My best suggestion

H and White are both spread out alliances and as such conclusion will be very slow.  The game has certainly come up lacking in volatility for alliances at our scale, and this is largely a function of being able to build tight clusters and troop speeds that are very slow compared to the size of the game world.  Also, many mechanics designed to prevent large players from gooning smaller ones have the side effect of promoting stalemate amongst equals (even if to a lesser degree).

However, a city has been destroyed and a few additional attempts made on both sides.  Also keep in mind that much of the fighting is at intellectual levels, and military activity will substantially accelerate when the war is won there.

----

Players who play lone ranger or just join a small-time alliance of locals have no idea how much intrigue, suspense, true camaraderie earned amongst battle scars, and opportunity to develop new social, "real" world skills they are missing.  So while my original argument was facetious, the suggestion itself was serious.  Join a big alliance or grow the one you are in.  Become large enough that you can no longer operate as a rag-tag group of friends and start experimenting with different forms of governance (and don't just assume either democracy, dictatorship, or republic will work--there are plenty of other options like feudalism which can better manage regional organization, for example).  Divide roles, establish training regimen and standards for promotion, perform field exercises, award medals for service in combat, etc.  Find your place amongst the other alliances and choose allies you can rely on not only to back you up but to refrain from dragging you into their messes (or making messes in the first place).  Choose a cause, stand by it, and wars will magically materialize with alliances that don't share your world view.

No matter how sophisticated the options get, this is still a browser game.  90% of the thrill and appeal comes from what you bring to the table.

H and White are fighting each other constantly Tony.
FYI :)

How would you have won ????. Your progression would be to gradually spread across the map as you expand outward, claiming a block of land as your own, joining up blocks of land with your allies, protecting your borders. etc. Giving freedom to have minor wars without involvement of alliances.   Far from making game more interesting, alliances are the game killers, they deter any movement.  But it would be good for alliances too as they could form proper definable territories, instead of having members  dotted everywhere in such chaotic fashion. It would give the map real shape.

The best way to super enhance this game is to strictly limit the range  of an army. If they were only able to move perhaps 15 or 20 squares from home you would greatly limit the dominance of alliances and encourage some game action. Players would be able to assess the threats, develop an offensive stategy and manage a war  on a more level playing field, instead of being paralysed by the threat of an attack from every direction. We could have battles all over the map instead of this stalemate.  Players are just sitting on their armies without ever having the chance to use them for fear of a mass reprisal. You have the rubbish situation of the entire game being controlled by the few heads of big alliances. Limiting their range and influence would open the game up to everyone.