How about when there is a smaller clan. There CW wins mean more. Example:

40 players = 1 win each
20 players = 2 win each
10 players = 3 wins each
Under 10 players = 4 wins each

What would you think?

But that would mean that lucky small clans that got more CW wins than usual would get more CW win points than they should

My point exactly. I may be a bit generous in the example but it would help balance it out.

Don't think this makes sense. I don't think there should ever be a case where (for example) 20 people with some WR should be considered equal or lesser (depends on the math) than 10 people (or less) with same WR.

eg: if all 30 players have played and won the same # of games, it makes no sense to just scale it so they're considered equal

That said, I think it might make sense to allow the smaller clans some opportunity to make up for having less chances to get wins. Someone suggested letting players play more than once - that's one option. If the 10 players all played 2 games each and still had same WR, now you can equate that to equal to the 20 players playing 1 game each with same WR. But you can't just weight the wins of small clans higher, else small clans with strong players would have an immense advantage.

Also, it's not really clan size that's relevant, but rather the CW roster (# of players actually playing CW in a given season).

Don't think it's significant that a huge clan like Cats for example might only have 5-10 players playing. There shouldn't be a penalty b/c some players don't like or play CW. Not having this dependency would lessen the need to tailor a clan for CW success. That's one of the current issues notably with newer clans with 40 member cap, is that each member is a CW slot, so if you are trying to be competitive @ CW, each slot counts, which means you need to re-org the clan to achieve CW success, as opposed to standard WZC alignment which is what clans actually stand for.