To dodge, or not to dodge?

I voted no.  I agree with what Sloter said about an existing mechanism.

However...
I think there should be a consequence.  The population should at a minimum be rendered ineffective for a period of time (no production, no builds, no research for X amount of time).  It is unrealistic to think they would continue to be productive little drones when their world is crashing around them.

and/or... give the attacker a temporary boost to production for a fixed amount of time based on the production/build/research of the undefended town. 

I voted no. Population in Illyriad is tied directly to building levels. It's an abstraction--it might not make logical sense, but the simplification makes the game playable. I'm comfortable with requiring players to invest their effort in a siege to do permanent city damage.

I would, however, like to see unopposed armies carry off valuables. It seems silly that your infantry would haul back 200,000 stone when they could have looted 500 pikes from the armory. Maybe we could get a Plunder setting that would set soldiers to haul off 1/10th their usual capacity in items instead of resources? And I also want a Rustle option for taking their herds of cows and horses. And a Pillage option for stunning or damaging sov structures outside the city (I'd resolve it like a direct siege, vs. the defending army inside the city, but inflicting harm to a specific sov structure within 6 squares of the city).

There should be negative aspects to your army abandoning the city when it gets attacked. I just don't think building damage is appropriate due to the game mechanics, no matter how realistic it might seem. I mean really, if your army marched into a city and attacked, why couldn't it just capture the city right then? At the very least, the home army and/or commander should suffer a penalty to morale and its defense stats, for abandoning their homes against the enemy.

From the Myr Player Spotlight interview (16 August, 2013):
What area of the game do you think needs the most improvement?

Myr wrote: Battle mechanics. The way things are set up there is no way to damage your enemy without sieging and destroying cities. If I send my troops at a city my opponent just needs to move their troops out of the city and nothing happens. I think troops hitting a defenseless city should burn, loot, and kill, doing damage to a city without completely destroying it. There should be resources stolen, buildings de-leveled, and a corresponding loss in pop. The way to stop the intruders would be to defend. I think it would take a lot of bitterness about war out of the game.

Halcyon wrote: I disagree that direct attacks doing damage will lower the bitterness about war. Much shorter time for developing cities will cause war to be less frightening. As things stand, there is too much to lose when going to war. It takes a year to build a city and a day to lose it. That's a bitter lemon to swallow.

I agree with Myr's assertion. She stated that allowing attacking armies to do REAL damage to cities (IE: reducing population) would cut down on some of the "bitterness" currently associated with war. I believe this would result because currently, the only way to cause damage in any meaningful way is to use catapults.

When a siege with catapults gets going, especially on a large city, some MAJOR damage can be done in short order. Conversely, if an army could march into an undefended city, set fires, kill innocent civilians, along with the usual pillaging before returning home, the "victim" of this attack would be more likely to keep their army stationed inside the walls of their city to defend it rather than sending them on bivouac outside the city for a few minutes while the attack takes place. I believe this would reduce the number of catapult sieges being launched during wartime, thus overall reducing serious damage. It would also add new strategies and dynamics to warfare, therefore increasing the enjoyment of the participants.

I believe that neither shortening build times nor increasing siege times is a viable option. If (high level) buildings were quicker to build it would considerably reduce the challenge and prestige associated with becoming a large, veteran player. If sieges were made more difficult by lengthening the time required, a major element of battle in Illyriad would virtually disappear.

Ok, so cast your vote and if you like, make your case: