Earlier many times changes regarding sieges were proposed. But changing prevailing system can be very troublesome for many players, to be precise - new players.

Thank you for the suggestion though  

So Jon,

Instead of working through a troublesome problem and coming up with a solution that would make sense to siege.. So there are consequences to the party Plarium chooses to ignore it.. 

Sieging would be a great way to slow coalitions down that for example do not have a PAN but hits other Coalitions PANS.  One can siege their city but so what now they lose a little resource but have a someone keeping them safe..

So they can hit people and really have no consequence. 

And it would not be that troublesome put a resource limit on the city being sieged as you do with Emporium wants the resource limit is reached the siege is removed.

Plarium receive I assume a nice amount of money and have good programmers I assume you all could come up with a better solution and not have the comment its a "troublesome "

I have sieged a player that was mentioned by an administratror, even with the coords of that player 

  totally outreached of course of that administrator  .  

it's in the game a called "protection siege" So I sieged that city/player, but no ones attacks him sieing my lvl I have self. 

I protect that player against a top 10 coalition.   That player I have under siege may of course has his gameplay and he knews it. 

You could also reinforce him instead of besieging him.

A siege has much more effect. When you reinforce that player , you shall have more players that attacks him, because the points they get from it. And they doesn't know you help that player. 

When that player is under siege by you, then they have to face you (or able to face you) also directly .  Because when they try to brake the siege, they have to battle against my troops I have in that city.  The one I besieged at that moment doesn't see any of the troops involved in that battle. The besieger can't see my troops I have in that city and defend at that moment and also can't see  the troops the attacker used for it.  

It's also called a "friendly siege" means I don't absorbe resources neither from that player. He can do whatever he likes and he don't need my permission for it .   

Oh yes, so you're using your reputation to frighten his ennemies by making your presense visible ? ;)

Where is the post you're quoting, please ?

it was either the opposite. Friends of mine saw the post of that administrator before me. They all knew, when Hundigo gonna see that post he shall be on it. And I was. 

Later this evening , when I saw my friends in RL, I just told them that I picked up a fight at sparta. They all knew about it, even before I had to send out the details.  

Of course, I agree with you. His location shouldn't have been made public.

But why are you writing "it's was either the opposite" ?

If you had just reinforced him, your presence wouldt have been unconspicuous.

By besieging him instead, you're making your presence obvious.

I thought you were using this as a warning to tell other people you were protecting him, but if you write "it's the either the opposite", then do you mean you're signalling his location so other people will know where he is ? Don't you fear some PvP hunters would raid this city to get easy points ?

"By either the opposite"  is that the intention of the siege for me wasn't for the resources or that I had a foe with that player in the game. 

So the siege was indeed to make the presence clear. 

My apologize I guess I was too vague.

So I will make it more simple

So say COALITION A  HAS 5 PANS.... They defend the PANS...

COALITION B  HAS NO PANS....

Coalition B attacks  Coalition A PANs non stop...

So Coalition A sieges Coalition B cities..

What is the downside for Coalition B?  Not much a little resources lost... they can still while siege send out attacks... build troops.. and they have someone that is sitting on their city so they wont lose resources that they are accruing or possibly be attacked. 

So it seems that Coalition A is getting the short end of the stick...

I believe that there should more of a  consequence when sieging..

Plarium could make it like Emporiums or like resource collecting...

And new players I would assume are low levels do not attacks PANS... and would be warned most likely...

I just think being sieged should have more consequences so if a player chooses to raid a PAN, a player or another sieged city and they understand the outcome may not be that pleasant...

So if someone wanna boost quickly his resources, he should better not siege, but rather raid the city? 

Raiding causes many resources quickly.

You usually siege either for daily quests, or for coalition challenges.

It also gives you additional resources you get by just clicking from times to times...