What I am Suggestions is:

A second option when wacking to get up close and personal. Called "Close the Distance", this option would negate some or all (Whatever is decided in the discussion, but I think the exact amount should remain unknown. To increase risk) of the distance mechanic. At an increased risk of a Wackback death. (I was thinking possible 2.5-5%, but figured the community or admins could find an agreeable number)

What I think this adds:

I think this can add a bit of an all or nothing kind of attack, or like a risker attack. You are essentially running up and attacking someone instead of shooting at them from afar, so the reason for the increased wackback death is that they may notice you and shoot at you first. 

Please let me know what you think about this, as well as if you think it should be implemented what your suggested number ranges for the actual change itself
 

I wholeheartedly disagree with altering distance already. Distance has been a factor for a few years now, it was just minor and mostly negligible. Increasing it as was done has, in my eyes, created an entirely new element to the game. A lot of the userbase doesn't know anything but single wave takedowns, but relatively speaking they were a new trend that began in 2012-3 ish with the implementation of the BG cap. Prior to that, wars were rarely one wave affairs because guns were harder to build, and BGs were harder to fund but essentially unlimited. These factors added strategy to war and consequences for doing it wrong. The attacking side was not always the victorious side, and it prevented wars for the sake of wars. I think with the buff to distance we could see a return to that era in some ways, where beginning a war is a decision that needs to have substantial backing and entire cities working together in order to succeed.

Obviously no one wants to see wars routinely span several days as we have the last two, but we are in the adjustment and discovery period of the new math. The benefits of increased distance far outweigh anything your suggestion would create, which is basically a shortcut to hitting a cross country shot at slightly increased wackback risk. In order to cut basically hundreds of wackstat off of a shot the risk would have to be ridiculous for balance sake, or else everyone would just use that feature for every shot.

You know I truthfully didn’t think this would affect wars, (because I didn’t think it would be something a lot of people would be willing to risk. Especially not on a scale as large as a first wave.) I personally wouldn’t wanna suggest any changes that we as a community think would take us back to those days. I know we as a player base, myself included, complained for years about how there were no more wars and just quick takedowns that would happen in the dead of night. So if we think adding this would take us back to those days, then hell I’d be opposed to my own suggestion. 

Personally, I think two to three day wars are preferable.  It's more realistic, has more surprises, and makes, as you say, the initial decision to start one a harder one.