AE Wiki................dead?

[Hanzberger]

I check the wiki first in hopes that some of you (Japan players) have put in some new info but lately it seems it has died.
On behalf of us who only have half the brain capacity and 1/100th of the time to play could those of you please find time to update and or add to the wiki. PLEASE. [&o]
Yes that means you too Mike~! [:D]
http://hc-strategy.com/ae/wiki/index.ph ... =Main_Page

[Terminus]

The Wiki concept has never really taken root in the WitP community. I think it's because a wiki would attempt to fill a void that is already comprehensively filled by the forum.

[Hanzberger]

Although the forums are great it can take hours to find what your really looking for.  I think AE Wiki, for the Japan players, could be a great concentrated source.  If anything it can fill the void left by the Manuel.

[witpqs]

I too think it's a great idea, not really sure it will take root, though.

[erstad]

The problem (if there is a problem) is that the community never tires of answering the same questions over and over. We're just too nice! [8|]

[MuguNiner]

Thank you community!

[&o]

[rattovolante]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

The Wiki concept has never really taken root in the WitP community. I think it's because a wiki would attempt to fill a void that is already comprehensively filled by the forum.

well, I know a few other games where an active forum coexists with a very good wiki.
I think -but it is only my opinion- that the difference in this case is that the code behind AE is very complex and hard to understand. So it's difficult to contribute anything definite to a wiki, because the forums don't have an answer yet.

For example, I used to play a freeware but closed source game which had no manual to speak of, and a quite steep learning curve, but it had a wiki that acted as manual, learning guide, etc.
The big difference with AE is that the wiki in question could provide definite explanations on game mechanics in general terms, even if the code itself was not public.

For example, it explained that the melee combat routine was
- attacker rolls to hit
- defender rolls to parry/block/dodge
- successful parry/block allows single counterattack
- if attack hits, random location is struck
- process armor if any
etc.etc.

Even if no one knew what the dice rolls were (linear? gaussian?) or even how the stats displayed actually meant (was the value shown actually in a logarithmic scale? or maybe the formula used it squared or square rooted?), you had a decent grasp of what in-game choices made sense.

As an example based on the example above, since no hits could be "partially" parried/blocked/dodged (it was either parry/block/dodge or hit at full strength) there was no real point in maximizing both armor and parry/dodge (armor weight led to mobility decrease, thus parry/dodge decrease) except on some specific cases (i.e., expecting a mix of attacks that could be parried and attacks that couldn't).


Compare this with AE's surface combat, so far we know much less, as far as I understand everyone is using his own approach, without any clear understanding of the consequences.
For example, I usually place at least 1 CA in each invasion TF, while many witp veterans only place ASW escorts in invasion TFs and prefer a stronger surface combat TF in the same hex. It's not just a matter of "what's better", but of a number of question like:
- does the CA make the invasion fleet easier to be spotted?
- will it allow the transport to escape while it engages any enemy SCTF? (this seems to be hinted by the "xAK so-and-so screened from combat by..." messages)
- might it deter weak enemy SCTF from engaging at all? (the "allied/japanese forces avoid combat" message)
...and so on

Some other aspects of AE are even less understood, first and foremost research. As far as I understand some people were recently very surprised when a dev said that HQ range 1 means adjacent hexes, apparently since WitP everyone understood it to mean only the hex the HQ was in.

So I guess it's too early to have an effective wiki, it needs either a lot of dedicated tests and benchmarks or that the developers themselves clear up some points (like in the HQ range example).

[rattovolante]

I've started to slowly move my notes and reference bookmarks to the wiki.
At the very least it's handier for my own use to have them in a fully indexed, hyperlinked form, if it helps other guys the better [:)]

don't expect any coherent effort or any attempt at completeness or good formatting, but still it might help revive the wiki

BTW, since there are about 3 different wikis, I'm using this one: http://hc-strategy.com/ae/wiki/index.ph ... =Main_Page


PS: is there a problem with forum search?
PPS: nevermind, found the problem forum search does not iterate subforums [:(]

[Hanzberger]

Good Job Rattovolante.  I thank you and so will others. [:D]

[Historiker]

Yes, good work!
I will also continue to work on the wiki but don't have any time to even just touch the game atm.


The wiki isn't dead!

[vlcz]

PS: is there a problem with forum search?
PPS: nevermind, found the problem forum search does not iterate subforums

Maybe you know by now, but you can select the subforums you want to include in the search by <ctrl>+clicking them

[rattovolante]

ORIGINAL:&nbsp; vlcz

Maybe you know by now, but you can select the subforums you want to include in the search by <ctrl>+clicking them

I didn't! Thanks a lot!

BTW, Hanzberger you might consider to restrict editing (at least on the main page talk) to registered users only. We're getting some bot spam... see http://hc-strategy.com/ae/wiki/index.ph ... :Main_Page
For what it's worth the last spammer didn't know how to use wiki links...

[Historiker]

Editing the talk pages without an account is impossible now and the email adresses of accounts have to be verified.
This should hopefully block the spambots.

[Historiker]

Ok, didn't work.
Does anyone know where in LocalSettings.php to add the
$wgDisableAnonTalk
$wgEmailConfirmToEdit
to make it work?

I thought that shouldn't matter but it didn't work