Whos best? Most likely its the longstanding alliances like EN or TS on revolt, or Triad or Venom on Conquest. But there have been other great alliances that crush everything early, and die from internal fights. Some who die later on due to internal problems people leaving RL etc., or being outnumbered and crushed/or unable to make a punch through.
If that is all an excuse and doesn't count, I'd say the above is right.
There were two major alliances in the core, and there really wasn't a "middle game" on that world. Byzantine Empire vs Grepo Addicts. It was like there really were not any independent alliances, each of the other smaller alliances there, pledged allegiance to one or the other. Perhaps it was a longstanding rivalry stemming from previous worlds I don't know. From the beginning it was two "The Merges" duking it out in the core or just outside the core. There was only one wild card in the beginning and that was "The Minions" on the rim on BEs backside who crushed and ate everything early, but fell rather quick to a mix of, people leaving for the next world, and internal fights etc.
HERT policy was not to eat all their enemies but allow them to join their ranks, even if they are simmers. Simmers and half actives will be useful in world wonders, thats what I was told later...And the other "lean" alliances eat the simmers, save the best fighters and move on. Which is better, which has a better track record?
In this current wonder mechanism, simply having lots of friends win you games 9 times out of 10 in the end, and like HERT, having a decent sized solid core of fighters, along with a crap ton of simmers and half actives can win you in the long run. And when alliances capitulate as fast as most alliances did on that server, you get an even bigger solid core of fighters! yay
I've noticed this in every EN/Coming Soon/HERT etc world I've been on, respectively. Diplomacy is a tactic, posturing, banter, tongue in cheek, cloak and dagger. Politics here is just the same as in real politics, and seems to have an effect on worlds concerning them. Tea.. was the mastermind on Eubea, he was the string puller lol. Even BEs longstanding ally "Fighting Fish", many in their leadership were secretly working for HERT long time before the BE collapse come to find out later, so really the latter part of that server it was all HERT vs Enigma and Co....Me? I was straightforward, and who won? Mind you, im not accounting this, for all the mistakes I made/problems we had too that caused us to lose. anyways
My point being if you are a sly snake, and know how to play politics, I guess thats a tactic as well as fighting the entire world, and i know there have been many alliances who tried fighting the world, but failed... TS seems to be the only one I've seen who successfully did it that way, speed 1 or speed 3, it still happened. But I'm not as clued in on the older servers to make such a statement 100%.
Heres a way to solve whos the best. End the "merge factor" with wonders, make it to where if the cap is 80 players, then that is all you have to finish wonders, and wa la, whomever can manage resources, spend the most time, and deploy what strategies involved to get the wonders done quicker than others is best. That would also end the incentive of "only in it so I can merge later on to win shiny crowns" mindset.