentionally sandbag, but we do have a couple of active players who are low level (around level 50 to 60). Most of our lineup is AA/GA with a few industrials, and I've found that if I include the low level players it is often difficult to find a match.

 

[DUSTY1]

My team has a median age of Gunpowder, with 1 Global, 3 IA, 3 EA, 10 gunpowder, and a couple newbies. My last war was against a team that was 1/2 Global/Atomic, and the rest were medieval or lower. The top half did all the work, and their bottom half did nothing. We got 60% medals which meant we got 5 stars against their lower tier, and the odd star on each of the top half. We were outgunned by 60 or more levels in the top half and we outgunned their bottom half by 60 levels in the bottom. Unfortunately in a game where you get 2 battles, it doesn't really matter then does it?

 

[BeerMan]

My team has a median age of Gunpowder, with 1 Global, 3 IA, 3 EA, 10 gunpowder, and a couple newbies. My last war was against a team that was 1/2 Global/Atomic, and the rest were medieval or lower. The top half did all the work, and their bottom half did nothing. We got 60% medals which meant we got 5 stars against their lower tier, and the odd star on each of the top half. We were outgunned by 60 or more levels in the top half and we outgunned their bottom half by 60 levels in the bottom. Unfortunately in a game where you get 2 battles, it doesn't really matter then does it?

Given the age of the game and the relatively small player base, I don't think it's possible for an alliance with your mix to be competitive. I was in an alliance months ago with a similar mix, where our best players were mostly IA with one or two global, and we couldn't get above 16K glory. You really need several strong atomics at the top or you will continue to run into these lopsided matches.

 

[S_How]

I can assure you it is still the best strategy in war. We get matched with sandbagging teams consistently. We are punished for bringing our most prepared, active players....rather than iron age alts to manipulate the matchup. Below is our current matchup against GA Soul, one of the top teams in game. Nearly every heavy team sandbags, nearly all teams on top of the leaderboard sandbag. Because most of them do and it is so heavily rewarded, those that may not want to (not sure if this exists) probably cannot even get a match without sandbagging.

In this match, if you only look at levels...our average level is 200, GA Soul is 197....according to BHG's sweet matchmaking calculations we are most likely the heavier team. However, take out their 4 sandbags (less than 20%)....and it raises their average level to over 230.....nearly 35 levels on average higher than us. They have almost 15 people in the 230-260 range, I think we have 2. They are so much more advanced than us on offense AND defense, that there is almost no point in this war at all, other than practice for our most advanced atomic offenses. But, our 5-10 advanced atomic offenses wont be enough to clear this team. Our mid section of late global/early atomic offenses will be hitting up ~40 levels against bases they cannot take consistently. Our lower third of the roster will be given the exciting task of hitting classical age inactive sandbags for like 1,000 food and gold.

This type of mismatch is terrible for the game, and the reason so many people have quit or refuse to spend. And, it is unquestionably the #1 strategy encouraged by BHG's development decisions.

 

[Lord P]

Sorry to see that match up S_How but sadly that is how it is at the top. We’re 300 glory from the top 100 leaderboard so regularly get matched with top 100 teams and the vast majority sandbag which quite frankly is an embarrassment to the game that this has been allowed to continue and flourish. We refuse to do it ourselves because it is pathetic but sadly you are right, it is still the most effective war strategy.
Keep fighting the good fight!!

 

[cos_pi]

Very conveniently you pointed out their bottom 5. Can you display your bottom 5 as well?

I am guessing its a case of "they did a better job at sandbagging."

 

[MichaelB313]

No Title

 

[MichaelB313]

Time tie breaker FTW

 

[S_How]

cos_pi - I dont have a screenshot, but we had 24 atomic, 1 global that war....we never sandbag

 

[Prodigal Clint]

I’m confused; whats ur point exactly here w the OP?

 

[MichaelB313]

“Question if sandbagging works and why”... sandbagging doesn’t always provide an advantage to opponents.. so bagging does work to lower weight/avg, but with time tie break it’s not always a helpful thing.

 

[S_How]

Michael - in nearly every case we see, sandbagging ALWAYS provides an advantage. It is actually one of the best ways to avoid tiebreakers to begin with, make sure your top half is so strong compared to the other team that it will never come down to a tiebreaker anyways.