User talk:Revanche/Archive 2007

Inner Sphere in Flames[edit]

  • Hey, this is completely unrelated to the Wiki, but I was hoping you could help. I'm trying to start up an ISiF game and I saw you posted some stuff about it on the CBT forums, so I was hoping you knew more than I did. I don't get the whole "multiply ground/aerospace rating by X" idea. If I have a high tech and and elite force, for example, I multiply the ground rating by 2.4. When does this happen? I figured that it would be done when a unit is built, but that doesn't make sense with the experience level multiplier. Help! — The preceding unsigned comment was provided by Scaletail on 08 January, 2007 (talkcontribs) .
No problem; I'd really like to see this game continue to be supported, so any help (or opinions) I can provide are free of charge. I'm on leave right now, without my books, but I do have Combat Operations with me in pdf. Can you give me a page number to reference? --Revanche (admin) 23:44, 8 January 2007 (CST)
Never-mind, found it: pp. 102. I think your question might also be worded: when does this multiplier take effect? The way I see it, you design your force with the attributed equipment, but determine (initially) its Ground Rating (GR) as if its a unit with a Regular experience rating (hence, a modifier of 1.0). Now, if you're re-creating a unit from a Field Manual (or your own fan unit), you apply the appropriate minimum XP to the unit to meet its actual experience rating (green, regular, veteran, elite). With elite, that would be 31. As they engage in combat, they'll continue to earn XP. But, remember how they had a GR equivalent to that of a reglarly experienced unit at force creation? Because you've blessed them as 'elite,' they actually have a GR much higher. So, at 31 XP (elite), modify the GR by 2.0. As they gain experience, at each 5 additional XP, re-calculate their GR.
I'm not sure if I'm being clear, but remember the GR (& AR) is equipment-dependent initially. As the equipment changes, the base GR changes to match it. That base GR is then modified by the current experience rating of the force. For example, on page 100, the example there introduces the equipment loadout of the Sixth Marik Militia. At the end of the example, it says they have a GR of 1,304. It also says that they are a Veteran unit, therefore start off with 16 XP. Because of their Veteran status, their GR should be modified to 1,956 (1,304 x 1.5 = 1,956). The reason this is important is because it affects results based upon GR (and should increase their Supply Rating, as well). Is this the help you were looking for? --Revanche (admin) 00:18, 9 January 2007 (CST)
It is, although it's not what I wanted to hear, because I'll have to go back and change what I've already done. Better yet, I'll just make the players do it. I'm assuming this would then mean that anytime the tech level is adjusted (up or down) to an extent that it affects the AR or GR, you would then have to recalculate the Rating for all of that faction's units. I just wish there were more examples in ComOps to help make sense of this, becuase the rules aren't all that simple. Scaletail 20:30, 9 January 2007 (CST)
I may not completely understand what you mean (but I think I do). If the TL of the faction does change, it means that the faction now has the opportunity to upgrade its forces. I'm speaking (again) without referencing the book, but it seems to me that the faction would still have to provide new equipment to the units in order for their ratings (ground and/or aerospace) to change. For example, a unit may employ a battalion of Wasp-1A BattleMechs (stupid example, I know). Due to its budget, the faction increases its Tech Level. If it wanted to increase the GR of that battalion, it would also have to provide newer, higher-tech 'Mechs. So, yeah, leave it up to the players, but they can't do it all at once. I'll review ComOps, but I think I'm correct in that statement. (And, yeah: there a lot of rules that could be expanded upon or explained with some detail.) --Revanche (admin) 01:32, 10 January 2007 (CST)
I'm an idiot. I see what you mean. would I interpret a change in the BattleTech Level upon a force, in light of the above?.........Got it! Actually, maybe I don't. Two options (of interpretation): 1) as you said: recompute each unit each time the BT Level changes (as the Supply Ratings would be affected too), or 2) apply the percent increase only at the time of battle. At first, I liked the simplicity of that, 'cause then its simply stated that they enjoy the benefits of better tech. But, based on my previous 'advice' to you, why should veterans get higher Supply Ratngs if higher tech units don't. Option 1 requires more work (at each change), but I think that is what was intended. Sorry. --Revanche (admin) 01:41, 10 January 2007 (CST)

Special:DoubleRedirects needs some attention[edit]

I've nuked most of the obvious errors, fixed other ones up, but there's one left that I'm not sure about. Since you created the naming convention for that stuff, I'll leave it up to you. --Xoid 11:22, 29 January 2007 (CST)


There seems to be something wrong with the Citation Template. Check out the way it looks on this article. I tried adding to it, but it didn't seem to help. Scaletail 12:26, 29 January 2007 (CST)

Yeah, I've asked Xoid to take a look at it. --Revanche (admin) 14:18, 29 January 2007 (CST)
*sigh*. The template uses named parameters… --Xoid 21:32, 29 January 2007 (CST)
Xoid, we must have caught you on a bad day, or a day you forgot that my interest in the project stems not from actual wikicode knowledge but from BattleTech. Scaletail, I'll poke around wikipedia with this hint that Xoid provided and see if I can figure it out. It may be a few days, but as a group, we should be able to get the cite function to work. --Revanche (admin) 21:54, 29 January 2007 (CST)
Okay, as a record of my travels to uncover the mess that is Template:Cite (as something I can reference back when I need to relearn it), I provide this 'pedia page, where the code appears as:
{{{author}}},  {{{title}}},  [[{{{publisher}}}]],  [[{{{date}}}]].
There's more after that, but it appears to relate to the documentation that goes along with the template, and is not active code. More digging...--Revanche (admin) 22:00, 29 January 2007 (CST)
Okay, now following the 'named parameters' thread, wikipedia states the obvious. By my best translation, those are essentially the purpose for each of those data entries. For example, in the example cited from Wikipedia's template for Cite, [[{{{publisher}}}]] obviously means that the publisher's name should be inserted here. That's all fine and good, however it doesn't address why the cite function fails. However, following the trail of 'named parameters' through the Wikipedia, MediaWiki and Template spaces, I come across this. Tlx stands for Template list expanded and the represented code shows named parameters. Not sure how to make use of that, but I'll import it over here and see what happens. --Revanche (admin) 22:09, 29 January 2007 (CST)
NOW I'm getting somewhere, and I'm not happy with the result. Essentially, per the example on the Cite page, you must write the actual named parameters (literally, "title", "publisher", "date" and "production code", followed by equal signs and the actual displayed date. For example, to cite Historical:War of 3039, I had to write {{cite|title=Historical: War of 3039|publisher=FANPRO|date=2004|production code=35014}} to get it to read "Historical: War of 3039, FANPRO, 2004, 35014." for the reference. Hell, I'm writing more than I would be typing in the information itself. I'm sure there's a more reasonable explanation, but -as I'm in the military- I have to be up at 0500 and I only get a few hours a day with my family. I'll try and hit this again next weekend, if appropriate. As it is, Template:Cite's not the way to go, so, unless consenus says otherwise, I vote we kill/delete it and come up with a better policy for handling references. If no supporting votes for the template, I'll assume support and delete it tomorrow or later. --Revanche (admin) 22:40, 29 January 2007 (CST)
Bad day? Oh yes. I could go into details, but you would see a string of profanity that would make a sailor blush, and older folks die from heart failure from the shock value alone. Yes, that bad. I felt I had adequately explained how this worked on my talk page, so my response was rather terse. Sorry.
I'll tell you this: your conclusions are mostly correct. It is generally a giant waste of time; the only reason I can see for the template is to allow us to change from one style of citation to another without having to edit several thousand pages. You can simply make it a template using unnamed parameters instead; which would allow those who are unfamiliar with the citation style to utilise it, have code that is roughly the same length (possibly less) as typing manually and would allow the citation style to be altered if necessary. All of the benefits and none of the drawbacks. If you want, I'll go do that now. Xoid 00:29, 30 January 2007 (CST)
Thanks for the apology, Xoid. From my experimentation (and attempts to verbalize my frustration with the cite function to my wife...who could care less, for obvious reasons), I think the ref function (as detailed below) is the winner. At this point, I'm for simplicity for all editors, rather than consistancy. If someone provides a source for a rare bit of information using the ref function, I could care less if it provides the author's name, production code and title only, only just the title and page number. The citation itself is what is important. Thoughts? --Revanche (admin) 00:44, 30 January 2007 (CST)
If it's a rare citation, sure, I'd be ecstatic at its mere appearance. Content, especially when it's rare, is always good. For something that only takes a half-minute of someone's time, I'd much prefer they use the template. It shouldn't be a cast-iron necessity, but should be encouraged amongst veteran editors. I would hate to think about the amount of work required to introduce wiki-links to all sources without having a vast majority of it done via a slight tweak to a template. There are probably going to be other things like that which will only crop up later; once we have enough minds so that thinking of the brilliant (yet easily overlooked) idea finally happens. It might never happen… but better safe than sorry, IMO. --Xoid 07:30, 3 February 2007 (CST)
Scaletail: I think the answer lies with the <ref></ref> function that Nic just introduced (and which I see Xoid has used in JagerMech). It doesn't allow for a consistent approach to citing sources, but it is quick and easy for most to use. Take a look at JagerMech: you'll see that Xoid 'writes' the article -including the citation- in the same place and the segregates the citation with the <ref></ref> function. The system automatically 'moves' the citation to the Notes section. (We can continue to use the References section, if consensus dictates, as quick links to the relevant articles on the books themselves.)--Revanche (admin) 00:38, 30 January 2007 (CST)
So, then, it's essentially the same way it's done on Wikipedia. I can handle that. I just wish I'd left all my citations in from the stuff I moved over here, 'cause it would all work now... Scaletail 09:37, 30 January 2007 (CST)
[understanding nod] --Revanche (admin) 16:46, 30 January 2007 (CST)

Why oh why…[edit]

…did it take so much effort to just get a simple silhouette to look perfect? *sighs* Anyway, your template is done. --Xoid 22:20, 5 February 2007 (CST)

Excellent! I'll start on the project page, then! --Revanche (talk|contribs) 22:48, 5 February 2007 (CST)
*bangs head against wall* …and now I notice that I just reinvented the wheel. --Xoid 22:22, 5 February 2007 (CST)
How so? --Revanche (talk|contribs) 22:48, 5 February 2007 (CST)
{{WikiProject Biography}} (yours) and {{WikiProject Biographies}} (mine). Personally, I think the plural fits current naming conventions better, hence my usage of it. Bear in mind that I didn't copy yours, I didn't even know it existed until I checked out recent changes and went "Oh. He already has one." --Xoid 15:32, 6 February 2007 (CST)
I thought that /might/ be it, but thought you knew about it and felt could do better. I incorporated your's into the Project already and intend to go back to the bios-in-progress to change them. So, concur with your assessment. Will you be able to add 'Shorty' shortly (bad pun intended)? Thanks for the craftsmanship. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 00:08, 7 February 2007 (CST)

Hope to see you back soon![edit]

Best of luck with the military commitments -- we hope to see you back again soon! Nicjansma 00:46, 14 March 2007 (CDT) Good luck man and I hope you come home safelyCJKeys 00:53, 19 May 2007 (CDT)

Inner Sphere Mechs are Done[edit]

After working on this for around seven months I am proud to announce that all of the mainstream Inner Sphere 'Mechs that have a TRO entry are finished. I know as the game goes on this will be a continuing process but now we are oficially ahead of the curve on the Inner Sphere 'Mechs and Im sure the Clan 'Mechs wont take too long. The Solaris VII 'Mechs are a creature unto themselves and once I actually buy Map Pack Solaris VII I will start working on those as I have already scanned images for them. I would like to congratulate the whole team. Without everyone here we woudlnt have ever gotten this far. So dont be suprised if you also get this on each of your discussion pages. CJKeys 00:53, 19 May 2007 (CDT)

Welcome back[edit]

Great to have you back. --Scaletail 19:04, 5 December 2007 (CST)

Thanks! Good to be back. I'm completely impressed with how much has been accomplished (much by you) and the new editors. Congratulations on your adminship! --Revanche (talk|contribs) 09:35, 6 December 2007 (CST)
Thank you and thank you. --Scaletail 09:58, 6 December 2007 (CST)


I started a discussion over on Talk:Peder Smythe about the notability of the article. Since you're the creator of it, I figured you might want to have a say. --Scaletail 12:06, 6 December 2007 (CST)

Pictures on JumpShips[edit]

Just wanted to say Thanks for adding pictures to my newly created JumpShip pages. I do have a plethora of craft/vehicle pictures and unit insignia on paper, but no functional scanner... Frabby 06:54, 23 December 2007 (CST)

Not a problem, man. I have the entire HeavyMetal suite of programs, so uploading is a cinch. If you do the hard work, I'll try and be right behind you with the pics. --Revanche (talk|contribs) 17:13, 23 December 2007 (CST)