Walls should provide a level of fortification directly behind them, or should work with cliffs/rivers to complete the "loop".
#Walls should not need to be "closed" to provide fortification.
indigo rock
To illustrate how egregious this is; in this photo I do not gain fortification, despite the settlement being 95% enclosed
This is the level to which the walls must be closed to receive fortification bonuses
As another example; if I were to close off the other side of the city, there would be no fortification for my city, despite having no overland route through the walls
versed arrow
I agree, rivers and gray cliffs should act as "walls"
flat prairie
Walls should provide a level of fortification directly behind them, or should wo...
From a logical perspective, I wouldn't feel too safe as a villager if an invader could just cross a bridge and ignore the wall altogether 😐
Even if there wasn't a bridge, an invader could easily shoot an arrow at you without a wall to protect from it
indigo rock
The bridge is also walled off, and the walls would provide no ranged coverage from the cliff they are built beneath
hazy silo
I do agree that impassible natural features should count as fortifications.
Though, I would classify rivers as light fortifications and cliffs as heavy fortifications.
Going completely off topic now, why is your map so foggy?
mossy briar
I agree, rivers and gray cliffs should act as "walls"
As should any body of water.