Here's my 50 cents.
1. How to make old realms with many regions and few nobles not be afraid of wars? Make them slowly lose regions which go beyond their density to deteriorating control. Nothing to lose, no reason to choose greed over fun.
2 and etc. Don't see an issue with pile ons.
As a ruler with experience of pile-on wars (the receiving end) I want to note that my frustration never stemmed from the fact that there was a huge coalition fighting us. My frustration was solely rooted in the fact that the same old !@#$ was happening for two rl years. It felt like someone was trying to kill you by gently tapping you with a spoon for two years. If the North went and bloody conquered Perdan and made peace, that would be unfortunate but absolutely fine for gameplay purposes.
Thus my opinion, as I previously voiced it many times, is wars need to be made structured and limited in time and scope. I don't care if ten realms want to declare war on one realm. If the goal is to "go and conquer that one city" and timeframe is "no longer than 4 rl month" then it can get some people butthurt but it won't make the gameplay stale and disgusting.
I think the recent change made a step in the right direction, but also made two steps in the wrong direction. It did force realms to come up with more realistic goals, which is good. But it did imply that wars need to be balanced and we all know that in a balanced war there is usually no winners. That's like forcing the North to send less nobles to Perdan to make sure they have even less chances to conquer Perdan city and make sure the war continues for 5 more rl years. No wonder they don't even want to start it.
Remove the "no pile-ons" clause. Throw in limitations on time and scope. Instead of one huge war between equal enemies that never ends, we can have a series of small-time wars with betrayals and major gangbangs which will change the map but not completely reshape it. Lower stakes and limited timeframe for wars will make the landscape more dynamic.
/50 cents
