Wall relevance

Stationed troops in a sieged city, should have X% chance per turn to prevent each ram from damaging the walls.
Even destroy one if they get lucky.
Chance should be based on a ratio of Number of Defenders to Number of Rams.

A well reinforced and uncleared city, would then be more likely to have their walls intact by the time the razing can happen.
It still doesn't address the issue of how fast a big city goes down... since walls barely hold any population...


"Rain of Arrows" - Siege Camp archers should be able to fire back at half efficiency, but, this would negate or at least make less effective the Ram Defense.

Another option is that the use of Rams is manual. 
No damage/attack on the walls unless the sieger pushes the 'take the walls' button. And get fried by runes while doing it.
Dead commanders apply the same here...

+1 on walls firing back 

So here are some ideas on that:

A realistic scenario would be a siegecamp with cats shooting at a city,
the city shooting back in some way (own cats, magic,...),
(I would reduce the damage of the cats to make them anoying, but not devastating)
But the attackers are not yet able to get down the wall...
if they want to really get the city, they'd have to go for the wall in direct battle with their rams,
having to fight against the people throwing hot tar and stones on them (the more pop, the more damage), and the army within maning the walls (archers already have their high defense as a bonus).

A city is ready for capture or destroying, when it's walls are completely down and the army dead.
The loss of pop as a requirement is unrealistic IMO; When the city is captured, a part of the people would go away, leaving the winner half of the pop, or every building reduced some Levels.

As also mentioned in an other thread, those people might be able to start a new town somewhere, taking those Levels reduced in the old city with them. This could also be able when the old town's destroyed (people getting away with all they can carry).

Got a bit far away from the actual thread, but High Big Walls would become really important then.

Drejan wrote: Great another useless-defence game! A good and well defended wall was really hard to breach, a siege could last ages, and most of the time attackers won couse of hungry and diseases.

I do not mind food actually being useful in that regard...

Drejan wrote: Great another useless-defence game! The strange thing is that Illyriad should be based on a medieval-fantasy background. Walls were not easy to breach until cannons and bombs were invented. A good and well defended wall was really hard to breach, a siege could last ages, and most of the time attackers won couse of hungry and diseases.