Depends where the money comes from, nobody would like to win a siege to find their efforts wasted because
A) The non-peaceful town couldn't pay for the regen
B) the nation bank goes into debt (while upkeep is off I wouldn't be surprised if when it goes negative the nation folds)

Plus the money gained from sieges is very less

Sieges are way more expensive for attackers this would bring atleast some balance because transport of stuff, shells, pots and other materials is very hard and Sniper said if they want fort to be fixed then u have to pay not making it mandatory(if u dont have money).

Yeah, this would make it easier to acually destroy a nation instead of occupying. Cause currently u can't destroy a nation just through sieges so it would help old nations die and new nations grow. Also what sop said

This just seems like a grab since your winning most sieges but. How much would they pack if lets say 300k deepslate was broken? 300k$ is way to much. You moving pots cost you nothing use /cargo it will take you 2 whole ours to move every pot and supplies. Have someone make all your war supplies and give it to you ( Its not expensive ) And it wouldn't help 'old nations' die it would just kill every nation that cant out movecraft coalition

pay* hours*

Oh it def wouldn't be $1 a block
More like $1 per 10 blocks
So even in the rare case u break 300k blocks (alot of blocks to be drilled) the 30k will be nothing compared to the cost of the shells. I just want it to be worth it to drill the fort. Cause currently it's not a big deal

The main point of drilling the fort is to destroy cannons or attempt to break into there bunker. You could tell your people to only blow up cannons and then stop firing.

This is a great idea to make people quit after one siege and never return.

Oh I'm sorry that u can't afford to pay prob around 5-10k after a siege ends if ur fort is basically gone. Be realistic lmao that's not alot of money. And drilling the fort is used to remove or even take control of their fort advantage as well as protecting the banner from out of reach players.

Ok lemme do the maths. Nishi is 2.4 mil blocks. Each cone being around 400k and the walls being around 300k estimated. If u where to completely destroy every block on one side of the fort (one side is around 240 blocks long) and cut a quarter out of nishi I would only have to pay 70k. Which I think is way beyond a fair price. Honestly be realistic

Now do the maths for shimazu being 3 x 3 chunks base and prob 30-40 blocks tall. And tell me how much it would cost to fully fix that base. U know what I'll do it for u. 9.2k estimated if the fort was completely gone. Do the maths kid its not that much

Oh, probably we can afford it because we have played for a long time. But what about new players? How are they gonna take the fact they have to pay to repair their fort? We are not the only people who will ever play Nations.

I'm sorry but if a tiny nation builds a massive fort and then it gets destroyed its their fault. A poor person wouldn't buy a bugatti. Also idk why ur complaining, all the massive forts are in the coalition.

you see, new nations need a large non-peaceful town since it is the only way to stop a "wow lets siege that flat non-peaceful town just to gain an extra $8 a day"

Having a large f-off fort disincentives a siege that would yield little reward since losing movecraft can become costly when the reward wont cover the cost of 3 tanks

anyhow, if this was introduced it would need to be optional (like a confirm command by the mayor after the siege ended)

so if the nation can't afford the monetary expenditure they can simply opt to re-build by hand

Yeah acually that does sound better tbh

Also this would bring some balance to the warchest because as sop said attackers spend way more money,time and effort with transporting and making shells,pots etc. And the defenders (if they win) don't get that much of a boost of money. Which is reasonable tbh.

It shouldnt be too expensive