it is a choice to spam cannons and it is a choice to spam guns. you could have chosen to do neither and still win due to 2x numerical advantage. nonetheless im neutral to this suggestion because it doesn't make much of a difference to reduce upkeep or give more towny resources

defending sides should absolutely not get any benefit DURING the war however, as they already have all the advantages a defensive fortress can have (location, preparation, ganks, turrets, supplies etc)

If you’re prepared to spend that much resources on a siege to get unoccupied , then it’s your responsibility. Attackers spend the same trying to siege too.

1. I'm not only speaking about ammo / shells, potions take a ton of money too, so does the energy to repair your armor. Anyways numbers can't do anything if you don't use canons, I'd like to see you defend 3 heavy tanks with 30 pvpers that can only use their sword.

2. I wasn't talking about a revolt siege, but a regular conquest siege, and yes the attackers use alot of resources too but they get so much stuff in reward when they win, such as 70% of their towny resources, 85% of their upkeep, which adds up to a really high amount because they will have to pay a ton of money due to overclaim upkeep (bc they lose nation bonus too)

Comparing the attacker rewards with the deffender rewards is not at all equal, while both sides use around the same amount of resources.

It is unreasonable to compare the attacker rewards with the defender rewards.

1. Attackers sole purpose is to GAIN
2. Defenders sole purpose is to MAINTAIN

It would not make sense for defenders to receive a war-chest to begin with, as defenders cannot plunder the enemy siege town. What logic brings you to argue defenders should be rewarded for protecting what is theirs?

3. Defenders have an advantage so why should they be given the same rewards as attackers who have to put in more effort for a successful siege?

4. It all comes down to the way you decide to spend resources, take Shimazu for example, where defenders repeatedly attacked the attackers fort (costing more resources) or choosing to bring over many personnel (costing more resources) or choosing to have trench-like warfare (costing guns and ammo) or going into combat outside of sessions (costing more resources).

it's totally reasonable to do that, if you occupy a big nation you can literally earn over 50k of occupation money, and again, attackers and defenders both use the same amount of resources, defenders may have an advantage but the difference in resources used in each siege, its not that big, while the rewards are. Also, I'm not saying defenders should get the same rewards as attackers, but at least something that makes it less of a loss when you win a siege as defender. ((you literally only lose resources even tho you won)

I know defenders are not the ones to gain but at this point youre acting like we give defenders a pat on the shoulder and say "good job kid, you did well, heres a candy", while the defender has to brew a ton of potions and craft a ton of other stuff all over again just to keep the fort defendable for the next siege.

Attackers prepare and do a siege because the benefits after winning it are worth it, as a defender you have no choice wether you think it's worth it or not, you just get sieged and you're forced to use your resources if you don't want to lose it, both sides use around the same amount of resources but only the attackers side get's something in return when winning, that my problem, hopefully you understand it.

Again, I don't understand what youre trying to say here. Do you want the defender to just be like "oh well, we got outnumbered, if we dont want to use more resources we should just take the L I suppose", use some commen sense mate, noone will do that.

You got a point with the camping the attackers town / outside of session, but this isn't a deal breaker for the camping part, since most of the time the attackers won't come out and no potions / armor durability will be wasted to this, outside of sessions you got a point I suppose, in case the attacker won't use that oppertunity to nuke your fort down, since you only use resources in sessions.

Lastly, I can't figure out if you're kidding with the trench-like warfare or not, come on, we all know guns are added to be the main form of PvP, you might aswell go without any weapon into fight when you aren't going to use a gun

I didnt read much, but blue, ur defender u dont gain anything, u gain ur freedom for most of the part, u wont get occupied xd, thats the point

Freedom is useless dude cuz even occupiation, if anything occupiation is profitable if u manage to reach deals.

Sieges should have more Rewards in general. Both offensive and defensive because currently there are no good reasons to start sieges only map colour for some days till the revolt happens.

If we are going anywhere near realism neither do defenders gain anything from defending their selfs in real life, they save their towns from being occupied resources and upkeep money, I belive that is more than enough of rewad.