a suggestion about attacks

The 30 day rule doesn't go far enough or work fairly enough and nor will it until all the people playing can spend exactly the same amount of time in the game and/or spend the same amount of money as each other and that will never happen.

Surely true level v level would make for a much more fun experience for all as everyone would stand a chance of winning instead of just being annihilated and it would also stop the top level 50 players of an alliance attacking together and using artillery, tanks and planes against a medieval or even classical player which is the bone of contention with an enormous amount of players and causes some/a lot of them to leave the game completely. 

I truly think it would make for a much happier game and there would actually be more pvp battles and less complaints as a result. 

It would also mean the more advanced players have to attack each other and actually risk losing some troops instead of always banding together in large enough numbers so they don't lose a precious one and hopefully this change should stop them ever becoming bored again ;-) :).

Please Bers and other Devs, don't dismiss this out of hand, please give us the chance to at least try this method of attack restriction and see how it works out.

wouldn't it possible for there to be a rule that you can only attack someone of the same level?

I was searching for threads where players complain against attacks and want to post that this feature was implemented by the end of last alpha, which is called "30 day rule" where player can attack only players who are 30 days older or younger than him, which is basically a fair version of "can only attack someone of the same level".

Sad to see the same issues are still bothersome to some players. Yes as Bers has said ,this has been discussed in multiple occasions and the solution was the 30 day rule. But, can I dare to say not all improvements actually do improve? The 30 day rule in reality presents no benefit. Why is it so difficult to understand that is not how old the hero is the advantage, but how advance in era she/he is.

The difference between a player investing 8+ hours a day, or investing $$ will always be more  than the rest of the players. That player will  advance much faster than others.  And, since there's no expectation that any player must invest money (or long hours) in this game, it makes for an unfair advantage. I'm aware of certain players moving very fast throughout the levels without money investment ( no need to point that out), but, there is a large investment in time that not everyone can afford.

 Realizing that almost a year later this 30 day rule has NOT accomplished its purpose is something that should be taking into consideration by devs.IMO no "real warrior" should never attack a player at a lower level (regardless of hero age), in the same content a warrior should be allowed to attack a higher level hero (also regardless of hero age). This where the 30 day rule fails. There should also be a way of eliminating that advantage if a player decides to stay stagnant  at a particular level for the sole purpose of not getting attack. I'm not a developer, but I'm guessing these are changes that can be easily made.