In my opinion for regions the primary issue is the take all nature of it. Of course regions are never going to be contested if there is a chance of losing your deposit (fleet). If at least the losses were economically subsidised this would create less risk. If nations like Thracia are unwilling to risk losses over Med and Atlantic what chances do nations like Mashriqi or the UK have? In some ways the diplomatic importance of Regions without SOI and the fact the 'have nots' are always at a material disadvantage... it is no wonder why regions are fought so infrequently or rely on using rather frustrating methods in order to win.

I find it comical a lot of Alliance pilots, and before Alliance, Coalition pilots constantly complained of nations using lighter craft or committing small crafts instead of a fleet creating ufnun combat. Yet both sides when dominant refuse to understand the fact the winning side has insane income of 16k/23k per region which covers their losses pretty easily especially the fact when a region goes uncontested... and the attacker is forced with no emergency capital to replace a fleet to attack a region with the idea he might not only lose prestige and morale but the actual physical ability to siege a region for months. Hence in order to win, the ONLY VIABLE alternative is to wear out the enemy with Corvette sieges with one big shock siege. This is also the reason I have changed my mind over a 'region booking system'.

Now we have broken down the reason regions are not sieged, I will examine why more regions will not solve the issue. In fact it will lead to more nations having their cash cow and likely prevent others from taking it. Why would Rome risk fighting a stronghold of Teluria when it comfortably controls 3 regions. Therefore its likely we will just see inflation, which is likely already being caused by the fact certain nations have 3 regions and of which perhaps 1 is sieged infrequently.

The solution therefore MUST be a proportional system of means. It still means a terrible performance will be punished HOWEVER it means where the points are closer to even the funding will be fairer for both sides. It also means fights should last longer as even if a loss is guaranteed there is still something to gain for both sides. Thracia may actually attack the North Atlantic region consistently knowing it will get something out of it, this might cause the strategy of the 'have nots' to commit actual fleets. Such combat is more fun for both sides.

The practical issue remains of calculation, 20k is insufficient under this system. Instead we need a variable system. This has some perks:
- Lower inflation as when regions are not sieged, the payout will be non or less.
- Bigger battles will lead to bigger funds promoting all sides to fight even if there is no victory.
- The loss of the take all system means regions will become less toxic as sunk costs wont be as high or atleast slightly insured.
The pay out system should have a set cost for each warship combat tagged, all will be combined by the server and divided based on proportion of points for each side. Such a system means smaller battles wont be pursued as optimal strategy and would create plenty of action.

The idea that uncontested regions would give no pay-out is contested, but it would reduce inflation. One might argue people will not siege regions to weaponize this... but these people are ridiculously holding onto their locked in advantage given the 'have-nots' barely siege a region regardless. This renders the raised point invalid. In my opinion the payout for each region should be 1k a day by default and raise to the proportional amount for participants when contested.