Hearts of Iron 4 Wiki

[bitmode]

Answers were given to the points raised, but for the sake of transparency I'll reiterate them here as well:

While moderation answers are not in real-time and in some case a couple days late we do try to respond to users.

The common theme of these examples was not that answers were not given, but them always upholding the status quo. But you summarized it well.

0. A stub for a long period, was not expanded upon.

That's just an alteration of the original sentence and not the reason why you were bringing it up. I'm assuming point 4.

1. A stub, moved to userpage until expanded. Never came up again.

It did come up again, shoehorning it into a random article, so I gave up on expanding the topic.

2. A compromise was offered for 2 editors in an edit war. The moderator never implied *they* will implement it.

Nor did I imply or expect that. I tried to implement a proof of concept of the proposal and didn't get any feedback on it after asking for it. I'm not going to pour another few hours of table editing into a page that had just been locked without even having agreement on the solution.

3. It was decided to leave icons as is

I'm thrilled by this unexpected decision to uphold the status quo.

putting a large amount of near-empty pages in the hopes someone else will do the work did not prove itself in the past

I have to take your word on that but driving contributors away probably doesn't help either.

 

[Wobpig]

I'm not sure where to go for this, so I'm going to this thread

I was trying to make a difficulty page on the Hearts of Iron 4 wiki due to it being on the request page, however, when attempting to save, my account was flagged and now I can't save the page. The ban was this:

Your username or IP address has been blocked.

The block was made by Abuse filter. The reason given is Automatically blocked by abuse filter. Description of matched rule: Common vandalism #3.

• Start of block: 20:31, 9 August 2019
• Expiration of block: 20:31, 16 August 2019
• Intended blockee: Wobpig

I have a copy of the source that I wrote for manual review here:

 

[SolSys]

I'm not sure where to go for this, so I'm going to this thread

I was trying to make a difficulty page on the Hearts of Iron 4 wiki due to it being on the request page, however, when attempting to save, my account was flagged and now I can't save the page. The ban was this:

I have a copy of the source that I wrote for manual review here:

Hi Wobpig,

Sorry for the inconvenience. The ban has been lifted and you were added to a group to prevent it.
I've have not restored your edit, but added a redirect instead to where the info was already located. You can make any changes there (search for "difficulty").

 

[bitmode]

Hi Wobpig,

Sorry for the inconvenience. The ban has been lifted and you were added to a group to prevent it.
I've have not restored your edit, but added a redirect instead to where the info was already located. You can make any changes there (search for "difficulty").

In contrast to the linked page section, @Wobpig 's draft is not outdated and the difficulty settings don't belong there anyway.

 

[SolSys]

In contrast to the linked page section, @Wobpig 's draft is not outdated and the difficulty settings don't belong there anyway.

There's a limit to what one can do on their cell phone on the weekend -- by my account it was quiet a feat, even if not impressive to others.
I don't mind them moving it to it's own page and adding a link from the other article.


Edit: Done (from a PC).

 

[bitmode]

I'm in the process of updating https://hoi4.paradoxwikis.com/Air_warfare but getting "Access denied" when clicking "Show preview". On other pages it seems to be working. Just me or is it broken for everyone else too?

Edit: the problem seems to be specific to the section https://hoi4.paradoxwikis.com/Air_warfare#Air_superiority

 

[SolSys]

I'm in the process of updating https://hoi4.paradoxwikis.com/Air_warfare but getting "Access denied" when clicking "Show preview". On other pages it seems to be working. Just me or is it broken for everyone else too?

Edit: the problem seems to be specific to the section https://hoi4.paradoxwikis.com/Air_warfare#Air_superiority

Sorry for the inconvenience.

The problem seems to be related to the MW update which was done a few months ago.
It is being looked at and hopefully fixed soon.


Edit: The problem has been fixed by our DevOps. Should it keep occurring please let us know. Thanks.

 

[Lindwurm]

hi, i have tested some modifiers for air doctrine, maybe you wanna ad them to the wiki/modifiers

category_>airtype< = {
air_attack = 0.5
air_defence = 0.5
air_agility = 0.5
air_ground_attack = 0.5
naval_strike_attack = 0.5
air_range = 0.5 maximum_speed = 0.5
air_bombing = 0.5 naval_striketargetting = 0.5

reliability = 0.5 works, but without comprehensible calculation
}

___________________________________________


0.1 = 10 % increase
>airtype< = sub_uni_categories [00_categories.txt] --- e.g. heavy_bomber / fighter / and so on

The modification shows up in unit overview, not in equipment.

 

[bitmode]

hi, i have tested some modifiers for air doctrine, maybe you wanna ad them to the wiki/modifiers

category_>airtype< = {
air_attack = 0.5
air_defence = 0.5
air_agility = 0.5
air_ground_attack = 0.5
naval_strike_attack = 0.5
air_range = 0.5 maximum_speed = 0.5
air_bombing = 0.5 naval_striketargetting = 0.5

reliability = 0.5 works, but without comprehensible calculation
}

___________________________________________


0.1 = 10 % increase
>airtype< = sub_uni_categories [00_categories.txt] --- e.g. heavy_bomber / fighter / and so on

The modification shows up in unit overview, not in equipment.

Those are not modifiers in the sense of https://hoi4.paradoxwikis.com/Modifiers, they are technology stats, one of the types of effects that technologies can carry. They can refer to any sub unit category (not just air) or individual sub units and change any of their stats. They are used in land and naval doctrines as well.
Technology is currently a redirect to Research though.

 

[bitmode]

(continuing discussion from another thread that better belongs here)

@bitmode

EDIT: Three Two observations so far while proofing both the list of countries and list of states for country names and flags:

1. The Dominican Republic is missing from the list of countries.
2. The list of states now has multiple resources listed in tenths instead of the usual whole numbers.
3. EDIT: Haiti flag on wiki differs from in-game flag.

I will continue the proofing and let you know my findings. Nothing else found.

Great work! I'll check what's up with Haiti and the Dominican Republic. The fractional resource amounts are intentional because only the UI rounds the amounts. For example if you look at the Soviet Union's chrome in-game:

you'll notice that the sum of the list items (355) does not match the total (353). That's because the fractional amounts are used, just hidden, and including them leads to the correct sum (353.3). The base resource amounts are (currently) all whole numbers, so if you want to get the correct resource amount just using the game, you could increase infrastructure to 10 with instantconstruction, resulting in double the base amount, and subtract 5% of that for each infra level you had to add.

 

[Mister Analyst]

(continuing discussion from another thread that better belongs here)

The fractional resource amounts are intentional because only the UI rounds the amounts. For example if you look at the Soviet Union's chrome in-game:
View attachment 508989
you'll notice that the sum of the list items (355) does not match the total (353). That's because the fractional amounts are used, just hidden, and including them leads to the correct sum (353.3). The base resource amounts are (currently) all whole numbers, so if you want to get the correct resource amount just using the game, you could increase infrastructure to 10 with instantconstruction, resulting in double the base amount, and subtract 5% of that for each infra level you had to add.

Thank you once again for educating me. The detail that you share with the community is amazing. That was also a clever mathematics trick that you used to derive the detailed values.

But keeping the wiki up to date is a challenge. Please consider the method that future volunteers will most likely use to update the wiki. Without the documentation being incorporated into the wiki page, the majority of volunteers would most likely plug in the rounded information displayed visually from the HOI4 game while using either the trade screen or the resources map mode screen. Also consider that the wiki moderators may choose to round everything to simpler numbers similar to what was done for the countries list regarding population.

 

[bitmode]

Thank you once again for educating me. The detail that you share with the community is amazing. That was also a clever mathematics trick that you used to derive the detailed values.

But keeping the wiki up to date is a challenge. Please consider the method that future volunteers will most likely use to update the wiki. Without the documentation being incorporated into the wiki page, the majority of volunteers would most likely plug in the rounded information displayed visually from the HOI4 game while using either the trade screen or the resources map mode screen. Also consider that the wiki moderators may choose to round everything to simpler numbers similar to what was done for the countries list regarding population.

The admins or other users may well change it in the future, I'm not enacting a new law that it has to stay this way Given the choice it's always better to have up-to-date numbers rather than precise numbers, but why not have both for now if we can?

RE Haiti: the flag used by the wiki is the historically correct one, the democratic one in-game is the civil flag historically. Despite being rather authoritarian at the time, in-game Haiti is represented as a "democracy" without elections, probably owing to strong US influence, including recent occupation. The game uses the historical flag only for non-aligned (which is probably not attainable without cheats). I'd leave the flag as-is in the wiki and I made a bug report for the in-game flag.

RE Dominican Republic: @Evil4Zerggin 's script correctly produces the country but the last time it was used to generate the country table was in October 2016. The formatting and content of the table has changed substantially since, so I won't overwrite everything with the script output. The Dominican Republic was removed in February by an anonymous user for no apparent reason, replacing it with Djibouti and Mauritania (which both were later moved to a different table). I restored the table row manually

 

[Mister Analyst]

The admins or other users may well change it in the future, I'm not enacting a new law that it has to stay this way Given the choice it's always better to have up-to-date numbers rather than precise numbers, but why not have both for now if we can?

RE Haiti: the flag used by the wiki is the historically correct one, the democratic one in-game is the civil flag historically. Despite being rather authoritarian at the time, in-game Haiti is represented as a "democracy" without elections, probably owing to strong US influence, including recent occupation. The game uses the historical flag only for non-aligned (which is probably not attainable without cheats). I'd leave the flag as-is in the wiki and I made a bug report for the in-game flag.

RE Dominican Republic: @Evil4Zerggin 's script correctly produces the country but the last time it was used to generate the country table was in October 2016. The formatting and content of the table has changed substantially since, so I won't overwrite everything with the script output. The Dominican Republic was removed in February by an anonymous user for no apparent reason, replacing it with Djibouti and Mauritania (which both were later moved to a different table). I restored the table row manually

@bitmode

Thank you for taking the time to investigate the issues and for sending a response. I wish that all forum members were as thorough, courteous, thoughtful, and industrious as you!

 

[bitmode]

@bitmode

Thank you for taking the time to investigate the issues and for sending a response. I wish that all forum members were as thorough, courteous, thoughtful, and industrious as you!

 

[dave_r_gilbert]

Hi
I've never had any problems accessing the wiki before, but over the last couple of days I've had variants of this message, and more and more of the modding wiki is inaccessible.
Anybody else having a problem, or can anyone help with a solution?
I'm used both chrome and edge as browsers, and had the same problems.

Error 503 Backend is unhealthy
Backend is unhealthy
Guru mediation:
Details: cache-lcy19241-LCY 1567966788 2457355535
varnish cache server

 

[Mister Analyst]

Hi
I've never had any problems accessing the wiki before, but over the last couple of days I've had variants of this message, and more and more of the modding wiki is inaccessible.
Anybody else having a problem, or can anyone help with a solution?
I'm used both chrome and edge as browsers, and had the same problems.

Error 503 Backend is unhealthy
Backend is unhealthy
Guru mediation:
Details: cache-lcy19241-LCY 1567966788 2457355535
varnish cache server

I am getting a 503 error also. The website is most likely down for maintenance. Here is the Wikipedia description for 503 error:
"503 Service Unavailable
The server cannot handle the request (because it is overloaded or down for maintenance). Generally, this is a temporary state."

 

[bitmode]

I'm wondering whether we should have an alternative to the {{SVersion}} template that more explicitly marks outdated content. Currently many articles are partially up to date but some sections "may contain outdated information that is inaccurate" and as a result the entire article may contain outdated information. But there are many cases where the information is known to be outdated. Marking these sections (or entire pages) explicitly would have a few advantages imho:

• It separates the tasks of verifying and rewriting, which require different skills and time investments. The former would just be setting/changing the version tags and the latter could go directly for pages that are known to need changes.
• having a page say "this is up to date except section(s) X, Y, and Z" is more useful to the reader than "This article may contain outdated information that is inaccurate for the current version of the game. It was last updated for 1.X." which calls the entire content into question
• it could contain a "reason" field or similar that gives readers and future editors a rough idea of what is out-dated (e.g. "attack values don't match in-game values", "this is the focus tree from before the rework in patch 1.Y")

As an example, Naval_warfare is largely up to date but the Example Naval Battle is known to be outdated (not just potentially) and particularly hard to update. As a result the page will keep saying "It was last updated for 1.5".

 

[Axe99]

I'm wondering whether we should have an alternative to the {{SVersion}} template that more explicitly marks outdated content. Currently many articles are partially up to date but some sections "may contain outdated information that is inaccurate" and as a result the entire article may contain outdated information. But there are many cases where the information is known to be outdated. Marking these sections (or entire pages) explicitly would have a few advantages imho:

• It separates the tasks of verifying and rewriting, which require different skills and time investments. The former would just be setting/changing the version tags and the latter could go directly for pages that are known to need changes.
• having a page say "this is up to date except section(s) X, Y, and Z" is more useful to the reader than "This article may contain outdated information that is inaccurate for the current version of the game. It was last updated for 1.X." which calls the entire content into question
• it could contain a "reason" field or similar that gives readers and future editors a rough idea of what is out-dated (e.g. "attack values don't match in-game values", "this is the focus tree from before the rework in patch 1.Y")

As an example, Naval_warfare is largely up to date but the Example Naval Battle is known to be outdated (not just potentially) and particularly hard to update. As a result the page will keep saying "It was last updated for 1.5".

I'm mostly a lurker here, but this is an excellent idea and well good enough for me to briefly sully the thread. This issue is a big 'un when it comes to knowing what is and isn't current on a wiki (and will also make it easier for people updating). From an end-user perspective, if this kind of thing was outlined in the EU4 wiki, it would make it substantially more useful (and I think this would go twice for HoI4 - I just play too much HoI4 to need the wiki to tell me how it works).

 

[SolSys]

Hi
I've never had any problems accessing the wiki before, but over the last couple of days I've had variants of this message, and more and more of the modding wiki is inaccessible.
Anybody else having a problem, or can anyone help with a solution?
I'm used both chrome and edge as browsers, and had the same problems.

Error 503 Backend is unhealthy
Backend is unhealthy
Guru mediation:
Details: cache-lcy19241-LCY 1567966788 2457355535
varnish cache server

I am getting a 503 error also. The website is most likely down for maintenance. Here is the Wikipedia description for 503 error:
"503 Service Unavailable
The server cannot handle the request (because it is overloaded or down for maintenance). Generally, this is a temporary state."

Wiki should have been fixed as of this morning.
Please let us know if you still encounter issue.

 

[bitmode]

Wiki should have been fixed as of this morning.
Please let us know if you still encounter issue.

Getting this wherever <math> is used.