So before we declare a war, we ensure we do our research. Check team activity, make sure we stand a chance at winning and ensure that it will be a good war. We all do, right? (Unless we are in a situation where we want to lose a war to manage league standings).
We had a war finish recently where the opponent had (unknown to us) two players that were either inactive or banned. Because if this, they were held in limbo where we were unable to attack them. As a team who strives to reach 250 flames (like we all do), we were quite bothered by this. A support request yielded the standard “don’t worry, we have shared your concerns with the developers. We can’t promise it will change though” response that they say with everything. They say it’s irrelevant because the players cannot attack, nor can they be attacked.
I beg to differ. It is NOT irrelevant. Teams (if smart) review wars and attack based on the ability to win a war. If a teams players go inactive, why is that the opponents issue? The opposing team should still be able to attack those bases and earn the flames. If they were on the roster when the war was declared, they should be fair game. If they have gone inactive or been banned, the opposing team should get 5 flames for those bases. It could bring about the situation where a team could lose on defense points scoring 240 flames, even though they had all players come online and try to attack. This needs to be changed and those players need to be fair game, or 5 flames given to the opponent.