Make BGs more defense-efficient to reflect the difficulty in killing them, but at a much higher cost.

If we're set on how difficult BGs are to kill now (in order to prevent/discourage BG stealthing), each BG should provide substantially more protection. In return, the total number of BGs to be at the BG cap should be proportionally reduced. This means that, while a BG will be remain difficult to kill, it represents a much larger portion of the target's defenses. Killing one BG out of 175 feels pretty futile, but killing one out of 35 (as an example) means quite a lot.

That example, 35 BGs as the cap, would multiply the BGs' effectiveness and prices by five but reduce the total number of BGs needed by five, adding no additional cost but making each individual BG more valuable. Tipped BGs, for example, could offer a much greater boost in protection at no added cost.

I've made suggestions pertaining to BG wacking in the past. I'll quickly voice my thoughts here so as to not be repetitious.

• BG Wacking, as a feature/mechanic, seems to function now as a mid-game training range. The vast vast majority of BGs are killed after the death of their employer as a means of building a gun.
• Individual BGs offer little protection from shots at their employer but have tremendous protection themselves and are incredibly sturdy.
• Mid-game hitters have a distinct lack of purpose; they're either killing proers (who require far less gun strength) or providing pros themselves until they can hit the targets necessary (who require far more gun strength).
• It is frequently advantageous to train only a few guns in a crew or city vs. many guns, as the kills are more potent on a single stronger gun than on many weaker ones. One person with 1000 kills and 9 proers can accomplish much more than 2 people with 500 kills and 8 proers, who can accomplish much more than 10 people with 100 kills.

I believe an updated BG & BG wack mechanic could accomplish the following:

1. Give hitters at all levels a distinguishable purpose (proing, killing proers, then killing BGs, then killing targets) and make that purpose meaningful.
2. Reduce our reliance on protection wacking and perhaps make the proer 1% shot more rare.
3. Eliminate or reform the BG cap to maintain a fair approach balancing the time invested on both sides (as the cost of an additional BG could be similar to training another hitter).
4. Encourage wars to include players at all levels, especially if BG wacking is necessary to make the targets killable (if the BG cap were removed or raised).

My question to you all is this: should BG wacking be a training mechanic or a strategic one?

I've had very similar thoughts to this in the past. I've been so far to even say make the BG cap 10, like it used to be, to help promote the use of other hitters during war.

Many 'wars' these days are takedowns that happen when a much bigger city hits a smaller city. Or even when a group of allied cities/districts hit a smaller group. Nonetheless these wars are not as eventful I feel they should be. I think this suggestion would change that dynamic in the game and force the game to utilize more people. It'll help with smaller cities being able to act against much bigger ones too. It'll help balance that field as well.

The main reason I am for is, is the opportunity to allow more people to get involved in things. The more players getting involved in things, the better. 

Anyone else have any thoughts on this? I don't see why this would have any downsides or disadvantages for anyone currently if it's implemented in the game. 

I'm half asleep and on mobile but real quick just two thoughts -  how would you address the issue of all the Loyal BGs people have acquired? How would Raids look if this were changed? 

I'm half asleep and on mobile but real quick just two thoughts -  how would you address the issue of all the Loyal BGs people have acquired? How would Raids look if this were changed? 

I'm assuming you mean tipped bgs, and I figure little needs to change there. I haven't been around that feature long enough to know, on average, how many tipped BGs a player maintains. I'd think a player's total number of tipped BGs could be reduced proportional to the overall reduction and the top-trained BGs are what remains. If a player has 15 tipped BGs out of 175, they'll keep their 3 best-trained tipped BGs (15/175 = 3/35) and be reimbursed for the training expenses.

If players are unwilling to give up their tipped BGs (proportionally), I suppose you could retain all tipped BGs up to the new cap. So if a player has 15 tipped BGs out of 175, they'll keep all fifteen and have 20 un-tipped BGs. Anything over 35 would be reimbursed for training expenses.

As for the ramifications on BG effectiveness, the math is interesting.

35 BGs @ 100 HP = 35 * 25 = 875 Wackstat to hit cap (0% Tipped BGs)

35 BGs @ 130 HP = 35 * 32.5 = 1137.5 Wackstat to hit cap (100% Tipped BGs)

Personally I think this is the desired effect; BG tipping allows for a natural swelling of BG strength as a character ages that complements this feature very nicely. Because those tipped BGs will compose a larger portion of player's defenses, BG wacking will go from being a training mechanic to a necessity (for particular targets).

As for the raids, I don't see how they need to change at all. They're an engaging part of the game now and I'd hate to see that negatively altered.