As for having land+sack as a combined attack, I don't like that idea too much. Personally, I think that it would encourage more sacking. As it stands, sacking has something of an "opportunity cost" - you use turns, troops, and health to sack that you could have spent gathering land. When it's a 10% sack, obviously that's not such a big deal. Reduce the amount that one can sack, however, and it becomes a less beneficial equation. Sacking should always be a trade-off, in my opinion, not a nice fringe benefit while still getting land. I do agree with encouraging land flow, but I respectfully disagree that combining sack+land is a good idea. You're MORE likely to get irreparable resource damage that way, as a 31-hit limit means that you'll just make a few more land+sack attacks to make up for the reduced land take.
I'd rather give the reduced+shielded sack a trial run before we abandon the idea completely. Technically speaking, it's a 2-year-old proposal.
By the way, your math is off. 31 attacks at 2% sack (assuming maximum sack on every turn [unlikely] with shields up and that every attack goes through) means that you'll get 46.5% of the person's resources. Each time you take 2%, so they have 98% of their previous total left. 0.98^n is the proper equation for calculating the minimum remaining amount, where n is the number of attacks. 0.98^31 = 0.534574633, meaning that roughly 46.5% is the maximum you can take. Meanwhile, you've absolutely maxed them and basically declared war on them.
Buuuuut you know that. I just realised you were assuming 3%. The proposal is for 2-3%, with shields reducing it to 2/3 of that.
