User talk:Xfs

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

Versioning[edit]

Hello. Please do not remove the templates that indicate the versioning of a page or section. If you are sure that the page/section is correct for a newer patch of the game just replace the patch number. – Lillebror (talk) 22:53, 25 September 2018 (CEST)

There's good reasons to remove the tags because these are fundamental mechanics that do not change from version to version. Some of them are even the same from HoI3! But whatever, you do whatever you want as a moderator. Xfs (talk)
For this cases there is the 'Timeless' parameter. Oh - I don't do what I want. The handling of the versioning has been established for a long time. How would you differentiate between topics that never change and areas where the versioning template was simply forgotten? – Lillebror (talk) 11:18, 26 September 2018 (CEST)

[Unindented] First, let's keep this civil -- especially when someone takes of their free time to explain something in a way which can only be described as polite. Second, if an edit does not comply with wiki standards it would be reverted with an explanation as to why [if possible, immediately afterwards]. As such, there is a reason for wiki norms such as version tags to exist. If you believe you have a good reason for something to be changed, you may state it, and if adequate enough the standard can change. ~ SolSys (talk) 19:06, 26 September 2018 (CEST)

Am I not the one who spends the most free time adding content and correcting wrong information? We are all spending our free time here. Version tags offer no value to me because marking the tags up-to-date doesn't make the information true or trusted. I stated my reasons, but if you want to keep it I won't bother. Xfs (talk)
Both SolSys and Lillebror have over 10,000 edits on the Paradox Wikis. The issue we have is that if you remove the version tags or don't mark them as up to date we have no idea which content needs working on. The purpose of the version tags is not to get in the way but to instead highlight the most recent time content was verified and therefore which sections need attention. I have never played HOI3 so I don't know which mechanics have been inherited therefore version tags highlighting the state of content is useful to me and other players like me. I hope this explains what has been said and I'm happy to discuss it further. Cheers, Dauth (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2018 (CEST)
I know you're coming from recent changes but is this worth arguing for? Over 9000 edits yet the information is still wrong - I've been seeing it wrong for over a year until I put in the real work to dig out the algorithms. The hard part is not being almost right, but going from almost right to right. Once upon a time wikipedia put spoiler headers to all the articles of fictional works because they thought the readers were children that needed to be taken care of, guess what, they eventually realized that was just editorial noise. Readers are not stupid. I said I'm not going to bother with the tags but if you insist you can go to places where people actually use the wiki then their feedback is the content is always outdated regardless of the tags, in fact the tags only make it worse. Trust but verify. Tags only distract people to not even trust it. Xfs (talk)

Land warfare combat changes[edit]

Hello there. You removed the sentence "The defenses are shared over the same hour for multiple unit-unit engagements." Why do you think the defenses are reset between each 1-on-1? In the code I see no indication of that. Bitmode (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2019 (CEST)

In what code? The engine for combat resolution is not open source, and the algorithm is not configurable, other than the parameters. The section was entirely deduced from experimentation, so if you'd like to know for sure you have to do experiments.
This sentence is crucial: "Combat is resolved in one hour turns, where both the attacking and defending divisions each randomly choose an opposing division to fight against this turn." Maybe its meaning is not the most obvious, but one thing is certain: each division from both sides can only attack a single target in a turn. So attacks are on per-target basis, and there isn't any sharing between targets for the same attack. Or, attacks can be summed from multiple divisions, but defenses are not summed or averaged between multiple divisions.
I can ascertain from experiment data that the relationship between all the quantities on both of the equations is precisely described by the current text with randomness fully accounted for. Unless you meant some other kind of sharing, but first you have to quantify how exactly is the sharing calculated. Xfs (talk)
I reverse engineered the game code (in the case of land combat on version 1.5.3) and verified many of these wiki descriptions. But I suspect the original sentence was unclear. It's meant to say that when attackers A1 and A2 both randomly shoot at the same defender D1, D1's defenses are not reset inbetween these two attacks in the same hour. But as you say D1 doesn't share/average/transfer its defenses with other defenders, which is how think you understood the sentence? If so, I'll try to figure out a more precise wording. Bitmode (talk) 19:05, 3 April 2019 (CEST)
Maybe it's a wording issue. The current text and my conception is that the attacks are combined into a single quantity before the damage resolution phase which compares the summed quantity of attacks vs defense, so it's not two occasions of damage dealing but one. It seems you meant some kind of sharing between two occasions but it reads like sharing between divisions. Th current text already implies the above but you can still make it more clear.
Also, if you have reversed it please check the part about understrength division and its effects on stats and combat resolution. That part is horribly funky. I was able to create negative organization by switching templates in combat. Accurate combat simulation would be impossible without details about this part. Xfs (talk)