There is always a vast amount of debate over who is really winning the war. Whilst conquers are a decent representation, I would agree with anyone who said they do not always accurately reflect the state of the war. For example, side A could take 100 villages from side B's inactive player. Side B could then take 90 villages from side A's best player. We can all agree that side A's loss is greater, despite having conquered 10 more villages. Why is it greater? Because the best players will put their villages to the best use. A top player will use his 90 villages far more effectively than an inactive player uses 100.
A more accurate analysis of this war is to look at tribal growth.
Start Date: 25th of July
End Date: 19th of August
Selfie
8,217,632 to 13,085,122 --> 4.9m increase
U?
7,566,722 to 10,627,422 --> 3.1m increase
DRUNK!
4,900,540 to 9,832,186 --> 5m increase
DRINK!
2,966,979 to 4,937,161 --> 2m increase
Side A has an 8m increase, Side B has a 7m increase.
We can see that Side A is winning by about 12.5%. Although it is clear that Side B is not necessarily 'losing', since it is still growing, and at a decent rate.
Firequeen talks a lot about how the top two tribes are supposedly "ganging up" on the 3rd and 4th ranked tribes, and mentioning the points difference. I do not believe this to be the case. DRUNK! and DRINK! are a family, always have been, and not just on this world. Essentially they function as a singular tribe. This makes them the top tribe. As a result, the two tribes below them (Selfie and U?) have joined forces against the top dog. Whilst Selfie and U? make for a bigger size in terms of points, D/D have the geographical advantage. Being that tight they can far more effectively support one another and can recap - which is a massive advantage after being bolstered by the no-outside-support setting. Does that advantage outweigh the size difference? Probably not, but is shortens it for sure.
