A majority of wars till date have been dogpiles. While there are few examples of how a side with superior activity and "competence" in general have been able to "win" against dogpiles, dogpiles are generally hated by the community. The reason for the hate is that it is extremely hard to win a dogpile. While there have been a number of changes to solve this problem, none of them seem to have been effective enough. The most notable among these failed changes has been the reduction to causalities for defenders in the war compared to the aggressor. While such a system looks good on paper in a 1v1 situation, nations have 3 defensive slots and hence we really need to look at a 3v1 situation, sometimes at 9v1 situations even. The biggest reason for the failure is that to oppose an invading force, the defender needs to attack the aggressor as well in which case the causality nerf applies to the defender. Plus, having already lost units in the opening hits by the aggressor, the defender is effectively already fighting an up-hill battle.The topic of this forum post however is not to criticize past decision - it is to provide a solution and maybe influence any future ones. Potential Solutions:
Ending all wars in beige:
This has been one of the most suggested changes to fight back against dogpiles. Dogpiles always rely on two things-Manpower and Beige Cycling. Ending all wars in beige makes Beige Cycling extremely difficult. Even at the current rate of 2 days of beige, at worst, the person on the losing side of a war would be able to get into a situation where he is being sat on by a single player alone and has upto 4 days of beige. Double Buys and coordination by the losing side could easily subdue this single person sitting on a zeroed person, letting them build up to at least some days of military buys and rejoining the battle against the enemy. Moreover, since both beiging and expiring the war would result in beige, players would be more inclined to beige their wars for the loot and infra damage than to just sit around and let a war expire.
Ending all wars in beige do have some abusable points like where pirates could use this to get beiged before raiding new targets or slotfilling being hard to detect because the person is doing attacks. But such abuses would be easy to notice and punish. To make getting beiged by expired wars punitive for the defender, the target would lost 4% of their infrastructure as they would in case of being defeated. To make it punitive for the aggressor, a war beiged due to expiry will not give any beige loot to the aggressor. This would also stop abuses by pirates who might attack an inactive player, do a single attack to get their resistance below 100 and then expire the war without doing any more attacks but looting the target.
Increasing Resistance Loss due to attacks: A second way to stop sitting would be to increase resistance loss due to attacks. Currently, the least number of attacks needed to beige a person 8 attacks. This implies that if you are attacked, the attacker would be able to do 8 battles against you and you will lose units 8 times. Now, if say the number of battles a person could do to you was reduced to 5. You would in theory lose 37.5% less units. The attackers would have to attack you more to zero you. This makes it more likely for the attacker to beige you and give you time to rebuild. This plus the lower causalities to defender would mean it is harder to zero a nation out without beiging them and giving them time to rebuild.
The proposal hence is that the resistance lost per attack be increased. A new resistance table would need to be drawn up for this. However, that is something a person good with numbers should do and not me. The theory is if more resistance is lost, sitting would be harder and beige time would help people recover. It is also possible that the players would enter beige with some military leftover.
Decreasing defensive slots: This might be a controversial suggestion and might not be liked by all. However, a 2 defensive slot system could immensely help a smaller side. In a war with say an opponent 10 times larger than you own, the odds would always be 3v1 since that is the maximum number of defensive slots you have. Any person other than these 3 would just be sitting out there waiting for their turn. However, 3 people attacking 1 person might actually be overkill. A 2v1 might be more manageable. Not only this, since 2 people would kill less units, it might be more difficult to sit as well. Plus, upon getting beiged, it is possible the defender would still have a part of their military leftover.
As to why this would be a bad thing to do, this would make the whales in the game extremely powerful, especially since it would be very hard to drag their military down and inflict much damage on them.
Increasing daily buy limits: Another way to let dogpiled nations fight back is to increase daily buy limits for nations. Being able to buy more military daily(say 25%-33%) of your military daily would allow nations to easily fight back their aggressors, even if they have more military. Even though these attacks would probably be suicide attacks, a well-coordinated team attack could easily help beat down or even zero the aggressors in such situations. The downside to this is that since the aggressor too can buy more military, it might become more of a stalemate war with the winner being decided by whoever has a larger bank or more willpower to keep fighting. To implement this however, causalities would need to be increased to make it worthwhile to fight and double buy against the aggressors.
Different kill rates depending on whether you are the aggressor or the defender: I opened with how reducing causalities to make wars even didn't exactly work out the way it was intended to. This is a patch to that change. Basically, depending on whether you are the aggressor or the defender, your causality rates would differ. If you are the aggressor, you would lose more units and kill less units in offensive wars compared to what the defender would. That is to say, if you lose 100 soldiers and 10 tanks and kill 200 soldiers and 30 tanks in an offensive ground battle as an aggressor, the defender would lose 50 soldiers and 5 tanks while killing 300 soldiers and 50 tanks in an offensive ground battle as the defender(the numbers are just examples). The difference in numbers signifies the "Home Advantage" of the defender. This could make chipping at the aggressor by defenders more worthwhile than they are now and give a better way to fight back.