This whole argument seems ridiculous. A small group should almost always lose to a large group. That's just reality. In real life an army of a thousand will always beat an army of 300 unless the 300 use something to their advantage.. like the 300 did in the movie 300, where they used a choke to make the enemy Zerg have to fight in smaller numbers.
Also, huge armies don't gather to fight a small percentage of their number due to the cost it takes to gather such an army. SBI should focus on hitting huge zergs in the wallet instead mindlessly messing with the damage and defense numbers. Just make huge alliances cost money and then watch them shrink.
I agree. I recently read about the battle of Agincourt, in which less than ten thousand English defeated a French force at least ten times as large (maybe up to fifteen times). To put the fight in simplified Albion terms:
- The French charged with mounted tanks into permanent CC (swampy ground, in which the horses reportedly sank up to the knees)
- The English had experienced longbowmen, effectively 400/400 single-target, armor-piercing DPS, with a high rate of fire, stationed behind a permanent firewall (pointed stakes the enemy horses wouldn't run into)
- The English archers obliterated the slowed tanks; the few that made it to the archer line were dismounted and killed
That wasn't a cohesion problem. The English had a qualitive advantage, and exploited the terrain and the enemy nobility's desire to get the glory.
I wish Albion would add more fortification and terrain advantages, such that a smaller force -could- exploit them to hold off a much larger force, instead of this disarray debuff bandaid, which mostly seems to be pushing newer players out of the fights.