User talk:DC123456789

From Imperator Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

"Detailed" icons use[edit]

Hi there. Thanks for uploading additional icons to the wiki, but if possible please use the base icons instead of them -- for example, instead of Chariot morale use the base moral icon. Although I would have liked to use the additional icons their small size makes it difficult to discern what they represent; for this reason it was decided not to upload them to the wiki or add them to the icon template. I hope the explanation helps to understand why they were not used in the wiki. Edit: Additionally, please note that the {{icon}} template allows icons to act as links. ~ SolSys (talk) 15:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Okay thanks, I wasn't aware that it was intentional. It might be worth adding to the style guidelines page, I don't think I ever saw it there. DC123456789 (talk) 18:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, did not notice I wasn't on your talk page. The decision is not part of the overall style guide, but is done on a per-game basis -- depending on how well icons can be recognized (for example, icons on Stellaris have a black background add due to contrast and so on). ~ SolSys (talk) 20:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Treasures[edit]

Thank you for the table. Much appreciated <3 .— Preceding unsigned comment added by Long Game Short (talk) 10:17, 05:46, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Great work[edit]

Hi there, I just wanted to thank you for your continued work on the wiki. We don't have a dedicated Imperator editor on the team so it is greatly appreciated. If you have ideas for changes you would like to perform, or something you would like to discuss about please let us know. Kind regards, SolSys (talk) 17:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, just want to make sure everything's documented a little better. The only thing I have in mind right now is the improved country page template we were discussing earlier, have you had a chance to take a look? DC123456789 (talk) 00:12, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Collaboration on Warfare#Seperate Peace[edit]

I noticed we're both working on the same section of Warfare#Seperate_Peace. The following seems slightly contradictory: "There are no extra penalties to aggressive expansion or warscore cost in a separate peace, though the +33% penalty will apply to demands on secondary participants."

For clarification, the 33% penalty applies to all demands on secondary participants, and thus, all seperate peace treaties. Source: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/threads/i-r-aggressive-expansion-non-target-miscalculation.1443510/#post-27116962

Perhaps, another edit would be to change the above quotation to: "Only an aggressive expansion and warcost penalty of +33% will apply to demands on secondary participants." It's very concise and to the point.

The reason I started editing this subsection is because the earliest version did not clarify the penalty that does apply and junior participant implies a tributary or client state. Hence my confusion and motive to assertively edit the subsection. What do you make of this?

Regards, SilentStorm92 (talk) 00:28, 24 November 2020 (MST)

What I wanted to clarify was that the 33% penalty doesn't only apply to separate peaces, like I think the original edit sort of implied (as it also applies when taking territory from secondary participants during a "normal" peace deal). Your current edit is fine in that regard (though the wording is a bit awkward, I guess). DC123456789 (talk) 14:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I am happy with the changes to date and I have no plans to edit it further. Thank you for helping with the subsection. SilentStorm92 (talk) 8:55, 24 November 2020 (MST)