Talk:Age of Empires III/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1
| Archive 2 →

Contents

Fansites

To stop the constant add and revert process from fansite owners, I suggest others should request that their fansite be included from here first. If it is robust enough and there are no objections, we can put it on the main page. We don't want to let these users be a google whore. I included the heavengames fansite since heavengames has been the definitive "age of..." fansite since the original.--Will2k 16:47, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't any use to fansites until the game is released. Considering we're threading on sites with potentially duplicate content (as most news are done with press releases, magazine exclusives and speculation), until sites carry unique features such as maps, mods, strat guides and demos they have no place in the article. However, exceptions can, and even should be made with sites large and notable enough, and heavengames is one of them. My suggestion is keeping a collection of links in here, and include in the article as soon as they become more than a collection of gossip/PR or have unique content. wS 16:58, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

HeavenGames, while being a long-standing AoE fansite, is actually limited in its content. If a fan were looking for information on Age of Empires III, there are other sites that do a better job providing content, providing summaries, and providing other sources of information. Yes, there is little room for variation between AoE3 sites at this moment, but the difference between HG and those other sites is that those sites have the necessary information and HG does not. (SoggyFrog 22:32, 26 May 2005 (UTC))

I beg to differ. HeavenGames' AoE3 counterpart has the latest content available on its website. If a fan was looking for information on AoE3, he would be able to find the same general content available at HeavenGames, as well as other fansites (including your own). It's community, while larger, is equally just as important as other fansite communities. I do believe that until the game is released, the Age of Empires III page at Wikipedia should only allow the official links. This way, there would be no partisan, nor repetitive links. No fansite, whether small or large, would gain any larger attention by Wikipedia than any other. Afterall, hasn't the same general information been summed up in AoE3's Wikipedia page? I do believe Wikipedia's policy on external links, particularly fansites, does agree with this stance. Xunny

AgeSanctuary- new "expert" competitiove recorded games added daily, from the people at the top of the online ranking system. although lacking in hard statistical content, the quantity and quality of the recorded games will teach you more about the game than any amount of number crunching/stats analysing will. users range from 30 to 100+ on at any one time, with several discussions on the game active at any one point(although usually about game balance and specific players/popular strats and less about game content and comparison).

http://agesanctuary.com/index.php?portal=AOE3&fview=1&act=news

For Windows 2000

Even though Age of Empires III works perfectly on 2000, Microsoft has made it impossible to install. (Some say this has been done on purpose, to force everyone to upgrade to Win XP) But some people have found a way to go around this.

Credit: Following instructions were put together by Timooo

To install the full retail version of AOE3 on a win2k system, you must use the command prompt:

  • Start > Run...
  • Type in cmd and press OK
  • When the Dos window appears type in D: or which ever letter your cd/dvd rom drive is; then press Enter.
  • Type in setup /a and press Enter.
  • Wait for the installation wizard to appear, and press Next.
  • Then type in the destination as to where you want it to be installed. I recommend using the default path, which is C:\Program Files\Microsoft Games\Age Of Empires 3
  • Press Install.

(During installation, you might NOT see the install progress bar. Or get an impression of "freezing," but DON'T worry just wait it through!)

Note: Once you have the game installed and try to run it, you may get an error about a d3dx9_25.dll if this is the case, then you can either download the D3DX April Update from http://www.toymaker.info/Games/html/d3dx_dlls.html or reinstall DirectX9 completely.

(There is also a folder on cd 1 called DirectX9, you may use that to reinstall.)

Note: Once you have that done, you may also get another error about MSXML 4; if this is the case then you should install msxml.msi from MSXML 4.0

How to install The Age of Empires 3 1.01 Update

Open up your registry (type "regedit" in the command prompt), navigate to HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE/SOFTWARE/Microsoft/Microsoft Games/Age of Empires 3/1.0, right click on the right portion of the window and select Add String Value. Name it "SetupPath", then right-click it and Modify it, typing in the full path of your Age of Empires III folder. (The default path is "C:\Program Files\Microsoft Games\Age of Empires 3\Age of Empires III").

Link to Patch: http://www.agecommunity.com/patch1_01.aspx

Please sign your posts. Who is Timooo? Brian Jason Drake 07:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Windows XP Problem: Fixing D3dx9_95.dll not Found Error

Due to some issues with latest versions of Windows XP, when you launch AOE3 game, some people often get "The application has failed to start because d3dx9_25.dll was not found. Reinstalling the application may fix this problem.". If you have Direct X 9.0b preinstalled, no matter how many times you update to Direct X 9.0c, it wont update at all. This is the most notorious problem often pop up with many people. I found a very useful site, where you can fix this problem here: GameCrashes.com - Age of Empires 3 D3dx9_95.dll Fix

More Controversy

Has anyone mentioned the outrage over Ensemble hocking video cards from NVIDIA and how superior cards don't work as well because they made some sort of deal with NVIDIA?

Seems to me like a supporter for another video card company wants to put down the video card he doesn't like. I mean, I have a Radeon 9200, and I'd suggest it to other people... even though I've never tried an nVidia card, it's the same thing with this dude, except he's taking it a step further. Sad people should be shot, really :P
As for the controversy, it's just rumour, so far, and so I doubt it should be in wikipedia. Kareeser 05:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
That's, of course, my own opinion. Kareeser 05:24, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
No, I'm not supporting another card, just pointing out that it only seems to work with NVIDIA. It says right in the back of the guide that only certain features work with NVIDIA. Also, check out the online forums and you'll hear from plenty of people with their own experience.
Oh, no, no, I wasn't blaming you or anything, I was just trying to explain it as best as I could understand it. I did a brief look-through of the user's manual, with no results.
Also, it is very likely that Ensemble decided to build upon technologies that were not invented yet. In fact, I think that's what Bruce Shelley said in his interview (don't quote me on that). In that case, perhaps nVidia let Ensemble know what they had planned, while ATI or others didn't think that sharing their up and coming technology was the right idea... would you give away an abstract of your secret invention if somebody asked for it? ;) Kareeser 02:50, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

In any case, i think it's unfortunate that the game was designed primarily for the computers of tomorrow. The game will be great in 2 years when all our systems can handle it.

Interesting thought... but I suppose that ESO is taking a risk in investing in the technology of tomorrow.
If they can get past the rocky ground (now) where most computers can't handle the game, then the game will still be a hit in the future. A lot of games have high hopes, but they just don't quite get there because they become outdated way too quickly... Kareeser 08:06, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I guess you're right about that. I still think they've lost touch with what made AOE I&II so great.

Game Cards examples

I have written the entire Home City and Game Cards section (sections 7 and 7.1 respectively).

If you see any errors or clarifications, feel free to update them as needed.

Some points of interest:

1) I have no idea how many experience points it takes for the spanish to earn a shipment. If you play spanish, can you take a look at the "mercantilism" upgrade and update the page for us? =)

2) The examples for the game cards are very stilted towards the British, mainly because I play the Brits. Musketeers, Longbowmen, musketeer upgrades, etc... If you want to add some variety (Rodeleros, doppelsoldners, whatever), feel free, but in the interest of conciseness, please keep it to two examples per category (technology, resource, etc).

Enjoy the section! Kareeser 07:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Navy Section

Thought there should be a navy section... despite the fact that naval warfare lags up so much it's impossible to play... anyhow, anybody up to the task of cataloging naval units?

I'm also sure there's a better name for the class than "Navy"... anybody? Kareeser 07:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Superchad for updating the Navy section =)
I reworded it a little bit, but there's one part I'm still unclear of. I'm not sure whether the Monitor can only fire once every minute, or once every two minutes... maybe you (or somehody else) could clear that up. Kareeser 22:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
How could there be a better name for it than Navy? That's what it's called. It's called a navy. bob rulz 06:13, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, but I was thinking.. Naval Units.. or something... Navy sounds a little short. Kareeser 08:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Just a very small point - not all of the ships are techincally part of a navy. According to the OED, a navy is "the branch of a state’s armed services which conducts military operations at sea." Whilst this applies to galleons and monitors (for example), it does not apply to fishing ships. I would agree with Kareeser and say that we need another name for it. Whilst "seafaring units" or plain old "ships" would be best, I'm sure naval units would be acceptable. (Little old me - the pedant :P) Ck lostsword 17:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Done. The section is not titled "Naval Units". Kareeser|Talk! 16:28, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Formations?

The article writes about putting an emphasis on formations. However, it seems that its implementation was remove from the actual game. Could somebody clarify and make necessary amendments?HistoryManiac 15:04, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, the formations exist under "advanced formations" in the options menu. The formations are practically useless, but there's one that helps avoid cannon fire (I guess splash damage doesn't apply?), and one that helps against ranged units...
I can't say whether they work or not... Kareeser 19:41, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

HMS Endeavor vs. HMAS Endeavor

I wasn't sure which was the correct one, and haven't the time to look it up on Wikipedia now, but as far as I know:

Canada - HMCS - Her Majesty's Canadian Ship
Britain - HMS - Her Majesty's Ship

HMAS = Her Majesty's Armoured Ship? I'm not sure.

I changed it to HMS for now, but if you're right, then you can change it back, and accept my apologies... =P

P.S. Great work on the Navy Section!! Kareeser 20:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

HMAS= Her Majesty's Australian Ship. Pretty sure the Endeavor wasn't Australian though, because it was Cook's ship on the journey when he actually discovered Australia. So it'd probably be HMS Endeavor.

It was definitely HMS Endeavour. (Journals of Captain Cook - Cpt. James Cook) Also, note UK spelling - she was an English ship. Ck lostsword 21:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC) - Apologies for not including my name earlier

Oh! I understand now! Thanks for the expertise, =) Edit as necessary. Kareeser|Talk! 20:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The "Controversy" section

I believe it constitutes an NPOV violation due to its biased nature. It was implied that Ensemble Studios purposefully made the game that way, and that simply isn't a proven statement.

I've reworded it and given it a new title. Kareeser 17:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Secondly, the facts were wrong. Once players in a game room in ESO begin their game, all players disconnect from ESO immediately and connect directly to the host server. It is the host server's responsibility to keep information fed to the slave computers. In many cases, because of slow processor speed or slow internet speed, this cannot be done (perhaps a 1.4 GHz in an 8 player game!), and an out-of-sync error occurs, which is what your "intermittent disconnections" are. I've corrected this in the article. Kareeser 17:13, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


System Requirements

I have tested this game and it's demo on my Dell lattitude laptop. It ran fine on a P4 1.8 GHz processor and an ATI Mobility Radeon 7000 card with 32 megabytes of onboard memory. I was able to run the game fine upto 1400×1050 resolution. This was very surprising for me, because I got decent framerates, the game was playable. The laptop was running Windows XP.

Could this be verified by somebody else and included in the main article? --BorisFromStockdale 23:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it's alright, because I've already included a notice that the game will run, though not at optimal speed. My friend has a laptop with 8MB of graphical memory, and it'll run... =P Kareeser|Talk! 06:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


This is great, but in the main article it says "One does not have to meet the above requirements (except for using Windows XP)". My laptop WAS running Windows XP, so I think this comment about meeting the requirements in XP should be taken out. --BorisFromStockdale 20:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe that the game won't install unless the computer is running Windows XP... copying the game folder/registry entries into other Windows OS' doesn't seem to be factual enough for me. How exactly did you install your copy, and what operating system do you have? Kareeser|Talk! 00:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood my prior comment. I was running this game under Windows XP. What I am suggesting, is to take the comment "(except for using Windows XP)" out of the requirements section of the main article. In my oppinion this comment suggests that the requirements have to be met in XP, but do not need to be met under other operating systems. In my oppinion the game runs even if the minimum system requrements are not me under Windows XP (I have actually tested this). What are your Suggestions? --BorisFromStockdale 02:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I think I see what you mean now. It sounds solid. Be bold! =) Kareeser|Talk! 05:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Command responses

Does anyone know what they're saying? Especially Morgan.

"Be Cangerous." Wha? --Starkruzr 22:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

The command responses are usually gibberish based on their language of origin. This is used throughout the series. It is, however, possible that they use archaic forms of the modern language. One example that is not gibberish is 'Je le ferrais' for the French villagers - 'I will do it'. Ck lostsword 17:08, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Or the Chinese villagers from AOK, who spoke Mandarin Kareeser|Talk! 05:04, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Or the Britons in AOK-they speak Middle Ages English (for example, "choppeh" when send to chop wood). Also, the Japanese speak real Japanese (hai=yes). Also... I guess that Morgan was speaking Maltese.

OK, so we're agreeing that they use either dialects or archaic forms of their language of origin? Ck lostsword 14:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe that is a rough consensus, but since it's not limited to AOE3, nor is it a notable item, it doesn't really matter if you put it into the article or not. "Be Cangerous!" hahaha... Kareeser|Talk! 03:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm with you on that one. We should not include it in the article. Ck lostsword 10:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
"Be cangerous" - perhaps the AoE equivalent of 'Be Bold!' Ck lostsword 09:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Experience

During the course of a game, players gain a constant trickle of experience
Removed from article unless we can verify this. I know that you do get a trickle of experience if your trading posts are set to that setting. Ck lostsword 09:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually... I wrote the section on Home City cards, and back when I wrote it, I truly believed that I got experience from exploring unknown territory... however, over the course of time, I've realized that simply sitting there also works. You can test it in the scenario editor by making a town centre, and watching your experience go up...
The game manual only says that we have to "build up enough experience", however... Kareeser|Talk! 16:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I was sure that the manual did not include anything on this, and of course the Collector's Edition version does not (not even in the Home Cities section - bizarre!). I wonder if it is linked to the civilization that you are playing as? I noticed a similar effect, but attributed it to reseource gathering and exploration. I was playing as the British. Ck lostsword 16:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Interesting... when I wrote the HC section, I was playing as the Brits. I play Russia now... more research is needed ;-) Kareeser|Talk! 17:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

ESO(2?)

Should we include a section on ESO? I'm not sure if it seems worthy enough to add into the article or not... =P Kareeser|Talk! 16:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

ESO is for some players an integral part of the game (although not me as such - I stick to SP). I think that it deserves a mention because of this Ck lostsword 16:52, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Excellent... I'll write up a start later today, or you can, if you wish. Kareeser|Talk! 17:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I'll leave it to you - busy, busy maths coursework. ;). Do we include the controversy over the 'one account only' rule? Ck lostsword 17:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
As for that, I don't think it's really a known issue. It's not a "bug", it's just the way the game was designed, to the chagrin of some players. I supposed it can be removed with no ill effects... Kareeser|Talk! 19:36, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
That's fine, and my overall opinion (like I say, I don't play multiplayer). I was just making a point for the others who will use the page. It's likely to be an issue that is brought up. I say leave it for now, but if enough other Wikipedians comment on it, it should be mentioned. Fair deal for everyone? Ck lostsword 19:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Kareeser|Talk! 19:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Well put - covers everyone. Ck lostsword 20:23, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Graphics Card

I really don't know what graphics card to get. In a screenshot at the article it showed a screenshot with the Nvidia 6600 at the highest settings. If logic serves me correctly the numbers should represent how powerful a graphics card is, correct? The problem is I found at a shop the Nvidia 7300 was much cheaper than the Nvidia 6X00.I looked at the back of the boxes and they both agree that the 7X00 is much better than the 6X00.However though the price difference confuses me. The 6X00 could have been a bonus package. So in short, what graphics card should I get? Does it even have to be a Nvidia product? 72.197.133.100 23:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Age of Empires III Page Size

When looking at a preview of the page, a warning comes up saying that Age of Empires III is rather large, ;)
See Wikipedia:Article size for more info. Like I've suggested before, I believe we can move the entire "military units" list to the separate page, as there is currently a duplicate. The same can be said for buildings, but I'll leave that to a discussion here. Kareeser|Talk! 03:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I second that. It'd be for (almost) everyone's interest if we can actually move all of the unit/building/civ information to WikiBooks or at least to other sections. Those looking for detailed information (hp, attack, bonus damage) about one unit aren't going to be satisfied with what's in the article and those who come here to check out some general information like who made this game aren't going to be flabbergasted by the fact that Germans have another kind of settlers. If there are no objections I plan to make these adjustments myself in the near future. More discussion on this topic are of course welcomed.--Username314 06:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Did I mention about the internal links on all the buildings? Man, I am so obliged to click on "Wall (5 wood)" --Username314 06:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
We've moved the units to the separate page, but now "building-cruft" has invaded our fair article ;)
Perhaps we could move it to another subpage as well... or another page, as it may be. Kareeser|Talk! 04:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)