# Talk:Europa Barbarorum

A moderator deleted all the pictures. =( 
Since he validated my pictures as fair use, I've decided to re-upload them.
Intranetusa (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm a she actually and not a moderator/admin/sysop :). I don't know if you'll be watching my talk page so I thought my reasoning had best be here. An image that is captured in a game as a screenshot, is property of those who own the copyright, i.e. the maker of the game. So I changed the licensing to reflect that the images are non-free, meaning that they are copyrighted. This means we need to have a fair use rationale which is an explanation of why the image should be allowed under WP:NFCC policy. There are certain criteria that an image must abide by. The criteria that these images failed were, 3a, (minimal use of copyrighted material), 8, significance (each image must be significant in adding to a reader's understanding of the topic) and 10c, (a link to the article the image is used in). I haven't deleted the images, I've just removed them from this article. You can still find them by looking at a previous version of the page. If you click on each image, you will be able to change the information to make it compliant with wikipedia policy :). If you need any help, feel free to leave me a message at my talk page. Seraphim Whipp 01:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm one of the directors of EB and we are fine with those images being used.  Our members placed some of them on here in the first place.  I personally created the map that was deleted, and our members created the unit textures and models.  At the absolute minimum, the out-of-game images of the units are fine, along with the map, since they are 100% EB creations with nothing from the game (RTW) visible even. Overzealous interloper. - Teleklos Archelaou  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.172.118 (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC) 

Also, the great majority of the content in a screen would be copyrighted by EB, not CA, if I understand correctly. Only a few very minor things have not been replaced graphically. Either way, I see no reason why the map would be deleted, and should probably be re-added, as it is important to understanding the feel of the mod, and one of the important differences between RTW and EB. VIABellum (talk) 01:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

These are 3 pictures I took while playing EB. 

Elite_Phalanx_Pic_wiki.jpg - EB battle action - Elite Seleucid Phalangites assaulting a city gate
Getai_General_wiki.jpg- Getai Cavalry General
Polybian_Rome_Carthage_wiki.jpg - EB battle action - Polybian era Rome vs Carthage spearmen
Intranetusa 04:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Can some one tell me which mod is better Europa Barbarorum or Rome total realism???
Does anyone elses game crash at the year 242BC??

Europa Barbaroum > RTR in realism, graphics, improved campaign AI, etc
Intranetusa 04:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

User: Byzantine Dragon 10:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Europa Barbarorum wipes the floor with Total realism, although you could try both.
Second the game does crash occasionally, much the like the vanilla does
The remedy is to 
a) if it crashed upon selecting tactical battle, simple redo the strategy (auto battle or change army composition etc)
b) if it crashed when you click end turn just go back into the game and move some of the pieces around some more and hit next turn
C) If you have a save file just before the crash, send it in to the Modder to release a new patch
Yeah i think your right about EB being better than RTR but RTR runs way more smoothly and EB takes an age to load anything then it crashs etc it might be a better a mod and more historicaly accurate but i personally think RTR is better built as it doesnt seem to crash and takes less time to load. I have attempted about five full campaigns on EB and each time no matter what its crashed in the year 242BC so eventually i thought forget it i'll just play RTR.

EB is far superior. The only downsides are the longer loading times and the few occasional CTDs [Crash To Desktop]. Otherwise it is simply better, being more realistic and featuring much more original content (like music, graphics etc). Also, I've never had a crash on the year 242BC, so perhaps this was due to some problem with the Script in an earlier version?
Maelkoch (talk) 14:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The CTD that you were talking about that happens in 242 BC could be one of  these things:
1) Related with the Polybian reforms for the Romani (a scripted event that happens in 242 if certain conditions are fulfilled)
2) A corrupt install
3) A build pre-0.81a, I've come past 242 BC with no difficulties at all (in both 0.81 and 1.0)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elphir (talk • contribs) 22:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC) 
Elphir (23:29 GMT+1, 18 December 2007)

be careful which site you download  it from, right now im digging through my computer looking for the trojan horses it caused.
I think ive heard of this before my computer recived a virus after i downloaded this and im sure it was trojan horse
User: King Alaric
That is total malarky.  Ask the tens of thousands of players - many hundreds of which you will find on either of the two big gaming forum that EB is located on - and they will let you know.  There are zero risks in downloading the mod directly from the EB servers.
The so called virus was nothing more than a file that was detected as a virus by certain anti-virus programmes.
For more information on this matter I recommend consulting the forums on their website.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.92.49.238 (talk) 16:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 
Yeah after i downloaded EB my computer came down with trojan house and died on me im not saying it was EB just a possibility  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.81.182 (talk) 19:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC) 

I just downloaded it 2 days ago, and today I found a trojan.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.246.159 (talk) 04:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC) 

I think the EB Team said on their forums that such virus reports were false positives (assuming you downloaded EB from a legitimate source - full list here for version 1.1). After having installed the mod, look here for official bugfixes and resolutions to common problems. It Is Me Here (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I have noticed that some people have simply copied sections of the www.europabarbarorum.com website into this article; this cannot happen, as the website has clearly been written in such a way as to sell/advertise the mod to others, and so the information in this article should be checked for neutrality.
It Is Me Here (talk) 08:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)It Is Me Here

I agree that the article shouldn't feature material simply copied sections, and those should be rewritten (heck, I even might, if I'll find the time and no one else bothers). However, the closest thing to advertising that the text features are the 'more accurate/accurately' comments, and as far as I can see, those claims are true.
So, unless someone could point to some untrue/merely advertising claims, rather than descriptions of features in the mod (et cetera), it would seem that the text could simply have need to have portions of it rewritten... Anyone disagree? (I sometimes miss the most obvious stuff, so asking this...)
Maelkoch (talk) 14:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I second Maelkoch. This shouldn't be some kind of advertising thing, it should be fan-written honest opinion, if people are interested in hearing the Team's advertising they can always go to the website.
Elphir 23:42 GMT+1, 18 December 2007  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elphir (talk • contribs) 22:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC) 

mAIOR
I disagree. I don't see how this is not neutral. If it is copied, then that's because it must be the best way to represent game features. I'd only advise whoever wrote this article to remove the line regarding bonuses. But still, that's not very important.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.137.24.80 (talk) 15:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC) 
The comment in Faction Changes that "fantasy" units are no longer present must be balanced by claims by more than one person on the mod's own forum that certain Celtic units, as well as much other conjecture on the Celtic factions, amounts to fantasy. I have noticed that some of this Europa Barbarorum material has leaked onto German Wikipedia's Celtic Warfare entry (Keltische Kriegführung - http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keltische_Kriegf%C3%BChrung) and caused trouble there, with the result that the entire entry was scheduled for complete revision (April 2008). This needs checking for neutrality, since it is currently a subject for debate among the modders themselves.
Paul S (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

- Would the current text be considered acceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.90.17.189 (talk) 09:52, 13 June 2008

Anyone getting CTDs in around 219BC?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.51.129 (talk) 11:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC) 
These are bugs in the RTW engine itself. Go to the offical RTW Europa Barbarorum forums for tech help and more info:
http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=70
Intranetusa (talk) 04:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I've consolidated and expanded on the sections about current and future releases, ending up with the "Release history" section (I nicked most of the formatting from the "Release history" section of the article about The GIMP). If anyone has any more information on release dates, smaller bugfixes, internal versions etc., please do add it! See this for more details. It Is Me Here (talk) 13:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I see no citations, and although most of the information appears correct, some of it is clearly wrong: For instance, it currently states that in-game wonders directly affect lag. Someone more knowledgeable about this than I should really go in, add citations, and review the content.
>>query
Where should such citations come from? this project is digital in entirity, the websites(plural) where it is discussed/developed, both homepage and various other website forums are digital, the project is not printed or distributed, other than digitally, so please, where do you want citations from??
barooca of the org - in no way "affiliated" with EB 
>>end query  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.92.185 (talk) 04:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC) 

Hi there, I moved this post further down the talk page so that it would be listed in the contents normally (you can use the + button to add a new post in future). Anyway, I am currently in the process of revamping the article somewhat. I have already added some external sources and will continue giving Europa Barbarorum a lick of paint - watch this space! When I am satisfied that I have done all that I wanted to do (for the time being, at least), I'll leave another note here, and probably run Europa Barbarorum through peer review to see where the article should go from here. It Is Me Here (talk) 11:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
It's already looking much better! Keep up the good work. The main challenge here is going to be referencing the information in the article. But if there's one comment I could offer, the release history should be trimmed and summarized as prose. Tables and lists of exhaustive releases are not really appropriate for Wikipedia (more for a game FAQ). You're better off saying something like "the original release featured X and Y, but by version 0.8 the team had expanded the mod to include Z." Anyway, I'm sure there will be time for more of that... in the meantime, do your best with what you can now. Randomran (talk) 06:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm about 60% of the way through what I want to do now (at time of writing). I'd got the idea for the table (and nicked most of the formatting, if I'm honest) from here, or a very similar version of that page (I can't remember exactly when it was that I'd read that article). I thought that sort of layout would, in fact, be quite informative and easily accessible if filled out with enough information? It Is Me Here (talk) 12:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
We generally try to avoid these kinds of lists as per Wikipedia:Embedded list. I suspect a peer review will tell you the same thing. But this isn't a pressing issue, and we can leave it until you actually file your peer review. Randomran (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Done! Feel free to comment over there as well! It Is Me Here (talk) 17:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

..are also: the Tribe of lusotanna in Spain, the Casse a tribe of Celts in Britannia  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.149.177.161 (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC) 

Both Casse and Lusotannan are on the list. It Is Me Here (talk) 12:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi I'm an EB member and if there's any information or something you need (fact information, so it wouldn't bias the article) you can always talk to me or ask away on the talk page of this article. Grtz Moros Titirius (talk) 18:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. What I'm probably most keen on right now is more information on the internal alpha versions for the release history section, and so if you could make the relevant forum threads available, that would be very much appreciated. As well as that, a copy of the March 2005 edition of PC Gamer (UK) would also be useful as a reference. It Is Me Here (talk) 08:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I'll have a look and see what I can come up with. Titirius (talk) 11:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

This article is coming along nicely. Other than copy-editing and shortening some of the parts that could do with a tighter summary, I think it would be really helpful to find someone who speaks Italian to read the review of the Italian PC Gamer review and so on... I know this might be asking for the moon. But you'd be surprised what you can accomplish by emailing around. I managed to get scans of a 1993 magazine emailed to me just by asking! Be persistent. Randomran (talk) 17:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I've had someone whom I asked to search for an edition of PC Gamer (UK) reply to me on my talk page recently that they were trying to find that issue, so I'm still keeping my fingers crossed. It Is Me Here (talk) 19:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I see this has been nominated for Good Article status, but I would recommend sorting out those [citation needed] tags first, as I doubt it will pass with them there. SynergyBlades (talk) 19:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I see. The thing is, though, that it was me who put them there (I'm also the person who nominated the article at WP:GAN), so they are more notes for me than anything regarding where I still need references, and hence some of them might be trivial enough to be discounted. At least, that was my thinking. It Is Me Here (talk) 19:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Europa Barbarorum/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Unfortunately, the article in its current state does not seem to meet the six good article criteria:

Well written?: There are a few instances in the article where the grammar could be improved and the sentences made more concise. I would suggest getting another pair of eyes to copy edit it or put the article up for peer review if it does not pass GA.
Factually accurate?: This is were the article is at its weakest. It actually meets two of the criteria for quick fail, but I figured it would best to give the benefit of the doubt.There are five statements tagged as needing citations, and several of the sources do not seem to qualify as reliable sources. Forum postings generally do not satisfy WP:Verifiability as they are deemed self-published sources. The majority of the content in the article cite such sources and should be replaced with more appropriate sources.
Broad in coverage?: The major points look to be covered.
Neutral point of view?: The prose needs some tidying up in this area, but nothing blatantly pushing a single POV. I would shorten the "Features" section as it looks to give undue weight when compared to the other sections. Just focus on the more notable features, every detail does not have to be mentioned to give the reader the general idea.
Article stability?: The article does not appear to undergoing drastic changes or experiencing edit wars.
Images?: Most of the images appear to be within guidelines. The only one that isn't is Image:EB RTW unit comparison.png. Though the right side of the image is licensed under the Creative Commons license, the left side is copyrighted and owned by Creative Assembly. The only violation here is the image is too large. Shrinking it down to a smaller resolution would make the whole image compliant.
The article is on the right track, but is lacking the sourcing to give it verifiability. I suggest looking at Defense of the Ancients to get an idea of the writing style to emulate, the size of the sections, and the type of sources to use.I'll keep an eye on the article to see if improvements are made, but if they are not made in seven days or if you think such steps are not possible, then I'll have to close the nomination. Keep up the good work, and if you have any questions, please feel free to ask here. (Guyinblack25 talk 20:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC))


### Initial response
I have now read your review and would like some further information.

I have already put Europa Barbarorum through a peer review and so am not sure what else I can do to improve the grammar / flow of the article (compare the current version of the article with the pre-peer review version and with the version before my edits). Perhaps you could suggest specific areas which do not read well?
I have re-written a paragraph so as to remove some unverified statements; is this what you are looking for? Also, please note that all the {{fact}} templates were put there by me, if I'm not mistaken, and so are more notes for me as to what else I should reference than official criticism brought up by others.
-
-
-
Would splitting up Image:EB RTW unit comparison.png into its four constituent images (all of them screenshots of either Rome: Total War or Europa Barbarorum) and then arranging them in the article using Wiki markup make it acceptable? That way, each separate image would be smaller but the same image, in effect, could be shown in the article.
Any more comments and feedback would be appreciated. It Is Me Here (talk) 10:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

In regard to the writing.
There are several cases of "wordiness", for lack of a better description. Reducing this will make the sentences more concise and should improve the flow of the sentences, as well as the flow between sentences. For example:

You can use fewer words at the start and still convey the same idea.
Having the game oversee the player do shifts focus to the game. The player is the controlling force and should be the focus of the sentence.
"Ultimate" doesn't really modify "goal" much. Simply stating that "the goal is XX" conveys the same idea.
Another wordy sentence. A lot of it is not needed because the basic information has already been presented to the reader in previous sentences.
Instead try this.
There are several instances of "Europa Barbarorum development team", and its usage is repetitive. I would try mixing it up some, like "the mod's development team", or "mod's members".
There are also instances of very short paragraphs. One or two sentences can not stand on their own as a paragraph. I would combine similar statements together to form paragraphs that match the size of the others in the article.
In regard the factual accuracy.
Yes, if the statement is questionable, or tagged with {{fact}}, then it should either be removed or sourced with a reference.
Unfortunately, it doesn't matter who put the tags there. An article should be ready to go once submitted.
My biggest concern is the lack of reliable sources; forum sources do not qualify as such. I would see if you can find any thing at WP:VG/M, maybe ask the contributors of some of the PC magazines if they can check some of their magazines for any coverage.
In regard to the image.
It's not the overall size of the entire image, it's the size of the copy righted part that is in violation. Check out Image:Age ii feudal age celts.jpg, in Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings, something along the lines of that would be within reason for the Total War portions.
You also may want to trim that down to just a single comparison. Non-free image use should be minimal, and a second comparison doesn't add too much since they are both battles that illustrate units.
I hope that clarifies some things. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC))
I've done some cleanup on some sections, is that the sort of writing improvement you were looking for Guyinblack? --VPeric (talk) 13:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, those edits are definitely on the right track. (Guyinblack25 talk 00:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC))
As to the reliability of sources, the development team in question publishes their information on a forum. In most cases, I understand that a forum post is not generally reliable, but I don't see why that would be true here. In this case, a forum post directly from the developer is more reliable than that of some random magazine. It would be acceptable to cite something posted on the EB website about EB, wouldn't it? The difference here is arbitrary when the source is the same. VIABellum (talk) 09:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


### GA fail
Unfortunately, the article in its current state does not seem to meet the six good article criteria:

Well written?: The grammar and writing style has improved since the initial review. There are still instances of very short paragraphs. One or two sentences can not stand on their own as a paragraph. I would combine similar statements together to form paragraphs that match the size of the others in the article.
Factually accurate?: The minimal amount of reliable sources used is not enough to satisfy guidelines.There are still statements tagged as needing citations, and several of the sources do not qualify as reliable sources. Forum postings generally do not satisfy WP:Verifiability as they are deemed self-published sources. The majority of the content in the article cite such sources and should be replaced with more appropriate sources.
Broad in coverage?: The major points look to be covered.
Neutral point of view?: The prose needs some tidying up in this area, but nothing blatantly pushing a single POV. I would shorten the "Features" section as it looks to give undue weight when compared to the other sections. Just focus on the more notable features, every detail does not have to be mentioned to give the reader the general idea.
Article stability?: The article does not appear to undergoing drastic changes or experiencing edit wars.
Images?: Most of the images appear to be within guidelines. The only one that isn't is Image:EB RTW unit comparison.png. Though the right side of the image is licensed under the Creative Commons license, the left side is copyrighted and owned by Creative Assembly. The only violation here is the copy righted portions are too large. Shrinking the whole image down to a smaller resolution would make it compliant.
There major issues are criteria 2 and 6. Criteria 1 and 4 are more minor, but should still be addressed. Though the article did improve since the initial review, it does not pass the GA criteria. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. (Guyinblack25 talk 18:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC))

Especially for reception. They're not considered reliable unless you can prove the poster is a reliable source of information.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Aye, I agree and it's been discussed above (at the GA nomination). The problem is that the developer team uses forums to communicate, as written above, that same information would be acceptable if it was on their website. As for the reception section, the two forum references are to TWC awards which are, again, only published there (I will try to find another link, though, and one could also argue that such a site isn't particulary notable after all). If you could find reliable sources, I/we would be much obliged (as I believe the prose is good enough for GA, maybe beyond). --VPeric (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, the .ORG and TWC are just fan forums, and, as such, the awards are just community awards. Thus, I could simply remove that paragraph if you feel that unofficial awards from the fan community are not particularly notable? It Is Me Here t / c 20:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
It just occured to me when writing that, but yeah, it's probably best if that whole paragraph was removed. Speaking of the reception section, I don't like the "Mini-mods" title, and I think dropping it wouldn't hurt much. While we're there, might as well drop that first lead sentance (it's unsourced and disrupts the flow), and then drop the "reviews and awards" heading too. Thoughts? --VPeric (talk) 07:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Like that? It Is Me Here t / c 16:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it looks better that way. The info about alternate versions could be useful though, I wonder if we could stick those two-three sentances somewhere else. Maybe the development section? --VPeric (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that for this reason you have removed the section on minimods.  Since I happen to be the author of one of those ports (the port to Rome: Total War: Barbarian Invasion), I have replaced the forum link with a link to a website that I maintain for it.  I have not changed the link to the Rome: Total War: Alexander port, since I am unaware of a non-forum website that.  I have also cleaned up the section a bit.  Any suggestions?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnadolski (talk • contribs) 01:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC) 

It's going along pretty good. One thing I have to stress though is before going for GA, check with the video game wikiproject's source list to make sure all your sources are reliable, that'll be what makes or breaks you in GAN's or higher. Also, if a site like Boomtown doesn't have an article, don't use a direct link to it here, goes a bit against WP:MoS and counts against you too.
I wish you luck with this, you guys are doing splendid.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The mod's website should get an overhaul in the foreseeable future, and hopefully news announcements will be moved there, which should enable us to avoid referencing forum posts (although the web content will be the same word-for-word, theoretically). It Is Me Here t / c 20:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of sources, would this page on the offical website be considered more reliable than a forum? A lot of info could be sourced from there. --VPeric (talk) 18:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Europa Barbarorum/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: SCB '92 (talk · contribs) 10:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article was nominated for GA almost 3 months ago; definitely overdue for a GAR; if I don't review it, no-one will; I think it's because people are reluctant on reviewing articles of PC mod games;
Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 
"Rome: Total War" can be abbreviated as RTW, but is not abbreviated at all throughout the article, even fully used twice in the first sentence; same goes for Europa Barbarorum not being abbreviated to EB; "non-English-language" should be changed to "non-English language"
B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 
I doubt that "Reviewers" needs to be wikilinked; what the hell does "verisimilitude" mean? you wikilink "Reviewers" but you don't wikilink this? I doubt that the casual reader would know this word
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 
There are many sources
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 
The article seems to be in British English, but in Ref 50, the date is written as June 8, 2010. should be changed to 8 June 2010
C. No original research: 
The third paragraph of the "Campaign" subsection is completely unsourced; the last sentence of the first paragraph of the "Warfare" subsection is unsourced; the last sentence of the first and second paragraph of the "Development" section is unsourced, and the last paragraph of this section is completely unsourced; "Other magazines which have reviewed the mod include Portuguese magazine BGamer in December 2007." source?
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 
It's okay
B. Focused: 
If focused means comparing it to RTW throughout
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 
unbiased
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 
no edit wars
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
most are public domain
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 
Well one of the images has no caption, but the caption for this is used to compare it; I see what you did there
Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
I'll give you seven days to address these issues#


### Response
1a
 Question: Regarding "RTW" etc., I was given the exact opposite advice at peer review: hence, are you sure you want me to change it?
"Non-English language"  Done.
1b
Reviewers de-link  Done.
Verisimilitude link  Done.
2b
Date format change  Done.
2c
Campaign paragraph 3 referencing  Done.
 Question: Warfare last sentence trimmed; the relevant quote from the source is now New custom formations designed by the Europa Barbarorum team which give the AI greater flexibility and incentive to perform realistic battlefield manouvers. Is that OK now?
Development paragraph 1  Done.
Development paragraphs 2—3  Done.
BGamer sentence removal  Done.
It Is Me Here t / c 14:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Everything looks much better now; no original research is the most important point really; though the Peer reviewer says to use the full title, the user also said that using Rome: Total War or Europa Barbarorum once or twice in each paragraph is more than enough, but in the second paragraph of the "Gameplay" section, Europa Barbarorum is used six times, and Rome: Total War is used 4 times; but since you were advised to use the full title and have addressed the main issues, I'll pass this-SCB '92 (talk) 10:38, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Europa Barbarorum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722062905/http://www.totalwar.com/rome to http://www.totalwar.com/rome
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Europa Barbarorum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722062905/http://www.totalwar.com/rome to http://www.totalwar.com/rome
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Europa Barbarorum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added {{dead link}} tag to http://freeformatics.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=1&products_id=1&zenid=l5vh41uqpujkpuhu4q10n346d2
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728214242/http://uk.gamespot.com/features/6110568/rome-total-war-game-guide?page=16 to http://uk.gamespot.com/features/6110568/rome-total-war-game-guide?page=16
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120503194134/http://uk.gamespot.com/medieval-ii-total-war/previews/medieval-2-total-war-designer-diary-7-down-with-clone-armies-6159360/ to http://uk.gamespot.com/medieval-ii-total-war/previews/medieval-2-total-war-designer-diary-7-down-with-clone-armies-6159360
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120503194000/http://uk.gamespot.com/medieval-ii-total-war/previews/medieval-2-total-war-designer-diary-9-making-combat-look-good-6161390/ to http://uk.gamespot.com/medieval-ii-total-war/previews/medieval-2-total-war-designer-diary-9-making-combat-look-good-6161390
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120503195213/http://www.gamesradar.com/europa-universalis-rome/?page=2 to http://www.gamesradar.com/europa-universalis-rome/?page=2
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC)