This idea is built on the current system + but seeks to incorporate further factions to allow for Naval combat to expand to all...

The Problem:
In the Atlantic, and likely soon the Indian Ocean, there will be multiple 'factions' vying for the region. Under the current system is problematic.
Let us take Rome, Cultist and Coalition. Rome is the smallest of the three and could siege the region with 4 pilots (constituting a serious siege attempt). If the Coalition had brought 10 pilots and Cultist 15... then Rome would have essentially prevented the realistic powers from going to combat.

One could argue quite simply to prevent different factions from sieging, but doing so is messy and complicated and may undermine the actual siege (or main event).

Similarly one could request the smallest side be excluded from the region: yet this is poor game design, it is not far for any Nation to want to achieve in naval regions but at the same time be blocked from doing so simply because they are slightly smaller.

This problem likely went under the radar, as it was not expected for CCNet to have more than 2 sides.

The Criteria for a solution, therefore:
- Must remain true to the points system.
- Must allow everyone to be involved.
- Be focussed on nations rather than alliances.
- Allow for an unlimited amount of pilots sieging the region.
- Ensure distribution of money is fair (for example if unlimited pilots can siege, one who has sieged in a small destroyer and ran away should not be entitled to money).
- Provide incentives for everyone to partake (not just large nations).

The Tiered Victory System:
- In this version, all elements of the winner are removed, instead of winning defacto, the winning side wins a share of the region proportional to the points won.
- This could be done one of two ways, to reward the top 5 nations (who have the most points)proportionally or to have a baseline minimum that a nation can be eligible for payout if it achieves.
- The payout of the region would also be proportional to the ships that participate in each region, rather than 23k every week. If 5 ships for example total siege the region total (including the defenders), it makes no sense the payout of those regions should be equal to the payout of say where there might be a total of 30 ships.
- Incentive: While prior, the issue was black and white, the two sides would throw huge hunks of metal at each other and it was a zero-sum game, if you lost one week you may win the next week making the high payout and the 2 sides fairer... but with 3 sides this is no longer true, as the third (and more) sides that want to siege have no reason to outside pure fun. If proportional payout is added, there is always a reason to attend and that small safety net of small returns on investments for smaller nations so losing ships may be less fatal or high skill is rewarded even in low numbers. This also manages to pay for everyone's repairs and to allow a helping hand essentially keeping the smaller nations on the ladder.
- Combat: This also allows nations that may never have a realistic chance of winning access to combat, which they may not have before. It makes fleet engagements risky and forces players to be less aggressive. The main Imperial rivals might struggle if they spend too much time worrying about the rest, but equally must be ready to engage them. This adds way more complexity and layers the risk VS reward ratio. Hypothetically yes, this does allow different nations to work together in regions... but doing so will still have drawbacks and in the chaotic environment chances for things to go wrong. It is also not logical for rivals to prefer to share region money, rather than attempt to fight or allow other nations to gain money on the aim of denying it to their main rivals.

Possible Criticisms and a Defence
Won't this just result in the two larger sides attempting to monopolise the region or combat that is rather stale?
- In some ways yes, if 3 equally powered nations enter the region, then it is logical they all do nothing. However, I believe the war in the larger context, and the egos and wishes of the players would lead to the 'invitation' phase of combat; this being smaller engagements which would eventually draw the larger elements of the fleet into action. Also given the large reward for sinking a ship, the better pilots will prefer to seek combat rather than avoid it. Also with more smaller and independent agents acting, there's a possibility of the smaller sides forcing the larger sides into conflict... there are a lot of possibilities... and it's okay if players decide to do nothing... but I think after a few regions, each Admiral will have either an offence or a defence they want to try out.

This isn't fair, if it was like this before x would have happened! , bla bla, bla
This is such a stupid argument, we shouldn't prevent meaningful change because you are so self-entitled you believe we should no better nations because it upsets you, or doesn't benefit your nation. Also, I will remind you, never before has there been a third side or the possibility of even more sides springing up... so it wasn't like this was completely relevant before.

What about med?
I think for the smaller regions like Sahara and Med, the limited space will prevent too many nations from going into combat anyway.

Could this not result in 2 sides or a 2 way fight?
This is saying say if Japan sieges the Pacific to help Russia fight and opposing it is China and Cultist. During the battle, Cultist offers 10 pilots, China 5 and on the other side, Russia offers 4 and Japan 6. Now the Russians and the Japanese would work together to kill both sides, but would essentially get the proportional payout, which could be dealt with through diplomacy (i.e. Kapitan paying Ryu Japans money). While yes, the system is hypothetically unneeded in these scenarios, it it is worth the change

To conclude I will compare the current pros and cons of both systems

The Current System:
+ The large incentive offers a very high Reward Ratio, making larger powers actively attempt to seek a slice of the pie.
+ It is less chaotic than any other system presenting a straight two-way fight.
- The High risk associated with the reward makes some regions untouchable for some nations, therefore it is inaccessible.
- It completely excludes a large population of the server and is dependent on sieges it first.
- It encourages making an entirely new battle to siege the region, which is both stupid and poor game design.
- It punishes smaller nations, by making them rely solely on a larger benefactor to compete.
- It is possible after showing a valiant performance or what could be considered IRL either a strategic victory or indecisive battle a loss.

The proposed system (either way):
+ The lower risk/reward ratio means smaller nations will attempt to siege regions more, as even a small roster of points could constitute payout... therefore forcing action.
+ Nations may take more risks, knowing they can siege more and further and even if not winning still gain points.
+ It offers the losers some compensation without removing the incentive.
+ It allows EVERYONE to partake in naval sieges according to their need and ability.
+ Makes skill and strategy more important.
- Its more complicated, and more chaotic.