What kind of wars should bd have ideally in your opinion? What are they lacking normally or all the time?

Wars with coalitions supporting one team to ultimately win?

Wars without subs or allies? (1v1)

Multiple wars occurring between top alliances at the same time?

Wars with more tactics and strategy?

Longer wars? ~1000+ ticks?

Shorter wars? ~500+- ticks?

What kind of wars do you think battle dawn should have?

All of them lol

It makes eras far more different and therefore exciting and suprising when certain wars happen allowing you to use different tactics ever era.

However the type of war I would like to see is a 4-5 smaller alliances outside the top 10 taking on the top alliances when working together as its makes that victory more rewarding when you topple giants in an era when you are the clear underdogs.

I concur underdogs always make a good story

3-way wars?

What I would like to see..

1. Many lower ranked alliances ganging up on the rank 1 alliance.
2. Wars that aren't just between 2 members but are a balancing act between 3 or more alliances.
3. Wars that don't involve ANY subs or any help and are just 1v1.

Now, why these 3 don't really occur.

1. Lower ranked alliances combined tend to have bigger armies than the rank 1 alliance does solo. The problem however is that the reason that they are lower ranked probably IS because they are less active, boosting less or have worse communication. When you have alliances that are less active and have worse connections, it's hard to convince other alliances to fight the big bad rank 1 alliance with you since they think they will die. Even if they do manage to get some alliances with them to fight the rank 1 alliance, they will be far less coordinated than the rank 1 alliance, will probably not be as smart with spies and therefore be picked off one by one.

2. Pretty much all the top players in Battledawn know each other. If I'm going to war with an alliance and another alliance is at war with them as well, I'd check if I know the leader and if I do, try and talk to him so that we can fight together rather than also fighting each other. Same goes for the alliance being attacked, but in all cases it makes more sense for all parties to try and get 1 other team on their side rather than fighting both.

3. When you have 2 alliances that are equal or close to being equal to each other in terms of power, skill and activity, a sub can be a very important asset. And even when you are the alliance that is stronger etc, it can still be helpful to have a sub to save yourself losses if income is low (I'm thinking of the Championship era here). If your enemy also has subs, and those subs are pure range or at least a lot of range, it isn't really economically feasible for the top alliance to take out these subs. You would lose a lot of armor in the best case scenario, and while you are trying to rebuild other alliances can gang up on you and leave you unable to defend.
In case that explanation wasn't clear: During the Champions era we as VND took out.. I believe it was CA. It was a clean kill, but it cost us a LOT of armor. If BEER hadn't been there we would have easily been pushed back by some of the other SAGE subs, simply because they could actually suicide into us and still it would mean a victory for the larger collective.

So that's really why wars are the way they are and why regardless of whether people like it or not, subs are a very strong and useful weapon. And that is also why people will keep saying they don't like having subs, but when it comes down to it they will use subs. With current game mechanics it's the foolproof way to win.

I would love to see an all out brawl. 5 alliances, attacking anything that moves.

But other than that, I suppose anything is better than a sub-fest.

P.S. I've never had a sub that I didn't want to conquer and relocate to a different server.

-Pete

I agree with Milan. And I would like to see 3-5 teams just all war each other. Not just team up on one. But war both or everyone lol.

wars where one side doesn't just give up as soon as they lose a couple ops.

I would call that a battle before a war