green hamlet
It's obscene that a defender riding out to attack forces the besieging faction to assault the walls.
The basic conceit of a siege is that the attacker doesn't want to do that yet. It can easily force a loss when you wouldn't have committed your current forces to an assault on the walls.
It doesn't make any sense that it is the defender that gets to force that to happen, when they want it to happen. If they want to break the siege, they need to come outside.
lofty mist
It's obscene that a defender riding out to attack forces the besieging faction t...
to me the map is fine but the defender should be forced to deploy outside
defenders advantage should exist outside of that
full iron
Defender's advantage really shouldn't exist outside of that, though. If you're abandoing the walls, you're abandoning the walls. This whole "running outside to tag the sieging army, and then teleporting back behind the wall" thing is silly.
main spear
I would propose a wall-less city map for that which is otherwise underused but beautiful. The battle would thus still be in the outskirts of the city, which is logical, but no longer behind the walls.
sleek tapir
What the OP is suggesting used to be what happened. It was changed because it meant that the defender could just negate any of the resources the attacker invested into siege projects by attacking first.
young crane
What the OP is suggesting used to be what happened. It was changed because it me...
that sounds especially brutal if you're playing with simultaneous turns
mighty galleon
oh, that makes sense
red pollen
Only it DOES make sense. The alternative would be: I attack you while you are at the walls, you retreat, the siege ends, I can choose to attack you in the field or do nothing (forcing you to start over to siege me since you retreated form your position).