Talk:Civilization IV: Warlords

Coloured Tables

Could somebody please remove the irksome colours on some of the tables? It doesn't add anything to the article and frankly looks quite horrid. Also, it makes it a lot harder to read the information on the tables. --85.230.179.57 12:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I second that motion. I'm going to change it. Professor Chaos (talk) 07:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

New civilizations

Does anybody knows if Korea is a new tribe included on this expansion.?--HappyApple 01:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Wohooo!!, Koreans are included on this expansion pack :p ! --HappyApple 18:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

No info on the new civilizations has been released yet. bob rulz 08:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I hope we poor Turks are allowed to be as well.I would love to see one Ancient(Like Suleiman the Magnificent) and one Modern Leader(Mustafa Kemal Atatürk,of course)--85.99.43.144 22:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about you "poor" Turks; the Ottoman Empire is one of the new civs. InGenX 02:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

i found an article on IGN about warlords. ot talks about the new civs and the new unique buildings. ill link it now and ill edit stuff later if no one else does http://pc.ign.com/articles/717/717727p1.html http://pc.ign.com/articles/716/716491p1.html Neil bailets 11:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

No Ethiopia or Aksum again?!? Argh! When will they ever finally realize its necessity! At least they added Mali, but that's so far the only non-Conquests civ included in Civ IV. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 04:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Portugal would have been a great new civ as well.

Flashback

I've read a discussion on the Civ IV talk page and it sound's interesting. The discussion was partly discussing on how America would appear in the middle of the game. Apparently, from my point of view, some of the guys who were discussing this matter hasn't played games such as Rome: Total War. Well, if you want America to appear in middle game period, all you need to do is to make a city, or a group of cities, very unhappy and then they'll declare their independence. But in Civ IV revolts no longer happpen (the rebellious citizens would just eat and not work), since the Firaxis team thought that revolts were unpopular and removed them from Civ IV. So I guess the idea that a group of cities on the Atlantic Seaboard would declare their independence for some reason would probably remain an idea for a while. InGenX 09:34, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

leaders

I notices that with this game all of the World War II leaders will be playable, except Adolf Hitler. Could he be one of the leaders yet to be announced?

No...all of the leaders have been announced now. And they would never put Hitler in a Civ game. It would be a horrible marketing strategy. I wouldn't mind playing a Civ game with Hitler in it, because this is Civilization and Hitler is just as much a part of history as anybody else, but they would never put them in there. I can just see Hillary Clinton standing up in front of Congress stating "this game promotes Hitler and was made by Neo-Nazi members! It allows you to craft and build a civilization with Hitler as the leader!! This game should burn in Hell forever, just like Hitler will!" bob rulz 06:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that Firaxis have said this somewhere, but Hitler definately won't be in the game as it would then be banned in Germany (where it's illegal to depict Hitler or the swastica in video games, among other things). There'll be mods coming out soon that will allow you to play as or against Hitler anyway, because the SDK was recently released. -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 13:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

well, for example, when Napoleon was exiled to Saint Helen, he was a hated character not only in france, but in all of europe, the napoleonic wars left 10 million young europeans dead on the battlefields, it was only after 50 years from it that Napoleons name began to acquire some respect outside the old militars, if we look at some of the writtings by Stefan Zweig, Napoleon in the end pretty must waged unnecesary wars, some for his ego, some to place the leeches of his family somewhere. Who knows how many years must go by for Hitler's name to stop being as controversial as it is right now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.215.173.90 (talk • contribs) .

That's so typical. This game contains mass murderers such as Stalin, Napoleon, Mao, but it seems that Hitler is considered the only "real" bad guy and most people would hate to see Hitler as a playable part in Civilization. I guess this is connected with the general social view on Hitler and his reputation to be "the worst person ever". - Jack's Revenge 11:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

No, its just that, had Hitler been included, the game would lose its entire market in Germany. Even if they changed it from the localized, alot of the PR in Germany would be bad. Look at it from a business standpoint. I wouldn't mind a Hitler leaderhead, but a custom one once animated leaderheads start getting their own models. --2ltben 16:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Other WWII leaders like Tojo and Hirohito are not in the game. I would think in Warlords they'd put some WWII Generals as Great Generals. Such as Eisenhower, MacArthur, Patton, Rommel, and Montgomery.

Even if Firaxis fails to include leaders, they can be later modded into the game. However, the current animated leaderheads are just different skins of the stock leaders. No one has made a different leaderhead model yet.--2ltben 16:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Unique Buildings Moved

I've moved the "Unique Buildings" table from New Content to Features, because New Buildings is a completely new feature, and not simply content, like new units, new civs, etc.

I've also created new units section. I do not have info on all of these, as of yet. Please update the section as necessary. Sabre 07:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately Firaxis doesn't seem to be saying much about the new units, so I had to scour through the screenshots to find them. Unfortunately one can't tell which units are scenario-specific and which will also be a part of the Epic game. Note though that there are several shots that show a variety of flavors of the Archer unit: the original one, a Chinese version (presumably for the China and Mongol scenarios), an Egyptian version (perhaps for the Alexander and/or Rise of Rome scenarios), but also what appears to be an Arab one. Since there are no scenarios that I know of that include the Arabs, I'm hoping that this is a hint that some of the normal Civ units in the Epic game use available ethincally appropriate models (for example, the Chinese Spearman or Chariot instead of the default Mediterranean ones). I'm also hoping that the ethinc city/town buildings are similarly available in the Epic game and not just the scenarios. AriochIV 01:54 3 July 2006

When can we order the game?

Thank god that Firaxis Games is finally launching an expansion for Civ IV! I can now go back to playing Civ IV when its released. But however I've got one question: when can I order for the x-pack? - InGenX

What do you mean finally? Do people expect expansion packs in 6 months now or something? And secondly, as soon as info for when you can order it is released, I'm sure it will show up somewhere. bob rulz 10:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey thanks for your reply bob. InGenX 09:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

There are always the Publishers who demand that an XP be produced and goes gold in six months or less... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.73.51 (talk • contribs)

Preorder links for both PC and Macintosh can be found here (via Amazon.com) - http://www.civfanatics.com/marketplace/

Like how The Sims Hot Date (December 2001) and Vacation (March 2002) were released within four months of each other? Hbdragon88 00:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It's rare when expansions are released that close together. Look at how long it took them to release Half-Life 2: Episode One. bob rulz 03:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice article

Nice to watch this article growing. ColourBurst (and many other people) did a great job. - Jack's Revenge 21:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I notice the new article references the Mongolian "Ger" as a replacement for the Stable. I presume this must be a new building, but I find no other reference to it. - AriochIV 0:22, 13 July 2006

Yeah, the stable is a new building that is unlocked when you research Horseback Riding. Look here (under the "Unique Buildings" section) for more details. -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 11:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Legitimate information removed

Legitimate, useful, and relevant information has been removed from this article. Without the information that User:Proto has removed, you can't even understand the game. For example, the information he removed left us knowing what the three new leader traits would be, but not what they do. What good is the information if we don't know what it is that we're looking at? The information in its former state, before I reverted it, was uninformative and sorely lacking in information. I agree that some of the information is perhaps going a bit too far, but I don't believe that completely removing it is the answer. bob rulz 19:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

A lot of this information does seem a bit overly detailed. For example, knowing that a bank gives me +15% commerce doesn't really increase my knowledge of the subject. While I, as a Civ IV player might be interested, I realize that I am far better off going to a game guide on GameFAQs for stats and numbers. I think that a good cutoff for details in video game articles is before you start listing stats and complete lists of units. I think an understanding of the game can be complete without knowing what effect every building/unit has. The Civilization IV article gets by without quoting unit/building statistics, so I think this article can as well. Just my couple o' cents on the matter. Wickethewok 19:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree fully with Wickethewok. This is an encyclopedia, not a strategic or detailed game-guide. Some mentions of specific stats are inevitable (and useful), but at the moment I feel there's just too much information which someone looking for a brief overview of what the game is will be uninterested in. -- gtdp ^(T)/_(C) 21:45, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with this too (even if I'm one of the people who put in some of the stats). Now that the game is out, people who have the game can get the info from the game (there's the Civopedia), and the people who don't can get it from a number of information sites. If it makes the people who want the stats any better we can add links to places with the information. --ColourBurst 22:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Amazing that people are complaining about "too much" information. People who don't yet have the expansion may wish to see this information to decide whether it's worth buying. It's not as if this article is terribly lengthy... it's just a single good-sized page with some tables. What does it hurt to err on the side of more information rather than less? -- Ariochiv 17:30 PST, 27 July 2006

• Well, too much minute pieces of information can get in the way of readability. Its not as if this information isn't out there already (if it wasn't it would be OR anyway). A link directing people to a GameFAQs section is appropriate if people want to get statistics/numbers. Wickethewok 01:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I did say above that some of the information was perhaps a bit lenghty, didn't I? I just said that too much information was removed. What he just removed again is a little better, but I still feel like there's a few too many things that he's deleting that I will put back. We don't necessarily need specific stats, and I can agree with removing them from the article (even though I'm not technically opposed to having them in there, but that's a different matter), but there's still such a thing as deleting too much information. I'm going to re-add some of the deleted information; hopefully we can compromise where I'm drawing the line. bob rulz 21:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

There, hopefully the information I re-added is an acceptable compromise. bob rulz 22:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted information

I've redeleted the game guide information. What Wikipedia is not states that Wikipedia is not a game guide. Statistics detailing how many experience points a unit requires, that the University of Sankore adds +2 research to all buildings associated with your state religion or that a trieme has Str 2, Move 2, Cost 50; +50% vs. galleys, cannot enter Ocean, no cargo space is NOT suitable information for Wikipedia - perhaps you could try GameFAQs. Stats and sets of units are not encyclopaedic information; this is expressly stated in Wikipedia policy. Consensus above agrees with this. Proto::type 15:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The consensus was what, 3-2? I can't help but find your deletions excessive. Some sections, like the in-scenario unit lists, were just pointless statistics and very valid targets. In contrast, the new great general and the traits are vital parts of the expansion, and their descriptions are very much necessary for giving readers an understanding of the subject. Furthermore, deleting the descriptions leaves the sections content-free. Saying that there are three new traits but not giving any idea about what they are or what they do doesn't do anyone any good. --Kizor 08:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It appears that he kept the information about the traits in this version. I've come up with something that will hopefully please anybody...I'm not opposed to specific game information...but it would take a huge shift in the mindset of Wikipedia to overturn that rule (although I agree that actual game guide information and tips on how to improve play, etc, should be left out, specific game information is still relevant info, but meh, what are you gonna do about it?). bob rulz 09:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph in "Omens" needs fixed for accuracy.

In the current form, the final sentence reads "The scenario also has a supernatural element, in which the forces of Divinity appear at various times to punish the less-pious (when human controlled) and ultimately to declare a winner." Based on the Python script that defines this, this is inaccuate. Particularly because this conquest can be played by 1 or 2 humans: Actually what happens is on the first time, France and UK are checked to see if their religion has 40% support. If not (and that race is controlled by a HUMAN), then the divenity releases his wraith. The second time is like the first only it's 50% support and a more severe penalty. Again, the AI is immune to its wraith. The third time is like the first two only it's 55% support and a more severe penalty still. Again the AI is immune to it's wraith. Now the 4th time does determine the winner but here there is a split based on weather it's a human or human or a single player game. If it's a single player game, the human must have 75% plus to win. If it's a two player game though, its simply whichever human's religion was most present. In either case, the loser (& Indians) are wiped out so it scores as a conquest victory. Jon 18:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Statement accuracy?

I'm not sure that the statement "When an empire becomes a vassal, it must pay money, research and technology as tribute to its "master" state in return for the promise that its master will protect the vassal" is 100% correct. It does not state anywhere in the manual that they have to pay you money (infactm it states it costs money), research or technology. My experience in the game would tend to support the invalidity of the statement as well. Anyone have any firm information on that front? Mouse Nightshirt 13:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

My experience with the game is that a portion of the vassal state's resources are redirected to the master state automatically. So, while the master state's income per turn will increase with a vassal state under its control, this money is not manually given. Rather, it is simply an automatic process. This applies to research as well. Vassal stares have no obligation to give money or technology to their master, but they do have an obligation to give resources to their master upon request. My suggestion is that this statement ("When an empire becomes a vassal, it must pay money, research and technology as tribute to its "master" state in return for the promise that its master will protect the vassal") simply be re-worded for clarification purposes. Tauntobr 19:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure? I've had 6 vassals once, and the only money I was recieving was from trading, as I sold them stuff. Likewise, when isabella capitualated, afterwards she refused to even consider trading me techs. The only bit you can actually demand is resourses. I'll do a quick edit Larklight 17:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Unique Buildings table colours

Please add colours for all countries, or remove them entirely. 195.24.29.51 08:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The coloring of the civilizations really isn't needed. I would suggest removing the colors entirely to make the article clearer and easier to read. Sneakyhomunculus 15:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

This hurted my eyes! --89.181.60.133 20:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep, hurted my eyes, too. I'm changing it. Professor Chaos (talk) 07:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Well done! - Jack's Revenge (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh wait... it's still colored! Still not the best solution IMHO. - Jack's Revenge (talk) 13:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not too savvy on wikipedia fancyness, so I looked at the code or whatever, and copied and pasted to somewhat inoffensive colors that were already there. So, yeah, not the best but a million times better. I might experiment with the colors tonight, I kind of get the six-digit color codes. I'll make it better unless someone else does first. Professor Chaos 03:32, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Opinions on the new white/pale blue scheme? I left the header pale gray. Professor Chaos 05:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, just noticed the change. Looks way better. Again, well done. And this time I mean it! ;) - Jack's Revenge (talk) 23:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Warlordsboxart.jpg

Image:Warlordsboxart.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Japanese Special Building

The link for the Japanese special building is Shale Plant at Fushun, Manchuria which redirects to an article about German-Japanese industrial cooperation before World War II. From what I understand, from the Civilopedia, the special building for the Japanese seems to refer to an oil shale extraction plant, and not a specific factory that they operated during World War II. Should this link be corrected to link to an article about oil shales?Jsonitsac (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Update, it seems that I got no response telling me NOT to do it, so I went ahead and changed the link from the Shale Plant at Fushun, Manchuria to Oil shale extraction Jsonitsac (talk) 13:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Rename/move article

I suggest moving the article to Sid Meier's Civilization IV: Warlords since that is the game's full title. SharkD (talk) 01:22, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

More discussion has occured here. SharkD (talk) 01:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Removing Civ Tables/Trivial Lists

This is being discussed in the Civ:V article and likely to have ramifications for this previous incarnation's article too. Rather than tread the same ground over please join the debate; Talk:Civilization_V#Removal_of_tables_of_Civilizations to see if we can't reach a consensus.-Oosh (talk) 12:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

2012

See: Talk:Civilization_V#2012
This is kicking off again, and maybe we can resolve it this time, this series of high-importance to the video gaming project but its articles are languishing in the lower ratings. This (I believe) is one of the reasons. Please join the discussion. -Oosh (talk) 12:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)