When there are game changes that I don't agree with, I try and voice my opinion. I try to base that opinion on what facts or observations in the game that I can draw from.
The recent 12 hour country side switch rule, doesn't affect the way that I play, but I have observed complaints about how others were abusing a "short" side change time. So, the vast majority of players lost some freedom in order to "improve" the game play.
The increase in town percentage has been the only change, that I really consider to be a "game changer". I have observed a major difference in the number and size of attacks, since the percentage grew "again" from 50%. It was a fact that one pass from a bomber could possibly raise a white flag. It is my observation however, that town ack requires more of a fighter or attacker to prepare a town for capture. A third element must bring the troops in.
For a defensive stand it takes one attacker to destroy barracks, vehicle hangars or 1 troop before entering the maproom. So basically, those who complained that their countrymen were too lazy or self absorbed to defend widespread attacks on their fields, or play any type of strategic chess game that promoted small fights across the map, feel more comfortable with the massive horde raids in literally one or two areas of any map no matter the size of the map. (Sorry, I strayed from the facts in calling players lazy or self absorbed, but more than annoyed that "gangs" are rewarded).
My only question for the game designers is how far is too far?
All in all, I still enjoy the game and will continue to as long as it is available to me. Perhaps minor adjustments in the future, instead of hot or cold settings may give the desired results with less of the headache from us "know-it-alls".
