User talk:Bitmode

From Hearts of Iron 4 Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Control of territory[edit]

I have no idea what this page is for. Its also not to style and not linked into the rest of the wiki. I've copied it over to your userspace User:Bitmode where it can be worked on. It would also be good to know the purpose of the page. Thanks, Dauth (talk) 11:48, 14 October 2018 (CEST)

The main purpose of the page is to explain which country gets to control captured territory, a question that frequently comes up in the forum. I'm aware that it's not according to style which is why I marked it as stub. It's just a dump of findings in various threads. For now the page is just linked from https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/unrewarding-play-insight-wanted.1121737/page-5#post-24736289 as I didn't immediately find a good place to link it in. What is the minimum requirement to move it out of userspace? --Bitmode (talk) 11:58, 14 October 2018 (CEST)
I'd suggest adding it to the beginner's guide. Somewhere in this region Beginner's_guide#Capitulation_and_winning_the_war. I'd also change the phrasing from "(not sure yet what the attribute is)" to "(it is unclear to the community which attribute takes preference)". Dauth (talk) 12:05, 14 October 2018 (CEST)
The "(not sure yet what the attribute is)" was already crossed out in the forum post but that got lost when pasting the stub article. I doubt that the article is relevant for beginners but I linked it there as requested. JFYI, the style guide leads by stating that contributing to the wiki is more important than style which can still be improved by other users and has no requirement that an article be linked from other articles. Regardless, I expanded the article on my userspace. Is it now understandable enough to not be deleted again? --Bitmode (talk) 16:22, 14 October 2018 (CEST)
The current version is a lot better. I'll move it onto the beginner's guide later today. The style guide does give this advice. However wikis only work when pages are categorised and linked to. Otherwise they are no better than a random website with a collection of pages. It should be possible to get from any page to any other page on the wiki just by following links. When the page was initially posted this was not the case. Can you suggest where this page should go instead of the beginner's guide and what pages should link to it? Generally advanced guides aren't useful because few people have the confidence to update something labelled Advanced. Apologies for the delay in getting back to you. Dauth (talk) 14:36, 17 October 2018 (CEST)
I wouldn't label it as a guide at all, as it doesn't tell the reader what to do. It just lays down the game's mechanics, similar to how Land_warfare#Combat_resolution explains what's going on in battles or Manpower. So maybe it could be linked from Mechanics or Warfare? --Bitmode (talk) 15:35, 17 October 2018 (CEST)
I've added it to the warfare page. Thanks for the effort. Dauth (talk) 00:01, 18 October 2018 (CEST)

Unit-specific terrain modifiers[edit]

You reverted my change. I suspect you verified the wrong thing in-game.

https://imgur.com/cv7Zplu shows a -5% mountain modifier for a full strength mechanized division.

https://imgur.com/kf9wwC8 shows a -2.5% mountain modifier for a half strength mechanized division.

This is about the unit-specific modifiers, not base terrain penalties.

For the sake of good faith editing, please correct your own change. Xfs (talk)

Also, you removed two pieces of useful and true information:

  • For rivers the attacker's breakthrough is modified by defense modifiers. For amphibious and forts only attack modifiers are used. ...
  • ...while the movement modifier is multiplicative with the base terrain movement cost.

The new version For terrain feature adjusters, the attack value modifiers the attacker's attack, and the defense value modifiers the attacker's breakthrough is untrue. Defense modifiers do NOT modify the attacker's breakthrough in forts and amphibious. Xfs (talk)

Here's a half-strength tank division (lacking tanks), having the full terrain penalties
Understrength adjuster.jpg
. I'll investigate what causes your divisions to have reduced penalties. I tested breakthrough against forts again and it does work (see image). Otherwise the engineer fort defense adjuster would not make sense.
Breakthrough comparison against forts.jpg
You're right about amphibious, the attack adjuster is used both for attack and breakthrough there for some reason. I'll change that accordingly. The terrain movement cost does not stack with anything, it's just a cost representation of the distance between provinces, as described and is calculated once on startup. I already noted that terrain features stack multiplicatively in the second sentence of Terrain#Terrain_features. Bitmode (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2019 (CET)
I changed the wording in the page to refer to lack of manpower because this matches your screenshots. For lack of equipment I opened a section on the discussion page because I'm not sure yet whether it really has no effect like my screenshot suggests. Bitmode (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2019 (CET)
Have you checked your own screenshot, it shows a 10% bonus, that is the value of its atk bonus, not def. Xfs (talk)
I didn't say anything about defense? -10% attack is the nominal attack adjuster of light tanks on mountains. I.e. it's not reduced by lack of equipment. Bitmode (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2019 (CET)

The screenshot about fort defense — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xfs (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2019‎ (CET)

updated the screenshot Bitmode (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2019 (CET)

That's what I'm saying: fort brk penalty is changed by 10% from engineers, but engineers have 25% def bonus. Check carefully, ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xfs (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2019‎ (CET)

Ok so it's a bug then. I didn't realize that from the old wiki text. Thanks Bitmode (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2019 (CET)

Splitting articles[edit]

While we wholly encourage splitting big articles into smaller ones for readability we also prefer avoiding making them too small. Please take that into consideration. ~ SolSys (talk) 08:58, 29 March 2019 (CET)

Old redirects[edit]

Hi, we tend to leave old redirects in place if they don't cause confusion. The reasons for that are due to them being linked in history and barely having a resource cost. ~ SolSys (talk) 19:34, 29 March 2019 (CET)