I see the same post of yours in two places I will re-post my answer to the other one below. In the context of this thread, I will also attempt to answer sopmething I didn't address already.
"You may say they are hiding behind it. May be but they want to keep their assets and their will not just drop it. You may but you want a huge number of gold coins to do so."
-If you are talking about me, I have already raised my war level to very high levels on most worlds, raising it the normal way. If you are implying I am making any suggestions for my benefit, look over my account for the truth. I have no shortage of coins, which I use for nothing more than extending entities recently. If you were to check my countries, you would see them in a state of disrepair because I have barely played for about 4+ months now.
I have all the stuff I need and no material incentive from coins to countries to game cash or anything else remains to entice me to play anymore. I could currently embarrass any combination of attackers to my unprotected countries (of which most of mine are) and the most proficient new players in the last 3 years have all learned from me. The only things I have done in that time is offer solutions to things that destroyed the war game (and most interaction between players), write up guides in the beginner forum (all searchable with my game nickname), try to teach players in chat about the game (without making their brain explode), and defeat and chase out some game cheaters (in which I still have no acknowledgement or thanks).
If there exists a better solution to encourage players to participate in the PvP war game, I am willing to hear it and would urge the gamemaster to monitor its success after implementation. Perhaps, based on the number of player countries present in the game that lack any type of game protections, including war levels, gold coin protections, and secured mode. I will offer my view, I can't help myself, but am willing to be impressed, if some months later, the situation, based on that criteria, improves.
---------------------
Why would anyone raise their war level, to PvP levels, if there is nothing to deter an attacker for initiating a war on them for little risk?
It is important to look at this from both sides. I don't understand why we are only looking at it from the aggressor side, when we have not solved the problem for the majority of the player base who never raise their war level and effectively opt out of the war game. Allowing attacking nations a free hand to do damage for no risk is a fundamental problem in the war game. Choose not to solve this, and the war game remains broken.
The better alternative is create an environment where federation provide the protection and provide the necessary deterrent to player action. If an attacker can choose what to risk and the defender cannot, it is terrible and un-intuitive to the game experience, creating a real problem for anyone to enter the world of federations and PvP (especially new players).
"The warring parties are full members, don't want to lose their money. we can try to enforce some war experience before they get involved in PvP wars. "
-This was the entire reason for my War College idea, that has been posted on the appropriate forum and pushed by me for years. I can only assume that you had the opportunity to look it over in that time and have found a better solution to prepare players for PvP, though nothing exists currently nor has been announced as forthcoming. War College was an excellent introduction to my Battlegrounds (revised) suggestion as well.
"More alerts that send you messages if war is declared, starts, attacks are launched etc."
-I reported that alerts for expiring entities and for declarations of war used to work, and are now broken. I have reported this multiple times. In the current state of the game, someone can overlook logging in for a few days and lose their empire, without ever having received an email (to either expiration or PvP war).
'Natural resources can add an incentive for war. "
-I am willing to add more to this discussion. I have more ideas, but I am awaiting your comments on the framework I proposed. As you know, there is intentional malice for having a larger empire. One of my suggestions, for example, described how natural resources would enter the game. This would occur through player purchase with gold coins. It is important not to expect existing players to expand their current empires, with the larger empire malice intact, to take advantage of this feature.
My full description of my outline of natural resources now exists on multiple threads, and, like War College, has been there for years. I await comment to see if it is worthwhile for me to contribute further to this idea.
"This will reduce the confidence gap between small and large countries."
-I am somewhat concerned about this language and similar that typically is recited by new players. It seems to come from the thinking that the experience is almost solo-player. That it is always one player against another player. This seems inherently flawed, because my impression is the goal of the game experience is a Massively Multi-Player one. Many solutions seem to overlook that fact.
I wonder what our goal is. Is it to sell this game as an experience where you are alone in the woods playing the game all by yourself or one in which you are part of a community of other nations and players. My ideas always push the later idea, but it seems so many solutions push a single-player experience. That seems fatal to the mission of this game.
This game should push the Massive Multi-Player experience it is meant to be. Remember that countries don't fight countries. Players fight players who should seek assistance from other players and be part of federations. If this is not happening, something is wrong until it is happening. Right now, it isn't happening.
---------------