I'm sorry, but one of the best things about this game is that you can play it in so many different ways, using different nations, compositions, upgrade, and drop strategies. Now we are being faulted for using one that works well for us? If you don't like that people don't use the first aid or barrage tactic, then change them (why do I need first aid when I have supply carts, why do I need barrage when I have so many options to kill troops that are way better and more long lasting than a tiny area of archer fire) - doing this isn't going to stop people from using sabotage or protect. If you think that shooter nations are too overpowered why don't you address some of the things that people have been bringing up in the forums for months, making Japanese and Greek more viable. Instead of fixing imbalances you make problems for people who play the game as it was meant to be played. I welcomed the new coalition changes, I think they have made the game much more interesting and it made them viable to boost them with upgrades and offer the additional armies on offense and defense, taking something away because people are using it too much is the opposite of listening to a very vocal community.
And by adding this time component to perfect score stalemates (a very common outcome in our alliance) you incentivize sandbagging to the point that we are being punished even more for having a well-rounded group of real and active players; and it shows how little you care about most of the teams in the game outside of maybe 5% of players on the top teams. We work so hard to stalemate teams that have a huge level disadvantage, and consider it a win when we can pull it off. It takes all our attacks, coalitions, strategy, and troop tactics and we still love to play the game. If we know we are going to lose anyway what's even the point in even trying in these wars, or warring at all. You've completely ruined war in one update (laughably not the update that brought us the plight of sandbagging in the first place).
