To be honest, Pang has said anything on this thread above and beyond common sense. If SOL is feeling insecure about matching up to SoF (can't imagine why, since our alliances are friends, and definitely can't imagine why a SOL member would try to troll their ally), then they should try to match the circumstances of the war, instead of a hollow country count.

You said earlier that an FS is not equal to a 40 country advantage, but war strats vs. netgaining strats, preparedness, and the will to fight is worth a hundred countries. Yes, SOL has fought a very good fight, but it isn't against an opponent close to the strength of ECM from last reset. Imag, ICN, and LCN fully war prepped and motivated - expecting a war, not netting set would be a very different opponent than the one you fought, and probably would've given you a better war, and a more prestigious victory, but not the easy victory your leadership seems to be seeking.

Netgainers who are set up to netgain, tend not to be motivated to fight a war - so while an alliance at peace may have 40 countries, they may have half of that in a fight. If nothing else, your wars with LaF should have taught you this, but I think your leadership knows this, and planned this war for that reason - an opportunity for SOL to play the underdog while not putting themselves at significant risk of defeat.

The main difference between this game today and when I stopped playing circa 2003 is the specializing of alliances - in 2003, the majority of alliances would look to fight or netgain depending on mood, and the best alliances excelled at both (which is why SOL was going from a top power to coalition filler when I left). There were a few alliances who specialized, but they were for the most marginalized.

Today, pretty much every alliance specializes in war or netting. Alliances that try to do both can't compete and are marginalized. The game, or more importantly, the way the game is played rewards netgainers who play strategies ill suited to fighting, and vice versa for fighting strats. An alliance or group of alliances with countries set up for netgaining is not going to out fight a warring alliance with strats tailored to a specific fs date and time, no matter how much they out number them. If SOL's leadership had more balls, they could've added WoF, PDM, and RD to their war, and still won.

Yes SOL fought a much bigger opponent, did a great job of walling, and kicked ass, but to call it a great victory is an overstatement. More likely it is an affirmation of the unbalance of the game, and a sign that maybe the game should change to not reward specialization to the level it does now. Making kills much more difficult would be a start, but the admins do not seem open to that large of a change of the game's dynamics, and they probably have a good handle on the pulse of their players. Also, making wargaining a viable strat would help too - greatly inflating the networth gained in a war - for example, having the killing country inherit the stock, military, tech, land, and buildings of their vanquished opponent.