In a perfect world, the loyalties of the players would be clearly defined to a particular country and everyone would be more concerned about winning the war instead of individual gains. For me personally, i have never been a knight and have been a member of two squads: a rook and a bish bomb group. The two squads i was a part of were dedicated solely to their respective countries, so we never side-swapped and conducted operations that would be beneficial to our country's overall campaign. In this scenario, I would suggest that each player would be locked to a particular side for the entire tour or at least for a map rotation. If a player's side won the war, their account would receive the same perk reward as their country mates regardless if they were present or absent for the final victory. I believe this would give a lot of incentive to those players to dedicate their efforts to one side for better or worse and cut out those who want to switch to the team who is on the verge of winning the war.
But this ain't Walgreen's, and a lot of people just play this game with only themselves or at best their squad in mind. so my compromise would be to keep the side switching limit the way it is now, but you have to pick a country at the start of your participation in a map. You can play as much or as little as you want for this side (you won't be locked in), but if you're present for a country that wins the war and it is not the one you picked to begin with, then you won't receive a perk reward. Conversely, if your fighting for the losing side and your selected country wins, then you do receive the perk reward. I believe this will lessen the mass of players who switch to the dominant side to hoard and reap last minute benefits.
but in the end, this is only a game and we all pay our $15 to play the way we want to play. So this is not a gripe, just my 2 cents
Flame on, I expect to take heat from individualistic players