Talk:Age of Empires III/Archive 4
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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. |
Added new screenshots....
Hey I just though the article could do with more representations of the different types of battles and weaponary in the game. I added some naval and artillery screenshots, as well as one to show the shadowing effects (esp. at night time).
If there are any problems please notify me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Someguy12 (talk • contribs) 03:09, 27 September 2006.
Known issues
Section removed from main article.
- Certain players playing over a router network (with or without NAT) cannot connect to the Ensemble Studios Online service.
- When first trying to run the game after installation, users may get an error about a d3dx9_25.dll - if this is the case, then either download the D3DX April Update [1] or reinstall DirectX9 completely.
AOE3
I know that in Age of Empires III, the only cards that you could send are the 1st tier resource cards. But in Age of Empires III: The Warchiefs, there are other cards that can be sent a infinite number of times. I was wondering if this was due to a patch, or due to the expansion; in that I mean is this a Age of Empires III: The Warchiefs feature. Thanks.100110100 12:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Units of Age of Empires III
I sugest that there be created a seperate article about the units is AoE3, in which the units would be sorted by category and described briefly. I know that this article has already been created about 3 times and deleted 3 times, but anyways I suggest this idea, since if there is already an article on the buildings (which is Buildings of Age of Empires III) of the game, I think that there should be an article on the units of the game as well. I wish that this matter were to be discussed for the benefit of wikipedia right here, so if you have got something to say about the matter, then state it below and do not forget to sign your name.
--TomasBat 14:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Russian home city
The Russian home city (St. Petersburg) contains St. Basil's CAtherdral? (Just and observation)NapoleonAlanparte 20:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, your observation is correct, there is a historical error; but please note that this error has already been identified and that on the upper part of the talk page the list of historical errors can be found, which has been eventually deleted from the article; the list, for you to look at it easilly, is the following:
Errors and Discrepancies
Janissaries are portrayed in the game as bearded, although in reality they were banned from wearing beards. Clicking on the top right corner of the stats screen of a Janissary recognizes that they were not allowed to grow beards.
In the campaign, Natives taken captive are portrayed as Incans in Florida. However, the Incans originate from South America.[1]
The leader of the British civilization is Queen Elizabeth I; however, the Kingdom of Great Britain did not come into existence until over a century after her death.
The game confuses gunpowder with trinitrotoluene (TNT) several times, and the use of the latter is expressed before its supposed invention date. This is evident during in-game cinematics throughout the game.
St. Petersburg is portrayed as the main port of Russia. However, St. Petersburg was constructed during the reign of Peter the Great, not while Ivan the Terrible was in power.
The events of the Single Player Campaign begin in 1565, when the Ottoman Turks attack Malta. Therefore, Morgan Black could not have encountered the Aztec Empire, which had fallen in 1521.
Also in the Campaign, in the third act Amelia Black has to help Simon Bolivar gain independence for Latin America from Imperial Spain. However, Simon Bolivar died in 1830 and we are told that the third act begins just after the American Civil War, which ended in 1865.
The Doppelsöldner is a standard infantry unit while the Landsknecht is presented as an elite mercenary unit. However, Doppelsöldners were Landsknechts paid double for fighting on the front lines of combat. Clicking on the top right corner of the stats screen of a Doppelsöldner recognizes that they were elite Landsknechts. However, Doppelsoldner do, in fact, cost 200 resource units each as opposed to the 100 gold cost of Landsknecht units. They are also much stronger after their upgrades, while the Landsknecht units have no upgrades.
Hussite war wagons would be heavily anachronistic in a game that starts in the 16th century.
The dog soldiers were an elite warrior society of the Cheyenne tribe, which occasionally made alliances with the Lakota, but were not a part of them. Yet a dog soldier is featured as a "Lakota Dog Soldier" in Age of Empires III. Clicking on the top right corner of the stats screen of a dog soldier recognizes that they were part of the Cheyenne tribe, but most players do not read this.
The Seminole tribe, mostly of Creek tribal descent, did not exist prior to the 18th century. Tribes that inhabited Florida prior to that included numerous Timucuan tribes as well as the Ais, Calusa, Tequesta, Tocobaga, Mayaimi, Apalachee, and Jaega (among others).
Cherokee villages are seen as consisting of wigwams and longhouses. However, that is not their traditional pre-contact housing and structures. Their traditional homes were wattle and daub square or rectangular with thatched flat roofs, either an earthen or wattle and daub circular "winter"/"hot" house with a conical roof and thick mud walls they'd use during the cold winter, a large heptagon council house with a slight conical roof on a mound, and the village surrounded by palisades. Likewise, Seminole villages are consisted of wigwams when in fact they lived in chickees.
When accessing the French civilization section of the Age of Empires III Official Website,[2] a date reads "23-8-45", supposedly signed by Napoleon. However, Napoleon was not alive in either 1745 nor 1845.
The game recognises dragoons as a ranged cavalry; however, the correct meaning would be an infantry unit that travelled on horseback and normally dismounted when fighting.
The flag for the Ottoman Empire is actually the flag for modern day Turkey and is therefore different from the historical flag.
The leader of the Spanish civilization in Age of Empires III is Queen Isabella of Castile who died in 1504, even though Spain wasn't a nation until 1516. The first king of Spain was Charles I of Spain (Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor).
The leader of the French civilization in Age of Empires III is Napoleon, however it was Louis XIV who oversaw the greatest expansion of France into the New World. In fact, Napoleon actually sold French Louisiana to America and therefore brought about an end to New France.
The Native American scouts given to the French at the beginning of the game almost always seem to be lost. For example, Inuits have been given to the French even while playing the Great Lakes map.
The maps sometimes seem to be incorrect, for example, the Great Lakes map has a circular lake with an island in the middle, more similar to Crater Lake than any of the five actual Great Lakes.
The game ends in the late 19th century, but still includes the civilizations Aztec, Maya and Inca, which had been annihilated in the 16th century. The expansion adds the Aztec as a playable civilization.
The flag for the French should be the modern one, seeing as it was when Napoleon ruled.
The Portuguese leader Henry the Navigator lived 1394-1460 the game is set from 1500 to 1850 though.
In the Russian home city (St Petersberg), one of the buildings is St Basil's Cathedral, which is actually in Moscow
The Ottoman empire played little to no role in the colonization of the Americas.
The Germans played a small role in trying to colonize Venezuela but ultimately failed, yet are featured in the game as if they were major players. Other nationalities that played small roles, whether successful or not, were the Swedes, Danes, Scottish, Welsh, and Courland but are not featured in the game.
--TomasBat 23:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Very strange
One of the changes for the v1.08 patch is:
"Changed a line of dialogue from the Campaign which was found to be derogatory."
What line is that? Is it the line in which Morgan says "You Turkish dog"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.176.178.136 (talk)
You have done quite a good guess, I also think that that line could seem derogatory, since it would, in a way, discriminate turks (Please, do not forget to sign your name on talk pages like this one.).
--TomasBat 18:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Did anyone else notice that the campaign is run a lot like in Warcraft III? --Krolm 18:14, 11 January 2007
Home city
These home city's grows in levels, but what's the max. lvl? 100? 250? 84.195.185.90 19:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
The highest I've seen is 106, but I don't know from there. | AndonicO Talk | Sign Here 20:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
The highest I have seen is 128, but I do not know from there...
--TomasBat 01:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
THE HIGHEST I HAVE SEEN IS 198 .....
Jon Armor Mode
Well, when is the fourth Age of Empires going to take place? There wasn't much in the way of empires after AOEIII's time period. Excluding the few empires that remained in 1900: British, Turkish, Russian (which was actually Roman, believe it or not...)
71.32.125.13 00:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)Jon Armor Mode
Image Upload
I need someone to upload an image since I just do not know how to do so; the image is the following:
C:\Documents and Settings\Jose y Valeria\My Documents\My Pictures\Tokxatron\Aztec Destruction.emf
Information:
- This is a screenshot I have taken of the game.
- It would be great to put it in the section of the article where it informs about the Havok physics engine
- Please note that the upload information, liscensing, etc. may be quite similiar to the upload info and liscensing of other uploaded Age of Empires 3 screenshots; so take a look at their upload info and liscensing info.
- This screenshot is good for demonstrating the real time physics the game has got.
--TomasBat 14:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Please help! I need someone to complete the summary for an image which I uploaded and is in this article; if this summary box is not completed within 48 hours, it wil be deleted.
PlEASE SEE MY TALK PAGE FOR MORE INFORMATION!!!
--TomasBat (Talk) 01:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Could someone please upload this image for me, since I just cannot do it well?
C:\Documents and Settings\Jose y Valeria\My Documents\My Pictures\Tokxatron\Politicians AoE3.jpg
I would greatly appreciate any help... --TomasBat (Talk) 01:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Prose, tables and lists
According to the peer review and Manual of Style suggest that it is preferable to use continuous prose instead of large sections of tables and lists. In the case of this article, the addition of large amounts of detail that are not especially relevant to readers who do not actually play the game (see CVG Wikiproject style advice). It is preferable to use a short and summarised prose section that appeals to non-specialist readers, as this helps to maintain the flow of the text. I have removed (and will remove) a large number of tables from the article, most of which have only one or two rows of data that provide information specific to the game. We are working to provide an overview of Age of Empires III, not an in-depth game guide. Thanks. ck lostsword|queta!|Suggestions? 18:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
- I agree completly. I'll help too. (the Warchiefs article is even worse!) | AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 18:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Images
In the article, we now have several fair use (ie. copyrighted) screenshots. WP:CVG states that there can only be two or three fair-use images in each game article. Therefore, we need some sort of consensus on what to include. Of course, the cover is necessary, but to the rest of the images (including a large number of flags that could perhaps be produced in copyright-free user-made versions), I believe that some consensus should be provided as to what should stay and what should go. The images are:
 |
*country* aoe3 flag.gif
|
|
|
|
|
--ck lostsword|queta!|Suggestions? 22:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg
delete — Wasn't this one mentioned in the peer review? Didn't exactly demonstrate the physics of the engine... granted, to properly demonstrate the physics engine in action, we'd need an animated GIF, but that doesn't look very encyclopaedic. I think the links to Havok and middleware are sufficient
- Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg
I have got several home-made screenshots which really do demonstrate the real time phiysics; I will upload them and then we can discuss about inserting them in the article... --TomasBat (Talk) 12:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I have recently uploaded these 2 images; the first one is a diagram which consists of several in-game screen-shots that show the real-physics engine in ation (Some-what similiar to the units diagram image) and the second image is a single screen-shot which shows both the destruction of a building and the falling of some military units from a cliff due to the effects of a cannon-ball; these images are the following:
|
|
|
I say we discuss there inclusion in the article...
--TomasBat (Talk) 20:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Image:*country* aoe3 flag.gif
restore previous version — I went through the same thing on the ZH wiki... these shouldn't be there, as they probably also count towards our fair-use limit. Can we please restore the images we had before? Most (or all) of them were taken from the commons, as it should be...
- Image:*country* aoe3 flag.gif
-
- Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, Image: NonFreeImageRemoved.svg
pick one — The other is extra to me... also, I don't even recognize the Ottoman HC... is that Warchiefs?
- Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, Image: NonFreeImageRemoved.svg
The Ottoman Home-City is not from The Warchiefs. --TomasBat (Talk) 12:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- I have deleted the images listed as delete above and restored the copyright-free images from before...didn't realise they were there or would have removed sooner. I can't decide whether to keep or delete the 'units' image, since I uploaded it and am therefore biased. Someone else will have to do that! However, we now only have 3 fair-use images in the article, so unless improved versions of images are uploaded, it is probably unecessary to delete any more images at the moment. ck lostsword|queta!|Suggestions? 13:56, 28 January
2007 (UTC)
We should also comply with the fair use images per article criteria in the Age of Empires III: The Warchiefs article; it contains about 6 fair use images (of which 3 are flags). --TomasBat (Talk) 12:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
We have had to delete some fair-use images due to the fair use images per article criteria, which states that only 2 or 3 fair use images are permited in an article; but I have recently been looking at other video-game articles and have found quite a lot of articles which have got more than 3 fair use images... So, the fulfilment of this criteria should also be enforced in these other articles or we should just make exceptions...
Articles with more than 3 fair-use images are the following:
It seams to me as if we are the only ones following this criteria and that this criteria is only enforced in this article...
--TomasBat (Talk) 02:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- The pictures you uploaded are quite exceptional. However, rules are rules. If you have a problem with other games' use of fair-use images, then take it up there, not here. Kareeser|Talk! 20:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you... But in the WP:CVG, it states that fair-use images much not exceed but does not establish a concrete limit (2, 3, 4 fair-use video-game images per article); for someone, not too many fair-use images could be 3, and for another one, it could be 4, etc.
Note: If the concrete limit is formally stated, then please notify me...
--TomasBat (Talk) 21:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I have Replaced the Landsnench image with a more usefull image depicting the real-physics engine in action; I believe that this does not break the fair-use liscence agreement since I am only replacing an existent image with another one and,henceforth, keping the numebr of fair use images inthe article exactly the same. TomasBat (@)(Contributions)(Sign!) 13:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
I replaced the 'home cities' image and the 'montage' image with new ones to accurately reflect the detail that the graphics engine can generate when put the max settings. -Giligone - March 21, 2007
They look good... Well done! TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 22:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
GA on hold: Age of Empires III
Some issues I have with this before I can pass it as a GA, most formatting and info hierarchy:
- The lead: okay, you've told me what the game is, now tell me why its notable.
- System requirements- delete it. Its in the sidebar, and the paragraph doesn't go into greater depth (and the system reqs doesn't even note that Mac OS X is a platform).
- Technical features- move this to another part of the article. Per GA and FA pages I've seen, gameplay goes before.
- History- split apart, into 'Development' and 'Reception'
- Home City Concept, Civilizations, Ages, Buildings, Units - merge into the 'Gameplay' portion at top, or make a different page for most the info and just add a brief summary.
- Ensemble Studios Online- once the rest is moved, probably put it up above dev history.
Dåvid Fuchs (talk / contribs) 00:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- I made an attempt at doing some of that, but the gameplay supersection seems to dominate the article now. Perhaps it needs to be a subarticle? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 00:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sure. I mean, I'm using games like Halo and Halo 2 as references for this stuf, but AoE is obviously more complex and certainly the gameplay should be slimmed down. I say go for it. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / contribs) 01:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Not sure if it's worth anything, but the home city concept and game cards section were added as they were defining features that were not present in prequels... would that be worth enough for it to be kept as a separate section? (I'm comfortable either way) Kareeser|Talk! 01:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Doesn't matter to me. But I think it should stay up underneath Gameplay, all the same. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / contribs) 01:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not a primary contributor to this article... if you're more familiar with the article, do what you think is right. They are certainly novel features. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 01:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've made some more structural changes to the article, but I'm not quite convinced that there should be a subarticle for gameplay. It might be better to be rid of the tables and replace them with well-phrased and concise text. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- I oppose to the creation of a sub-article for just gameplay. --TomasBat (Talk) 02:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- You'll agree that the "gameplay" section is a little long, though. What changes to the article do you propose? Is it good enough for GA status as-is? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I propose we merge some sub-sections of Gameplay, such as merging Game Cards to Home Cities and merging Explorers to Units. --TomasBat (Talk) 04:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- I concur. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 07:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Sounds fine to me. Also getting rid of the tables would help too. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / contribs) 22:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, I propose we merge some sub-sections of Gameplay, such as merging Game Cards to Home Cities and merging Explorers to Units. --TomasBat (Talk) 04:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- You'll agree that the "gameplay" section is a little long, though. What changes to the article do you propose? Is it good enough for GA status as-is? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
David Fuchs, do you have any more suggestions? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 23:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, let's stop using all those colons! :) Ok, the organization makes much more sense now. One thing, could you turn the 'Ages' list into paragraphs? In general, they are mcuh better than tables. I would say the same thing about the factions, but with the pics that's an unusable option. (and if you think its good, remove the cleanup tag! :P). Other than that, there could be some things that might want ot be expressly sourced, but they're relatively minor and I'm not going to kill you all in a GA since you've improved it so much. Just make those changes and check for grammar (I'll do a thorough one when you're ready and just make the changes myself then) and I'll be happy to pass it. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / contribs) 00:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I left him a message on his talk-page... --TomasBat (Talk)(Sign) 19:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Either way, the article has improved dramatically over the past few days. Thanks to everyone who has been involved, and good work! ck lostsword|queta!|Suggestions? 20:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- There might be a spelling error or two in there, but from what I see it looks good and you guys have done a great job in getting it up. GA it is! Good work! Dåvid Fuchs (talk / contribs) 21:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
just checking
It says in the article that the manor houses spawn free villagers. Isnt this a little misleading? should it be changed to spawns one free villager? and should it also menion that it costs more wood (I think)--Chickenfeed9 21:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
You are correct, Manor-Houses spawn only one villager and cost more wood (135); but please note that by giving out this information we are giving outjust too much details to the occasional reader and the table heading says Main-Bonus. Also, there used to be a more complete table, but it was just too detailed and was, eventually, removed... --TomasBat (Talk) 01:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Question
Are you tring to get this to FA? · AndonicO Talk 21:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- (Purely personally), ultimately yes. ck lostsword|queta!|Suggestions? 21:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes. --TomasBat (@)(Sign) 00:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- We should use Empires: Dawn of the Modern World and Starcraft, two FAs, as models. The campaign section needs more detail, as you can see comparing it to the others, more reviews (like in Empires), and many, many more refs. I'm willing to do more than copyediting, I'll just finish with Rise and Fall: Civilizations at War first. Be back soon! · AndonicO Talk 19:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
-
All details for the campaign are in it´s main article. --TomasBat (@)(Sign) 19:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, but that's what I'm saying. It should be in this article if you want it to be FA. The other one should be merged into this one. · AndonicO Talk 19:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure about it? --TomasBat (@)(Sign) 19:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. This is the article going for FA, not both of them. I think those are the only two RTS FAs, and they both have it as I say. I don't think it's in the WP:MS (ie. not official), but it's preffered over having it in another article. · AndonicO Talk 19:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Home-Cities Section
I have done some clean-up to this section, but I still think it needs some more work; it was mentioned in the latest review that we should make it clearer that XP is gained for shipments and for choosing new cards and customizations.
Please help!
--TomasBat (@)(Sign) 01:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Is that fine? I'll work on it some more later, when I have more time. All those bulleted lists should be typed out, or removed and only examples given. · AndonicO Talk 15:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, your changes are fine! Thanks for helping on that section! --TomasBat (@)(Sign) 16:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Outline review
I think the contents of the article should be moved around a bit. For example, the intro to Synopsis seems like it belongs in the Gameplay section. I'd say merge those, and move it to the top. The Campaigns shouldn't be explained so early on (good work with the merge by the way), since the player doesn't really know anything about the game yet. That could go below Gameplay or even further down below Development. Any thoughts? · AO Talk 12:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I concur; I will see if I can help... TomasBat (@)(Sign) 01:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Should this bulleted list which appears in the Home-Cities section be changed to text?
The Home City is made up of 5 main buildings from which the player chooses their new shipment cards; they are the following:
|
TomasBat (@)(Contributions)(Sign!) 13:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
An this one too or not?
- Western European: Buildings have a classical appearance and seem to be made of wood; the British, the French and the Dutch share this style.
- Eastern European: Buildings seem quite precarious and usually have straw roofs; the Germans and the Russians share this style.
- Mediterranean: Buildings seem to be made of cement and/or dry brick; the Spanish, the Portuguese and the Ottomans share this style.
♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 20:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Yep - IMO, only keep the civ list in a table. ck lostsword|queta!|Suggestions? 21:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
The changes have been done. ♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 20:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Civilisation summaries in Campaign
I believe that the descriptions of the civilisations in the Campaign summaries are far too detailed. Whilst they may be appropriate for the sub-article, the fact that they are almost as long as the campaign descriptions themselves, and in many cases far more detailed than the descritipions of the 'full' civilisations, suggests to me that they should be either shortened or deleted, leaving only a brief note that 'In this Act, the player takes the role of the ... civilisation.' ck lostsword|queta!|Suggestions? 10:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- You're right, it's too thorough for something that isn't too important. Perhaps adding, "In the First Act, the player takes command of the Knights of Saint John, who are led by Morgan Black." would be better. · AO Talk 11:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Done ck lostsword|queta!|Suggestions? 18:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
ACID?
OK, so we're going for WP:ACID? Do we really think the article is ready for that? Personally, I believe more work on referencing is definitely required. We still haven't completed all of the work from the peer review - for example, we still need to work on tightening up sections such as 'Units'. We also appear to be missing a large 'Development' sections - how was the game created? Phrases that were directly referred to in the Peer Review, including 'two branches to gameplay' have still not been fixed; we have not changed the main bonus section of the civs section. All in all, I believe that there is still much internal work to be done before we should go for ACID. ck lostsword|queta!|Suggestions? 21:36, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- Well, you have certainly got a point there... But... Not all articles nominated at WP:ACID were in very good conditions; some, such as Internet, Wiki and History, were in worst conditions han this one... ♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 22:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
- True, but they were also far higher profile/priority. I feel our efforts would be better directed at correcting what we can in the article than campaigning for outside help. ck lostsword|queta!|Suggestions? 06:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
- I suppose you both have certainly got a point now... What should I do? Can I withdraw the nomination from WP:ACID? Or should I better wait until it is disqualified (apparantly, will disqualify very soon...)? ♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 21:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- May as well withdraw the nomination with a brief explanation in the edit summary. ck lostsword|queta!|Suggestions? 21:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Civilizations Table
In the peer review, it was suggested that either we change the main bonus to a general description of the civilization or to the AI personality/leader for the civ.
Well, I´m not very sure which option would be the best of the 2... Should we choose option 1 or option 2? Or should we better opt for leaving it to the main bonus? Or is there any other idea for it´s improvement?
Please help decide; I´m willing to help with the actual editing, but I just don´t know which option is best... ♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 00:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
- Add the name of the leader underneath the name of the Civ (in the same block); replace bonus with description. :) Goldfritter 17:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- I agree with goldfritter - makes good sense. ck lostsword|queta!|Suggestions? 22:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Good work on this section. However, it does seem slightly WP:NPOV. Please either reference or rewrite. ck lostsword|queta!|Suggestions? 22:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Ok. I might have made some civs, such as the dutch, look better than they actually are; since I play more with some than with others and some of it may be a personal point of view than a neutral one. I´ll be working too on making it neutral. ♠Tom@sBat 23:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Mercenaries
Taken from the Units section: "Even though mercenaries consist of the game´s strongest units, it is important to note that their continual use may eventually cause long-term decay on the player’s military, since they will employ more coin on shipping them than on training and upgrading standard military units; so, as a result, coin and experience for employing on mercenaries will eventually run out and the player will be left with an undeveloped standard military." I don't think this is necessary - sounds a bit game guide-y. Please express your opinions - if there is no major objection, I will remove it.
I would like to help improve this article, since I really enjoy the game. Hope I can be of assistance... :)
Goldfritter 17:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
- I'd say it would be better to change it (as opposed to removing it). Don't think it's too accurate as is though (is there such a huge difference between an Imperial Cuirassier and a Hackapell? Maybe, in the cuirassiers favor...). Anyways, feel free to be bold. :) · AndonicO Talk 17:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
