Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

optimal artillery levels in sieges ?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
U

unmerged(2232)

First Lieutenant
Mar 24, 2001
264
0
Visit site
Checking the forums and Huszics' FAQ (which is really helpful, BTW), it seems that artillery should stop contributing to a siege when its numbers exceed 20 * fortress level. Is this actually true? It seems to me that my armies with 80 cannon reduce level 2 fortresses much faster than armies with 40 cannon, and the AI's 160+ cannon armies, even leaderless ones, seem to reduce level 2 fortresses in a couple of months.

As Huszics' numbers seem to derived directly from the BG, I'm wondering if anyone has checked this for the computer version? It would be helpful to know the point at which diminishing returns set in, and it also would be nice to know the increments in which artillery's contributions to a siege increase (I've been assuming 10* fortress level, but the formula could just as easily be based upon the firepower contributed by the available artillery at a siege).
 
Was wondering why you seemed so confused as it's perfectly clear in my FAQ.

Just noticed however that some parts have gotten messed up.

Check my FAQ again in about 10 minutes it will be fixed (and explained)
 
Hmm... maybe I'm looking at the wrong part of the FAQ. I see a table, titled "siege table", which states that attackers get a +1 mod if artillery>fortress level, and a +2 if artillery > 2*fortress level. There doesn't seem to be any other explanation, or description of how artillery affects the attack strength shown on the siege screen, or any indication that artillery has any other effect on the duration of a siege. I must be missing something (or is that the extent of artillery's effect, and there really isn't any reason to have greater than 2*fortress level present at a siege?).
 
Right before that table (which is from the BG and is only included as a refferance to the monthly siege roll, as it sais in the text) ...
---
6. What does the numbers in Combats & Sieges represent ?

Sieges:
The values in the circles represent Attackers Siege Strength (left) and Defenders Siege Defence (right).

Siege Strenght
Highest present Leader siege value +X
No Artillery at all -1
Artillery outnumbering Fortress Level
20:1 +1
30:1 +3

Siege Defence
Fortress Level +X
Rough Terrain (other then Plains) +2

-----
 
Whoops, my apologies. I'd started to suspect that my old browser was causing the problem -- though the FAQ looks a little strange, I'd thought that all the information was visible, but the passage you cite doesn't appear. Thanks for clipping it in here.
 
Yeah, I ran into that problem, too.
At work, I use NS 4.x because the computer is not too fast and running Linux. Using NS 6 here means you have time for a coffe break whenever you enter a new page and you'd better start the browser when going home in the evening, so you can use him on the next morning.
NS 4.x also is a pain on Linux, but at least runs at a reasonable speed.
At home, I'm using NS 4.x or IE 5.5 because NS 6 is just a pain. Nobody I know uses it, for a reason.
But I'd be so tolerant to say: Use it if you like to.
But I guess NS 6 is something of the "arische Rasse" of Huzics, he makes websites only NS6-aryans may use, other people have to go with different buses .. err ... to different websites, I mean ;)
So I had to use that other FAQ. Huzics is probably good, but obviously he doesn't want me to read it :(
 
Originally posted by driedcow


Why do you not just make the page simple html? It's just a bunch of text and links!
Click to expand...

He doesn't tolerate old browsers. ;)
There's even a link on the page which says "Why I don't care ..." which kills my Linux browser. Have to manually delete some files to get him up and running again. Really funny.
 
First thing, sorry Cal, didn't know that link crashed your entire system =(
Definitly not my intention (it's not my site btw). I'll put up a warning this evning.

The link goes to a page that describes what the benefits are of using correct HTML instead of deliberatly making buggy code to try to keep 2-3 year old browsers on the market (when there are good alternatives available for free). It's an interesting read and it works ok with most browsers (Mozilla & IE 5.0+ among many others).

At work, I use NS 4.x because the computer is not too fast and running Linux. Using NS 6 here means you have time for a coffe break whenever you enter a new page and you'd better start the browser when going home in the evening, so you can use him on the next morning.


You don't have to use bulky NS6 to upgrade you NS4.x.
There are other browsers that use the much better rendering engine of NS6/Moz but in a much smaller/lighter packaging. K-meleon in Windows and for linux check out http://galeon.sourceforge.net/index.html.
It's smaller, faster & better then NS4.x, what more resons do you need to upgrade ?

At home, I'm using NS 4.x or IE 5.5 because NS 6 is just a pain. Nobody I know uses it, for a reason.

That reason don't just happen to be stubbordness does it ?
I mean, why would you choose a chrashprone, ultrabuggy, 3 year old browser over a brand new, stable, standards compliant browser ?

Makes no sense. Anybody STILL on NS 4.x should really consider sitching to the latest Mozilla 0.8.1 (or any of the numerous lightweight options using the same rendering engine available).

But I guess NS 6 is something of the "arische Rasse" of Huzics, he makes websites only NS6-aryans may use, other people have to go with different buses .. err ... to different websites, I mean

I don't discriminate, all browsers get an equal chance of browsing my CORRECT HTML/CSS pages. The only reason I recomend Mozilla (NOT NS6 btw, Mozilla gets updated dayly which makes NS6 almost always an older, buggier version + it adds that crappy AOL) is because it currently is the BEST browser concerning sticking to HTML spec. Any resonably good browser however (IE 5.5, Opera, K-meleon, Galleon etc) works perfectly OK with my pages (at least all the text shows up).
Most of the 20+ version of 3 year old ultra buggy 4.x however doesn't. I simply don't have time to try and fix all the bugs it produces (NS hasn't managed themselves for 3 years ...)

So I had to use that other FAQ. Huzics is probably good, but obviously he doesn't want me to read it

That is BS, IE 5.5 works just fine. All it has problems with is some CSS formating, but all text shows up.
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by driedcow


Why do you not just make the page simple html? It's just a bunch of text and links!
Click to expand...

IT IS JUST SIMPLE HTML!!
I only use correct HTML and CSS on my pages (check it in a HTML validator if you don't believe me).

The problem is that NS4.x is too buggy to read that simple "bunch of text and links" correctly. It's not my fault and I won't make an entire second site just so people can cling on to their 3 year old super buggy browser when there are perfectly good alternatives out there. I do not have the time nor interest in doing so.
 
You know me, I'm just too lazy too look at the source view button.:(

Yah, it is html, and nicely coded at that. Very clean.:)

Then how come all these people have their houses burn down when they open it? (works fine on every machine I used so far)
 
Originally posted by driedcow
You know me, I'm just too lazy too look at the source view button.:(

Yah, it is html, and nicely coded at that. Very clean.:)

Then how come all these people have their houses burn down when they open it? (works fine on every machine I used so far)
Click to expand...

For starters there are a myriad of NS4.x browsers, that all have their own set of different bugs.
And of course, all platforms have their own set of versions and thus own sets of bugs.
The entire 4.x family is just one gigantic patchwork that barely sticks together.
I myself stuck to it for a very long time (if nothing else because I don't like MS monopolizing everything), but for quite some time now there are no reasons not to upgrade to the latest Moz 0.8.1 instead.

I've been using Moz as my main browser for over a year now and about 6 months ago I scrapped NS 4.x altogheter (mail and all) and never looked back once.
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by Cadorna
Yeah, I ran into that problem, too.
At work, I use NS 4.x because the computer is not too fast and running Linux. Using NS 6 here means you have time for a coffe break whenever you enter a new page and you'd better start the browser when going home in the evening, so you can use him on the next morning.
NS 4.x also is a pain on Linux, but at least runs at a reasonable speed.
At home, I'm using NS 4.x or IE 5.5 because NS 6 is just a pain. Nobody I know uses it, for a reason.
...
Click to expand...

Man, I couldn't agree with you more about NS6. I gave it a chance - it has to be poorest performing browser I've ever seen - really, it's unusable. Remarkably, it performs identically both on Win2K and Solaris. NS4 on Solaris is just O.K. - I prefer MSIE on Win2K. I always click on Huszics print button with MSIE but that doesn't even come up on NS4.
 
Originally posted by robo


Man, I couldn't agree with you more about NS6. I gave it a chance - it has to be poorest performing browser I've ever seen - really, it's unusable.
Click to expand...

I agree on that NS pushed out that initial NS6 previews way too early (don't know what they where thinking). It has made Moz/NS6 a big unfavor, undeservingly giving it a very bad rep (it really is the best browser to date).
All I can say is download Moz 0.8.1 and give it another try, you won't get dissapointed.


Also remember, it is work in progress and though speed has improved immensly the last months, if your on a sub 200MHz comp I suggest trying some of the light versions I mentioned earlier if you think it feels a bit sluggish.
The gecko rendering engine is made to be easily adaptable even as browsers in mobiles etc, so in it self it's quite lightweight and fast.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back