If anyone feels this puts defenders at a disadvantage or is unfair in any way, please comment in the thread

A siege tag system only really works if there's a ship pilot cooldown I think, similar for regions. That way battles are fair.

I do agree that there needs to be an expansion of the siegezone however, I sunk Vorn26 outside scapa_flow and he did not sink for points at all.

I completely disagree with the idea no strategy exists, there are a myriad of crafts and strategies as discussed yesterday in the questions channel. Landing crafts are one example, they were intended for coastal sieges as such. I think we need more sieges that challenge the incredibly boring state of current rock paper scissors we have in most land areas apart from forts were the terrain doesnt allow certain strategies.

i agree with what contt has to say i just want to mention that the mechanic which stops non participants from damaging a fort would have to get balanced somehow bc if this goes through than they could just roam free and sink crafts without any borders (technically) <3

> Landing crafts are one example

A single salvo disables the crafts on them entirely, which leaves zero margin for error in deployment. I know you can say it's their fault for allowing the craft to be attacked but the given margin is not realistic at all, its like a one shot failstate

> I completely disagree with the idea no strategy exists

The issue is any practical strategy existing which allows the attackers to even have a chance at contesting, which is impossible in some scenarios, especially Dragor_Castle, where almost every single land around the fort is claimed, making the closest option aside from port Royal being Meowngolia, which is 1830 blocks away from the fort, and if you think attackers shoiuld be forced to traverse that much and pvp, and then return then attackers are spending the entire siege traveling instead of fighting, while defenders sit on the banner with full repots and zero pressure. There is no "strategy" here with the current features

> A siege tag system only really works if there's a ship pilot cooldown I think, similar for regions. That way battles are fair.

Yeah that it is needed as well (for naval crafts atleast), stops from spam repull though i dont know if the duration should be the same as regions

Landing crafts can have an insane amount of terracotta to the point they are abused as cargo so thats a non issue.

And yes, we found a strategically useful place for a fort and made the best situation of it. The same way you could argue thexans terrain makes pulling movecraft or storing any mvoecraft as an offensive siegebase entirely redundent or difficult.

Landing craft pulls could be done, use of ships rotations could be completed.

attempting to change the server because your nation was caught sleeping is kinda iffy. The current siege system was not intended by staff, its a tradition that players have made overtime, it shouldnt be acceptable to change said system because it doesnt fit a dogmatic view of a certain faction.

> attempting to change the server because your nation was caught sleeping is kinda iffy. The current siege system was not intended by staff, its a tradition that players have made overtime, it shouldnt be acceptable to change said system because it doesnt fit a dogmatic view of a certain faction.

I dont appreciate this framing. Im not suggesting changes because my nation was caught sleeping, I'm suggesting mechanics to make naval sieges better.
The current siege system may not have been originally designed by staff, but it has been tweaked over five years of updates to keep pace with the evolving meta for example night cap prevention, reversal nerfs, point cap multipliers, and so on. The idea that the system is some untouchable tradition isn't accurate, it has always been adjusted as new situations arise. Naval forts are simply the newest situation.
So I'd appreciate it if this suggestion stopped being read as a copepost about a meta my faction got caught off guard by, and started being read as what it actually is Which IS a proposal to suggest new mechanics

> And yes, we found a strategically useful place for a fort and made the best situation of it. The same way you could argue thexans terrain makes pulling movecraft or storing any mvoecraft as an offensive siegebase entirely redundent or difficult.

The east side of Thexan is open and isn't filled with steep mountains, and players can also submit terraforming requests if terrain is genuinely an obstacle. The Thexan situation makes pulling movecraft difficult not impossible (crafts were in fact pulled in the siege being referenced). As I've said, this suggestion isn't a call to ban naval forts.

> Landing crafts can have an insane amount of terracotta to the point they are abused as cargo so thats a non issue.

Having enough armor =/= non-issue.
The concern isn't whether the landing craft itself sinks it's that shells hitting the crafts inside the landing craft, even once, can disable them. That's the part the original statement didn't address.

I should start with saying that this wont make "the naval sieges more fun for everyone" because currently there is only 1 naval fort that is targeted by a siege, and unsurprisingly, you are the one targeting it, it will only make it more advantageous for you to nerf naval forts, not more fun for everyone as you claim(note: there are multiple small naval forts but non of them are threatened by any type of sieges except one that appeared 1 month ago(Dragor Castle), all other naval forts have existed for over a year an no one ever cared)
and I need to add that it is viable to siege naval forts and still win as we have seen you doing so with Faroes before, you even won against that fort revolting not just the conquest with only 7 players from your team participating, not your entire mega alliance of 50 or more players, so yea if 7 players can do it twice then you can do it again you just need to approach it differently than the way you approach a land forts, also your nearest town to Dragor Castle is 400 blocks away not the 1800 figure you gave earlier

a few points to be considered are:
1. there aren't many places on the server where a naval fort is an option, it is only possible on islands and most of the islands in the server have already been claimed, they aren't really a new meta when we ran out of places to make them
2. as you mentioned before, you aren't obligated to siege a fort, you also aren't entitled to have any siege bases on any fort at all, you are attacking someone on their home turf and demand to have an "advantage"
3. fort location is the MOST IMPORTANT aspect while making a fortress, and it is the only advantage the defenders have in the current meta besides having a few cannons on the fort than can be disabled with 1 shots, and that is no new info, reading through European history you will quickly realize that all forts were built in places where defenders had an advantage like on top of the hills or on islands, no one would make their fort on a disadvantageous position, and the owners of those forts in the server did well by choosing a good location, and it isn't fair to punish them for doing so
4. there are multiple methods to bring supplies(and crafts) to those naval forts using especially designed ships, I obviously cant tell you how because why would I help enemies plan against me? but those methods do surely exist, get creative and think outside the "me hit enemy enemy die" meta, I am willing to talk to admins directly about said strategies to prove they do exist and they are usable
5. changing of siege mechanics and all forts siege so you can siege a singular fort is way too unreasonable
6. asking for the siege zone to be 2000+ blocks for forts is also unreasonable, if the fort was in the center of europe, that will cover the entire continent with parts of asia and north africa

However, I agree that there should be a way to prevent crafts just running outside the siege and sink for no points, a system where:
1. a ship inside the siege zone gets siege tagged and will sink for points no matter how far it goes
2. each craft gets a cooldown for when you can repilot, crafts on land like trucks tanks etc are fragile in nature and dont need a cooldown, bigger crafts like destroyers give you a 30min cooldown to repilot any craft and a dread for example gives you an entire session of cooldown

your suggestion is just reactive to the creation of Dragor Castle and here is why:
1. you went and asked staff to bend the rules for you just so you can make a siege base on Dragor Castle(you did in questions channel yesterday) by asking to make artifical islands in the middle of the ocean as a siege base
2. you are making a suggestion that will only benefit you and only you in one specific scenario, you are literally mentioning the enemy fort you want to attack up in your suggestion, Dragor Castle used the existing and established siege system to its advantage, so asking for the system you helped create to be changed just so you can win a single siege is unfair

> I should start with saying that this wont make "the naval sieges more fun for everyone" because currently there is only 1 naval fort that is targeted by a siege, and unsurprisingly, you are the one targeting it, it will only make it more advantageous for you to nerf naval forts, not more fun for everyone as you claim(note: there are multiple small naval forts but non of them are threatened by any type of sieges except one that appeared 1 month ago(Dragor Castle), all other naval forts have existed for over a year an no one ever cared)

It does make it fun for everyone (maybe less fun for you), and yes, this suggestion was made because I saw a fort which was pretty difficult to deal with, and I made a suggestion to make it more fairer! Yes!!! thats how suggestions work!!!!

> also your nearest town to Dragor Castle is 400 blocks away not the 1800 figure you gave earlier

I

> also your nearest town to Dragor Castle is 400 blocks away not the 1800 figure you gave earlier

"making the closest option aside from port Royal being Meowngolia, which is 1830 blocks away from the fort"
Your statement alone tells me you did not read the reply properly

> 1. there aren't many places on the server where a naval fort is an option, it is only possible on islands and most of the islands in the server have already been claimed, they aren't really a new meta when we ran out of places to make them

Irrelevant to this suggestion, Few possible locations" doesn't mean "not a new meta" it means the meta is rare, not absent. Dragor Castle was made one month ago. If naval forts genuinely weren't a new development, this conversation would have happened years ago. The fact that it's only coming up now is itself evidence that the situation is new enough for the rules not to have caught up. As far as Im concerned I am free to make a suggestion if I feel something isnt right, and the town made me feel so, it doesnt make it biased in a wrong way

> you also aren't entitled to have any siege bases on any fort at all

This suggestion isnt about making siegebases on someone. Re-read the proposal

> and the owners of those forts in the server did well by choosing a good location, and it isn't fair to punish them for doing so

Worth noting that you also have a stake here, you're a defender of the kind of fort being discussed, which is fine, but it means the "your motive is bias" framing applies in both directions. Which is exactly why the proposal should be evaluated on its mechanics rather than on who's making or opposing it.

> there are multiple methods to bring supplies(and crafts) to those naval forts using especially designed ships, I obviously cant tell you how because why would I help enemies plan against me?

I have played this server for 5 years, I'm well aware about my abilities

> as you mentioned before, you aren't obligated to siege a fort, you also aren't entitled to have any siege bases on any fort at all, you are attacking someone on their home turf and demand to have an "advantage"

Disadvantage and impossibility are not the same thing

> you went and asked staff to bend the rules for you just so you can make a siege base on Dragor Castle, you are making a suggestion that will only benefit you and only you in one specific scenario, so asking for the system you helped create to be changed just so you can win a single siege is unfair

Asking questions in the public suggestions channel is not "asking staff to bend the rules." That's the process the server has for asking questions, you can use it too!!!
The "system you helped create" framing also assumes I had design influence I don't have. Players don't write siege mechanics, staff do. Saying I'm asking to undo my own work doesn't match what's actually being proposed or who actually controls the rules. You accused me of going to staff to bend rules. You said I helped create the system I'm trying to change, I don't write siege mechanics, spending your reply talking about my motives and my nation instead of the actual mechanics being proposed with a consistent pattern of accusations that don't hold up when you check them individually, repeated until they sound like an argument

Moving to your actual arguments against the suggestion
> asking for the siege zone to be 2000+ blocks for forts is also unreasonable, if the fort was in the center of europe, that will cover the entire continent with parts of asia and north africa

To be clear, the expanded zone only applies to naval crafts, specifically those that can interfere with the siege from outside the current 400 block radius. An aircraft carrier provides 2000 blocks of range. The 400-block limit is unreasonable for svs combat because it forces every craft to operate within bowshot distance of the banner, which isn't how naval engagements necessarily have to function.
The buff is specifically a SvS zone expansion, not a general siege zone change. It doesn't affect land combat, infantry, or any non naval craft

The proposal stands on its mechanics. If there's a substantive issue with the SvS zone expansion or with ships being able to cap, that's worth discussing. The motive arguments aren't

Game Mechanics:
we agree a tagging system is needed, but a 2000 block radius for naval crafts is the wrong number, naval forts sit in open ocean, there is nothing to naturally contain a fight the way terrain does on land, a destroyer can exit a 2000 block zone in under two minutes, which means combat will consistently spill out into open sea rather than happening at the fort itself, that defeats the purpose of having a siege zone at all, imagine fighting in indian ocean and then winning a siege in greenland lol?

combat tagging and repilot cooldowns would help keep some naval action meaningful, but they don't fix the core problem, a 2000 block naval siege zone effectively turns the entire surrounding ocean into the siege, not the for

on the ACC: it was deliberately designed to function outside the siege zone, thats why zeppelins have a 200 block reach rather than 2000, the ACC situation is a separate problem from naval forts and conflating the two weakens both arguments



responding to specific points:

>"It makes it fun for everyone"
the suggestion only benefits the nation currently targeting a naval fort, that is NOT "everyone", and framing a self serving change as a community improvement doesnt make it one

>"Naval forts are a new meta that rules havent caught up to"
naval forts have existed on this server for years without complaints, the reason this is coming up now is easily traceable to a specific fort that you personally named, Dragor Castle, not a rising server-wide meta trend, if it was a genuine meta problem affecting "everyone", we would have seen this discussion much much earlier and from multiple alliances and nations

>"1830 blocks vs 400 blocks"
presenting the larger distance figure while hiding the more relevant shorter one is selective framing, the closer reference point matters more and should be the basis of any honest assessment

>"Impossible to siege"
disadvantage and impossibility are not the same thing, Faroes conquest and even liberation siege was won with 7 participating players against defenders who actively tried to win and contest, Dragor Castle has not yet been attempted, calling something impossible before any attempts have been made is not a mechanics problem, it is a planning problem, I am willing to sit down with staff and walk through viable siege approaches on Dragor Castle if that is useful proofing that it isnt impossible as u claim, but I cant do the same here because it is my fort? why would I help you plan a siege on it

on the numbered points I made (1–6)
the mechanical objections in points 1–6 of the original reply have not been addressed in either response, both replies engaged with the easier framing arguments at the end while leaving the numbered mechanical points untouched, those points still stand

both sides have a stake in this outcome, that is fine and expected, but one side is arguing to change existing rules mid conflict to make a specific siege easier, while the other is arguing to keep rules stable until a genuine server-wide problem is demonstrated, staff should weigh which of those positions better serves the broader player base

> a siege zone at all, imagine fighting in indian ocean and then winning a siege in greenland lol?

14,000 =/= 2,000. The example is about a proposal seven times larger than the one I made. Greenland scenario doesn't describe what's being proposed. Is there a reason such an absurd example was picked or was it just an attempt for exaggeration?

> the suggestion only benefits the nation currently targeting a naval fort, that is NOT "everyone", and framing a self serving change as a community improvement doesnt make it one

No, the suggestion affects everyone, you are not the only one being affected by this, and it is a suggestion for a reason, so maybe try providing mechanic changes or better suggestions instead of leaving inflammatory accusations about "Rome making suggestion because they cant fight something so unfair because theyre big", Id really appreciate it

> naval forts have existed on this server for years without complaints, the reason this is coming up now is easily traceable to a specific fort that you personally named, Dragor Castle, not a rising server-wide meta trend, if it was a genuine meta problem affecting "everyone", we would have seen this discussion much much earlier and from multiple alliances and nations

Could you name one naval fort siege which was took out from a town around thousands of blocks away from the nearest port or a claim?(Before you mention port royal it is around 7 chunks wide, and the path to dragor castle is blatantly blocked by the claims of Dalvik)
Can you name a naval fort "in years" which deliberately claimed all the possible land around forts, such as Iceland, all of North East Greenland, Faroes Islands (yes phphphg may have left but he was an active part of UK)

> presenting the larger distance figure while hiding the more relevant shorter one is selective framing, the closer reference point matters more and should be the basis of any honest assessmen

Calling it "selective framing" while the map shows your nation has claimed the surrounding land doesn't really hold up. The closer reference points you're referring to are inside enemy territory, they aren't usable as siegebase locations regardless of distance, which is why I cited Meowngolia (the closest viable point) at 1,830 blocks. Distance to a hostile claim isn't the same as distance to a place a siegebase can actually be placed.


> disadvantage and impossibility are not the same thing, Faroes conquest and even liberation siege was won with 7 participating players against defenders who actively tried to win and contest

Rome had a siegebase on it, facing the fort directly, and only 11 chunks away from the fort mentioned, and it was not surrounded by 3 different towns to completely block it's expansion

> Dragor Castle has not yet been attempted, calling something impossible before any attempts have been made is not a mechanics problem, it is a planning problem,

The mechanics problem is identifiable from planning alone, it doesn't require failed attempts to surface(I genuinely have no idea how you came with that, unless its just filler). Banner cap is 7 minutes. The nearest viable siegebase location is 1,830 blocks or completely claimblocked. There's no scenario in which attackers traverse 1,830 blocks under pressure, engage defenders, and cap a 7-minute banner without holding it from a siegebase. Trying it doesn't change the math, this isn't nuclear engineering

> I am willing to sit down with staff and walk through viable siege approaches on Dragor Castle if that is useful proofing that it isnt impossible as u claim, but I cant do the same here because it is my fort? why would I help you plan a siege on it

"I have a counter to your point but I won't share it" doesn't hold up here. If a viable approach actually existed, you'd already have walked through it with staff and your reply would be "an admin/mod confirmed strategy X works against Dragor, and no mechanic changes are needed" rather than "trust me, there's a way."

> on the numbered points I made (1–6)
the mechanical objections in points 1–6 of the original reply have not been addressed in either response, both replies engaged with the easier framing arguments at the end while leaving the numbered mechanical points untouched, those points still stand

On the claim that points 1–6 weren't addressed:
That summary isn't accurate. Point 1 (rare locations) was directly responded to. Point 2 (no entitlement) was addressed with the disadvantage/impossibility distinction. Point 4 (hidden strategies) was addressed above. Point 6 (2000 blocks covering Europe) was clarified as svs only circle. Four of the six were directly engaged with. Points 3 and 5 are worth addressing here:
On point 3 (fort location is the defender's main advantage):
Nothing in the proposal touches fort location. Defenders keep the location advantage in full which is terrain, claim density, home turf (brother you quite literally have the entire continent and its surroundings claimed), cannons, defender skill, all untouched. The proposal modifies the SvS zone and capping mechanics, neither of which affects where a fort is placed or what natural advantages that placement provides. The "we'd be punishing good location choice" framing assumes the proposal targets placement. It doesn't. The historical comparison (forts on hills/islands) actually supports my position, forts throughout history were sieged successfully, because siege systems adapted to handle different terrain. The proposal here is the same kind of adaptation.
On point 5 (changing mechanics for one fort is unreasonable):
The proposal doesn't single out Dragor Castle or any specific fort. The SvS zone expansion applies to every naval engagement on the server, present and future, regardless of which nation is attacking or defending. If a different nation builds a naval fort tomorrow and someone attempts to siege it under the same conditions, the same rules apply — and they apply equally if Rome ends up as the defender. "Changing mechanics for one fort" only holds if you assume Dragor is the only naval fort that will ever exist. By your own argument in point 1, naval forts are rare but not absent meaning the rule change has ongoing application beyond any single situation.
On the framing that I engaged "easier framing arguments" while avoiding mechanics:
its actually quite the opposite. The motive accusations (that I'm reactive, biased, asked staff to bend rules, helped create the system, am benefiting from a self-serving proposal) aren't easier to engage with because they just aren't engagement with the proposal itself. I responded to them because they were posted, not because they were the substantive part.

Saying I dodged the mechanics while you've spent most of the thread on motive is itself the framing being criticized.

Specific points from my earlier reply that haven't been engaged with: the symmetry point (you also have a stake as the defender), the public suggestions channel (using the intended public process isn't "going to staff to bend rules"), the five-years-of-tweaks evidence (night cap prevention, reversal nerfs, point cap multipliers as examples that the system has always been adjusted), and the svs clarification (which the Greenland example argued against as if the scope were broader than I specified). Those still stand.

I've submitted the proposal, the reasoning, and responses to every objection raised so far. Anyone reading the thread can evaluate it on its mechanics. I'm going to step back from hback and fourth replies at this point and let staff and the restr of the community weigh in. If staff have questions about the proposal itself I'll happily address those, but I don't think continuing to relitigate motive accusations is going to add anything new

> Port Royal:
Port Royal is a fully prepped town with a complete bunker, positioned to siege Dragor Castle, your 1830 block figure deliberately excludes it, here is evidence it exists and is prepared: https://imgur.com/a/UIABjww, it is roughly one minute further than any standard siegebase, the "no viable position exists" premise the entire proposal rests on is simply not accurate
> the symmetry point:
we both have stakes, but the symmetry isnt equal, I am not the one making a suggestion framed as a community benefit that primarily helps my position, and I am not the one selectively presenting distance figures while obfuscating closer reference points, having a stake doesnt make both positions equally self serving
on the "suggestions" channel:
I said questions channel in both replies, not suggestions, here is the evidence: https://imgur.com/a/VLTSHgh, using a public channel to ask staff to adjust rules for a specific ongoing conflict isnt the same as using the suggestions process or asking a regular question
> the five-years-of-tweaks argument:
The examples given, nightcap prevention, reversal nerfs, point cap multipliers, were all adjustments that addressed server-wide problems affecting multiple nations, on the other hand, this proposal addresses one fort that one nation is currently trying to siege, the precedent doesnt apply equally
> the 2000 block SvS zone:
The open ocean problem is real regardless of how the radius is scoped, naval battles have no terrain to contain them, anyone who has fought Ashes knows a battle can start in the North Atlantic and end in the Indian Ocean without exaggeration, we stopped engaging entirely because of it, a 2000 block naval siege zone over open ocean doesnt create a siege, it creates a moving conflict that could technically resolve anywhere, including indian, it is just open sea combat with extra steps and a nation occupied as a result
on viable siege strategies:
I am currently talking to a staff member opinion on this matter and will reply with his response soon(hopefully)