One of the nice advantages of attacking a fort is that the attackers get to choose the banner placement. This is a good advantage, it gives the best chance for the attackers to win. The reason the revolt placement is choses by the defenders is because its them revolting against occupation. This makes sense within the logic of the game, and just in terms of fairness, ie: If you attack claims, whether its attacking to occupy or attacking to liberate, you choose your best option. The nice part of the system is that the occupying nation literally loses nothing but the occupation if they choose not to act. Your first suggestion basically increases the profits of occupying a nation, which just isn't needed and would be incredibly unfun to have to wait a whole month before you're free. By the time a revolt siege is occurring the Occupying Nation has gotten a hefty war chest (in the case of Livland i believe it hit 100k), gotten to plunder the town, gotten all the towny resources of the Nation AND has been taxing the nation for 2 weeks. Theres absolutely no need to raise the amount of resources an occupying nation is getting.

As a side note its also incredibly funny the first suggestion here is to basically remove the system you don't like because you have to put more effort in fighting rather than just having a siege base and an illegal nation right next to the banner.

The second suggestion removes the Liberation from actually choosing where they want their siege to be, and makes it so that the attackers effectively get to choose. You also couldn't get an automated system to do it, since the distances between siege towns and Forts aren't anywhere near the same across the world, effectively every time a revolt banner placement happens staff would have to be involved. And due to how close nations are on ccnet, the only way this would make it "playable" is if staff chose to put the banner on the side with the enemy siege base, effectively meaning the enemy chooses both where the flag is for the occupation siege, and the revolt siege.

In the case of Livland this rule wouldn't actually help you unless all revolt sieges have to be on the side with an enemy siege base. The enemies of Rome own towns both on the North and South side of the fort, meaning not only would your 2nd suggestion still result in a north banner, you guys actually had the ability to put resources in the north, and simply chose not to do that. It is not the servers fault you guys had every option to defend against a revolt banner from the north, and simply chose not to. This is clearly not an actual suggestion due to an issue, but one side coping that they can't have the best banner placement for themselves because they didn't think ahead, even though it was obvious what was going to happen.

> wait a whole month before you're free

I said they are only occupied for 2 weeks, after which they are released for 2 weeks since theres no point in them placing a banner if its instant win, might as well just make it instant win without even placing it

the part where "you choose the banner placement" just means "you are able to place it away from enemy, next to your towns" which makes it quite a lot harder for enemies and hardly playable. It is a revolt siege but it might be better to make it playable but harder in other ways like extra point gain or something

Lordsrubka literally makes no difference revolts werent cried about during the shimazu siege where we placed far east and the enemy siegebase was far west. So why cry now?

Ideally towns non-peaceful towns would be exposed and vulnerable from all sides since it is the intended environment for siege war. Utrecht (an example of this) has worked from a defensive standpoint since it's creation (although with half the siege participants compared to Europe)

Having overly "meta" town claims/distances is the problem, not that the enemy doesn't want to fork over 20 billion each day in occupation tax and wants to ensure victory.

Fixing such an issue has proved "impossible" by player's standards, so there is no fix

Pji try not to say "cry about it" in every suggestion challenge (impossible)
Your comments literally contribute nothing to the community and should be removed the right to make them

Just because people stay silent doesnt quite mean that its enjoyable and that it cant be improved. Most people that think the server is garbage just leave. They dont even bother suggesting and saying anything

> non-peaceful towns would be exposed and vulnerable

Implies to just turning pvp. PvP does not make them quite vulnerable since explosions are off in them and 1 thick wall and ganks and its pretty safe

You cant really fix their claims, part of that is because people want to make towns close to each other and connected. You can however very much so edit the gameplay so that the unwanted things cant really be used (like having enemy ganks on all sides of the banner and having to pass half of the forts cannons to reach the banner)

Its not something hard to realize. Do unfair/unplayable banner placements exist that are legal? Is anyone gonna contest them? If so should it be fixed or removed. I gave both options. Some towns have fair placements some dont. Proving that one town is somewhat playable doesnt neglect that others exist

Lordsrubka the issue is non existent it’s been a feature for ages without anyone crying and every nation has abused it…

> the issue is non existent

is anyone gonna waste materials on a siege if the banner placement is so bad they can hardly reach it?

Thats the only question to be had here. If no one is gonna participate in a siege like that either remove it (auto release them after 2 weeks, siege immunity 4 weeks immunity after the first one is started, basically 2 week occupied 2 free before you can siege it again) or change how it works. Its not that deep. Your comments on "its been like that for ages stop crying" is contributing to nothing on the server other than increase toxicity which is I guess one of the ccnets strongest traits.

So please, either contribute to the topic by saying if anyone will participate in specific banner placements on the opposite side or restrain your toxicity