Would be good for there to be an incentive to build more than the bare minimum not to get deleted.

While I like the concept, "will be judged by mods" immediately takes this out of consideration.

We do not have the capacity to add more staff-managed gameplay aspects. We are actively looking for ways to reduce the number of things that require manual intervention.

Why not have a group of players vote on the matter, like a building rating team, accounting for their position into nations and their alliances etc, Im sure there are multiple people that would like to do that, I can see people complaining about bias from that group, but I can honestly see a lot of players who I would trust this rating to be done with, non competetive players, who don't play the game for the war aspect are fit for this, just as an example

This sounds fun but I think towns that have already been judged into a tier shouldn't need to be re-judged unless there's significant change. This is so that people don't downvote a town simply because something political changes and they don't like that person, as reducing upkeep will IMMEDIATELY become weaponized.

I think if a town gets the reduced upkeep it cannot be support base or fort for obvious reasons and a team of players should get to vote on town tiers and if any of the players start to show bias just kick them from the voting

I really like this Idea, and personally I would be interested in judging.

The group of judges should be a 5/7 people group, so the decisions dont come to a draw. And the highest tier of town could be the one that results in it becoming an npc town.

This change would encourage more people to build cool towns rather then having a few builds and a bunker

And if this would overwhelm the ccnet discord, as in adding more tickets for these judges to handle, there could be an official CCNet Build discord where these judgings happen, where CCNet Mods/Admins supervise everything