The first idea proposed is a nice thought, but realistically I couldn't see it working.
However I do fully agree with 10 man alliances - for many reasons.
- Alliances of 20 super-active players are TOO difficult to breakdown nowadays, which has been shown these last 2 rounds. Reducing this to 10 may mean we still get these super-active alliances, but 10 player alliances are, in my opinion, easier to breakdown.
- Continuing from the first point, nowadays we struggle to get even 2 alliances capable of going for the win. 10 man alliances would increase competition, help with alliances working together to take down an alliance. I think we would get a guaranteed 3-4 allies going for the win. 20 man alliances worked in the past because we had more, more active players. We don't nowadays.
People have been saying that 10 man alliances would mean people would have to be more active to compensate for lack of coverage during the day. The change may make people play more actively, but I believe the majority of players wouldn't change.
And anyway, is the lack of coverage a bad thing? I don't believe it is. I hate the degree of invulnerability around the top alliances nowadays, and maybe this change would teach people to once again think 'Hey, it is actually alright to die'. And who knows, maybe we can bring some fun back in to this game, something that has been severely lacking in recent times.