title missspell **Banner placement rule
not role

I don't see any issue with the current system, since nation leader(s) are fully responsible for who can place the banner (general rank) and accidents are bound the happen, it's wrong to punish users for an honest mistake, especially when their superiors could've prevented it

"Rick, I think he meant the fact that you can win a siege by just placing the revolt banner one millisecond before the suppressors since when you place the banner between the defence town and the fort a win is guaranteed for the occupied nation.

In my opinion, mere seconds should not decide the fate of a two-day siege. I think the occupying nation should have five minutes in advance to place the banner. Alternatively, if we want to give even more advantages to defenders, other than the close banner, cannons, and unreachable gunner positions, we can make it so that they can place the banner only in the direction of the enemy siege base. However, I'm not sure how that would work

This means you are giving every advantage to the attacker , if you are attacking you should know that you need to be powerful enough for these types of things and not ask for everything to be turned in your favor , if you can't win simply don't siege

Idc, if every "side" limited itself to 1 covered side we could simply move the banner to one of the more open sides

But it's either; let the attackers have banner position control again (look how well that was for the occupied town) or let defenders place their banner (can't use the siegebase effectively, harder to contest)

gaming. incendiary does 9.5 hearts if u cant cannon a banner. don’t get sieged

Debug, your idea would entirely remove revolt sieges from happening, which is wholly unfair

Panda, wym remove? Theres already a lot of advantages for teh fort owner nation, teh defenders. If they place banner where the attackers cant even get to, its just a free siege, no need for 2 days of fighting.

no we are not removing revolt sieges, we are only making it so that defenders cannot guarantee a win just because they placed their banner 1 milisecond before the attackers.

yes, exactly what debug is saying. By just placing the banner between the fort and defense town, its an unfair advantage.
Im not saying that it has to be on the siege bases side. no. Just not between the fort and the defense town

I personally beleive there should be a window for a revolt banner to be placed before a suppression can be placed

maybe Bunlik. but these two types of sieges have the exact same outcomes on win or lose.
The thing is, that than the revolters shouldnt place banner between fort and defense town

And we could also ban them from having 2 siege bases so we can have an open empty side to put our banner on , a fort should have 2 sides covered by its own defence town but not 2 siege bases from one side

Place banner wherever that's part or tactics adapt and overcome

Debug if you give attackers a headstart then they will always be able to place a suppression banner. Your suggestion means a revolt would no longer be possible

ok, panda I agree with that. Even tho revolt siege and surpression siege have the same outcomes. Thats why I didnt say that. Only so that revolters cannot place banner between fort and defense town. Not necessarily on the siege base side, but not in that unwinnable spot

did you read it fully

want me to type again ?

Plan tactics according to the placement

bunlik i guess you never placed a banner in your life or took part in deciding where to place, you can't really think of a tactic when the defenders place their revolt banner 1 milisecond before your supression banner in a location covered by towns

i am fine with defenders having advantages because well they are the defenders, but giving them a guaranteed win should not be part of those advantages

This suggestion makes a unfair advantage against a fort.

what are you talking about

it is not a guaranteed wins we have seen forts with banner placement and still get -33k by nightcappers and Csipok one example is fort boschia , the fort has 2 siege bases on it + 2 defense towns , if we aren't allowed to place on the defense town sides , then we can only place it on the siege bases sides which would be the same as the surpression spot ?

But time frame of when a suppression seige should also be changed to give a fort a chance to revolt for some players banner placement is 1-5am where others mid day

xDD?

nevermind have it your way guys, you act like you will be the defenders for the entire time. idc much

Bunlik, you dont understand this a bit
Defenders have can resupply pots straight up, attackers have to transport it too.
Defenders can use cannons safely, while attackers can only use movecraft, which gives points upon being sunk.
Defenders have safe gunning positions, while attackers are in the wide open.
The banner is close to defenders fort, while attackers have to run for it.

So the only help for the attackers I am asking, so defenders cannot place the banner in a spot, where they guarantee a win

Idc if you want a civil convo about this we can vc the pros and cons of this suggestion so both sides are visible better. Typing things out like this is not a strong spot for me due to having to reload everything and being 3 comments behind.

im not gonna say anything else. Let staff decide. But lets see when we do this banner placement if you guys occupy us. I'll be ready to show an ss of this on that yap

All I'm saying is a civil convo in vc would better to show the views in my opinion to both sides and not make a view seem one sided

No we are fine with it mostly Csipok we would simply ensure we get the surpression , in fort boschia the southern side was literally empty no one came to try to prevent me , while in kremlin they managed to get the spot , simply if you can't siege don't siege

Unfair for defenders

exactly what I was talking about here:
https://snipboard.io/Ua7EJX.jpg

This isnt a fair fight. It is a guaranteed defender win