Siege is an Atrocity

Not 100% sure but i believe the GM's changed this because your smallest tow is likely to be sieged last, but I'm pretty sure you have the point of highest research you've obtained for your new city, when you get sieged out of the game. Not that I think many would continue if they reached that point.

I think you take ALL the research points you had from that city that has been razed (i think i read something along the lines of "to ease the salt in the wound" sort of thing), but what im not sure of is, if it is the city you have first established, research points you keep, cos if a players capital is captured their capital is moved to the players next largest city, or if it the remaining last city a player had research points.
So if ALL a players cities has been razed not sure what cities research points you retain, weather it is the most research points the player has accumulated in a particular city or the last remaining city the player had before it being razed....

 Lol you are being silly. Play evony where a city can be captured in a couple of hours with no trouble. Go to bed and wake up with 2 or 3 cities gone while you were asleep. Here travel time and seige time gives you plenty of time to try to resolve issues or get help from others. Several of the other MMO games also let cities be captured in no time. Illy is very slow paced compared to most games of its type.

Aneirin wrote: I want to get back on topic because I think this thread is important.   In a game such as this I think that if you are prepared to take the ultimate risk to win then you must be prepared for the ultimate penalty if you lose. That means you lose your cities and go back to square one. You should not expect to be presented  with a failsafe option ( of retaining research or whatever)   In all honestly I have lost twice in Illyriad ,and have been sieged out of the game each time, because I was too intent on "winning" and not focussed enough to realise that the game is so massive, with so many pathways that the "drive to win" doesn't necessarliy bring success in Illyriad. Especially in the Ui2 (developed version).   If you look at the ranking system almost all the 20 players attained thier positions during the Ui1 (developing) stage as did many of the alliances. As the game has continued it has moved away from one that lends itself to a, full on, " conquer and be damned"  to a multi option real time strategy and diplomacy experience. For those who aspire to dominate by force of arms in such an environment they must be prepared to pay the ultimate price.   Personally I know that it is a sobering experience to be defeated and lose my cities  but I always new that could happen if I played a high risk pnp strategy. IF YOU NEED TO WIN THAT BADLY THEN YOU MUST BE PREPARED TO LOSE EVERYTHING.   This time around I am paying close attention to the posts of Shrapnel the Dwarf . That guy has really left us a rich legacy and if you are playing to make sense and a success out of Illyriad  his method of play presents you with a good role model.

Personally I enjoy all aspects of the game including warfare. It would seem to me that a person would understand the nature and wide scope of this game before deciding to commit and devote time to it. warfare including sieging is a tool that should be of last resort in dealing with other players but still allowed as a viable option if the need arises. I have played games where the victorious player won the battle/war but the city/castle remained in the hands of the losing player along with thier completed research and no destruction of bldgs. The only loss was of troops, the player essentially recouped and rebuilt all losses within weeks, in some cases days, while i do not disagree with this outcome, still it left something to be desired as far as satisfaction in a victory for the winner. For me the attraction of this game was the thought that in order to survive and play the game in a competent manner I would have to think strategically. So my thought is that some of us may not like sieges or some other aspect of the game and yet recognize that it is a necessary and viable tool in our toolbox. as far as retaining completed research and or being allowed to flee, that is a tougher question but my thought would be no to both, this game by it's nature is a game of strategy and risk and warfare is an active part of that risk as is diplomacy, etc. to take away an element of strategy and risk is to reduce the game and its attraction for many people i think. anyways these are my thoughts on the matter as convoluted and wandering as they may seem.