I like wars too, and I concur with the standards of the fight.
However, I am bored with the concept of "random fighting".
I would submit to the floor that wars are fought for purposes and to achieve objectives.
Having said that, I would submit that there be various conditions for victory beyond simple body counts. To ensure balance, each side should have similar numbers total. Perhaps, multiple battles ocurring simultaneously. Though, it is up to the "Generals" to decide how many are allocated where to fight. Forces could not be reallocated until battles are resolved.
For example:
Vesper:
Key locations to allocate forces:
Docks
Bank
Western Road into the city.
The Attacker must approach the docks by sea, Defenders must prevent landing
Bank.
Attacker may recall or gate, Defenders must repell assault
Western Road into city.
Attacker approaches from the Minoc Moongate, Defenders must prevent attacker entering the city.
Generals from each side apportion the forces to each location. Forces cannot move to another fighting area without first achieving the victory conditions of one of the sides. Each fighting area must have a victorious side and a defeated side before pressing to another fighting area. If defenders flee from the fight area, it is a yield to the attackers for victory.
Something along those lines. At least for me, wars are better fought to achieve goals rather than random fighting and trying to keep track of who killed who, and how many times I got killed vice how many folks I killed.
War/Battle locations can be changed up to account for environmental effects. Some locations allow fielding, some may not. That way, tactics and techniques will have to be varied; which in my mind establishes true talent in PvP. How well players can adapt to changes and function as a team, if you will.
Hope this helps and isn't construed as just a long babble.