Set up blockades to prevent resources getting through.

Time attacks and thieves to carry away resources so that the sieged person has nothing to build with.

Painfully obvious, I know, but effective.

In an arranged siege I tested the tavern + brewery + lots of cottages strategy to create fresh population (adding an architect's office to the mix instead of instant building.)  It does not really work for bigger towns, and for small towns it only works until the defender goes to bed.  If nobody breaks the siege and there are no troops to sally forth the defenders are doomed, the hourly bombardments kill whatever the defenders can rebuild while they have enough resources. 

 Yes, the complaints are now 180 degrees from before.  

Has Sally Forth been used in the war at all?

Or is that strategem obsolete?

Which ironically is actually pay to win.  

When they come up with spells that kill troops and cost prestige then maybe you can say pay to win.  Also if they do i'll prolly quit.  It would be likely playing chess where the pawns are provided but you have to buy the other pieces every game.  

For the moment I hope lots of people try and keep their cities up with prestige, devs make more money that way.

We (~NC~) got Sally'd one time on our last siege, but it was because the player who provided the troops was neutral.  So he reinforced the city and the city owner sally forth'd with his troops.  He thought that he would remain anonymous by doing it this way.

Funny thing though is that when you destroy a city while a force is Sally Forth'd out from it, the troops return to the city's square and occupy it until their original occupation was set to expire.  Oh and the attack shows up under their name instead of the city owner, if the city is destroyed before the Sally Forth lands.

That was the first instance of anyone Sallying against us.

Which ironically is actually pay to win.  

When they come up with spells that kill troops and cost prestige then maybe you can say pay to win.  Also if they do i'll prolly quit.  It would be likely playing chess where the pawns are provided but you have to buy the other pieces every game.  

For the moment I hope lots of people try and keep their cities up with prestige, devs make more money that way.

Another result of this experiment, I can't rebuild hourly destructions of level 1..3 buildings including lots of cottages while I'm sleeping.  And desperate rebuilding attempts under fire can fail miserably if the defender erroneously clicks archers field (first in the list) or cavalry parade ground (near cottage) instead of cottage.  The arguably best prestige use, fix click errors where the game doesn't offer it directly.

So if that's true, then a siege should be fairly indefensible once the city's troops (or counter-defences - not really in Illy) are exhausted.

Before the change in battle loss allocation, Sally Forth was helpful in "stunning" the siege machines when the support troops were simply more than could be destroyed during the siege time frame.  But now it just makes more sense to direct attack the siege until the siege machines have been eliminated.

So successful sieges require multiple siege stacks each with 60+ T2 siege and multiple blockades followed by direct clearing attacks on the city to remove defenders just before Storming the city.

I know what you wrote. I'm talking about why you wrote it though, which is because you can't drop her city and thus it must be the prestige and the fact that it's a "pay to win". Not, your siege was poorly constructed and you're using bad tactics. 

Lol, her city was under the pop needed to raze it and you guys still let the siege army get destroyed. Yeah AtH, this game is *clearly* a pay to win. Good luck even killing a 100 pop crow newbie...

Oh and hey we were about to kill that city but then Beecks popped up out of nowhere with seven thousand marshals, dont pride yourself on something you couldnt kill. 

How many times to have to explain it to you? This game, the one we're playing right this very second, is not a pay to win, you're just bad a sieging people. 

And in regards to the city, you only needed to drop it down to 4880 pop to raise it and yet you guys continued to bombard it all the way down to 1474 and let your siege get wiped out. So once again, you don't know how to construct and use a proper siege. 

I didn't abandon my place. I am still very much a Rook of mCrow and part of the Crowilition leadership. I left temporarily to siege EF and help with the war. 

Except for the Rooks which have joined Shade with the express intention of razing TLR town.  Otherwise, no involvement at all.  

If the Crowilition was involved we would have declared war. We didn't. I left and joined separately. There's a big difference.

No, he has not left.  He has, while continuing to serve in the highest position of Crow's leadership, joined a belligerent alliance for the express purpose of fighting.  You can say it's a lesser involvement the coming out and having the whole confederation declare war, but you are far from uninvolved.

Probably because the majority of his alliance members hate the Crow alliances as much as he does and are willing to sacrifice  as much as ATH is willing to sacrifice to get the job done.

If you are under the assumption that Illyriad is a pay-to-win then you reveal your ignorance. Illyriad has the possibility to become a pay-to-win but is kept from that fate by resource growth and blockades. Hypothetically you can withstand a siege forever. Realistically however blockades limit this. A city can not withstand fifty siege engines by using its own resources and prestige. It can however bring in resources through trade. When that happens then you need to use blockades. Therefore this is not a pay to win but rather, as TD said, "a pay to prolong losing".

Or it could be that they realize that Crows are by nature fairly peaceful and thus unlikely to retaliate. I would speculate that EF "hates" Crows because we are in fact fairly safe to hate, in the sense that we are difficult to offend and unlikely to take insults seriously.  Or at least many of us are.

There seems to be a lot of poor leadership floating around this war.