Talk:Age of Empires III/Archive 4

message: 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 Direct3D D3DX DLLs at Toymaker.info or reinstall DirectX9 completely.
:--Ck lostsword|queta!|Suggestions? 13:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Known issues

message: 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)
thread_title:  AOE3 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Units of Age of Empires III 

message: The Russian home city (St. Petersburg) contains St. Basil's CAtherdral?
(Just and observation)NapoleonAlanparte 20:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russian home city 

message: 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)
thread_title: Very strange

message: 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)
replies: text: Really? On ESO? · AO Talk 23:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Home city 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Jon Armor Mode 

message: 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)
replies: text: Answered on talk page. | AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 14:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Upload 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree completly. I'll help too. (the Warchiefs article is even worse!) | AndonicO Talk · Sign Here 18:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Prose, tables and lists

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: I oppose to the creation of a sub-article for just gameplay. --TomasBat (Talk) 02:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I concur. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 07:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Sounds fine to me. Also getting rid of the tables would help too. Dåvid Fuchs (talk / contribs) 22:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think we should shorten or get rid of the Starting-Scenarios table, but not the Civilizations table, it looks fine to me... --TomasBat (Talk) 02:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do it, then. :) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The changes have been done! --TomasBat (Talk) 03:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks a lot better, nice work —Disavian (talk/contribs) 14:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: I've taken those suggestions and put them into a handy  box near the top of the page. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 06:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think all the changes in the to-do list box have been done know... --TomasBat (Talk)(Sign) 18:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've cleared the todo list accordingly. :) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, lets wait for what Dåvid Fuchs says... --TomasBat (Talk)(Sign) 19:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. It's up to him, after all. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  GA on hold: [[Age of Empires III]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  just checking 

message: Are you tring to get this to FA? · AndonicO Talk 21:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Purely personally), ultimately yes. ck lostsword|queta!|Suggestions? 21:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll help a bit if you'd like. · AndonicO Talk 15:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Question 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Home-Cities Section  

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes, and the one about Rushing, Booming, and Turtling as well. · AO Talk 20:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep - IMO, only keep the civ list in a table. ck lostsword|queta!|Suggestions? 21:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree to that. · AO Talk 23:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outline review 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Done ck lostsword|queta!|Suggestions? 18:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Civilisation summaries in Campaign

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I think we should have a better outline before going to ACID. Also, the reception section needs to be longer... much longer. · AndonicO Talk 13:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

text: May as well withdraw the nomination with a brief explanation in the edit summary. ck lostsword|queta!|Suggestions? 21:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The nomination has been withdrawn... Now, since some important aspects of the article, to improve, have been highlighted clearly, I will see in what can I continue contributing... ♠TomasBat (@)(Contribs)(Sign!) 23:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ACID?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I agree with goldfritter - makes good sense. ck lostsword|queta!|Suggestions? 22:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, then lets get to it! ♠Tom@sBat 22:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, I added the leaders in the same box but an IP moved it to a seperate column. Should we change to how it was before or is this better? ♠Tom@sBat 16:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I have replaced the main bonus with a summary of each civ. Please check for any typos or redundancies in them. I believe that the summaries which I have imput consist of just the base, we´ll surely need to polish it up. ♠Tom@sBat 01:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: Made MAJOR changes... hope I didn't spoil Tom's plans.  It probably isn't perfect yet, but I feel it's now neutral. Hope  everyone likes it... Goldfritter 16:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I´m glad you edited it... I felt a bit lost and, also, I was more focused on other matters here on Wikiepdia... ♠Tom@sBat 20:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Civilizations Table 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Done. Thanks! Goldfritter 17:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mercenaries

message: In skirmish mode, the Imperial Ottoman cannons pulverise Imperial German cavalry. Cannons are available after Age 3 for all belligerents. The Great Turkish Bombard (not pictured) is only available via card deck delivery where it is delivered as a shipment to the shipment drop off point or produced at factory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ageofempires3_screenshot_1.jpg  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.70.2.76 (talk) 09:07, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Second Image

message: Hi I changed the multiplayer page a bit if you think it needs to be changed or deleted just change or delete it please, and thank you.Hey Joe what you know? (talk) 01:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proofread Multiplayer section 

message: The reception section needs to be expanded... big time. Take a look at Starcraft, Empires: Dawn of the Modern World, and Rise and Fall: Civilizations at War, the three video game FAs (of course, Starcraft doesn't have as much as Rise and Fall, but they both have more than this article). For a game like Age of Empires III (i.e. one of the most famous video games, and most popular), I think it's better to go o'er the top. I'll list a few websites we can use as sources here:
*Gamespot: overall (publication date; number of players; release date; genre)
*Gamespot review (lots of things we can use from there)
*3 page review by Gamespy (5 of 5 stars; I'm sure we can find many positive things in there to push our pro-AoE POV forward! MUHAHA!)
*IGN review (4 pages; these things keep getting longer...)
*Worthplaying review
*Game Revolution review
*Eurogamer review
*GameZone review (explains their final opinion very well)
*Short review by 1UP
*Gamerankings
*Pro-G review
I'll not be here, but will be back in a week or so. Sorry I had to mess up the talk page with all these links, but it's very convenient. :) · AndonicO Talk 08:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and this just came up; we'll have to wait until it's archived to add it though. · AndonicO Talk 11:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception section 

message: We seem to have an images issue again - there are 5 fair use images on the page - slightly more than our required 2 or 3. In my opinion, we should have
*2 images
**Cover image
**Image of unit classes
*3 images
**Cover image
**Image of unit classes
**Image of home cities, preferably replaced by new image that compares high-quality and low-quality home city.
I'll upload an example of the latter image later. ck lostsword|queta!|Suggestions? 21:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Starcraft has also got 5 fair-use images, and its an Fa... ♠Tom@sBat 21:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True - but I suspect that their rationales are somewhat more detailed than ours. In the meantime, what do we think of these images?
Oh, and if the images aren't helpful, perhaps the rationales on their pages will be.
ck lostsword|queta!|Suggestions? 21:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The images all look nice, but I still don´t quite really understand why we´re comparing graphics... ♠Tom@sBat 01:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree, there's no "rule" that says you can't have more than three images. For an article of this size, five is acceptable. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 02:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This comparison follows a suggestion in our (very old) peer review. However, and more importantly, one of the key points made in the article is the development of the new graphics systems. This is perhaps well-represented by the images, which compare the new graphics systems against the old ones. Like I say, if they're no use they're no use ... just a suggestion :D ck lostsword|queta!|Suggestions? 22:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I´ve checked the peer review and Ck is quite right, there was a suggestion on this possibility, and it all seems logical now, since graphics were an important change on the series. But, what if we compare say AoE2 graphics with AoE3 graphics? That way, we would be comparing the "jump in graphical quality" which occured when this game was released; this such possible comparism would be, in a way, somewhat similiar to this image, which compares graphics from the original version of Centipede and the 1998 remake... ♠Tom@sBat 16:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I have nominated the redundant images for deletion as orphaned and updated the rationales of the others to be more precise. Perhaps we should start working on the reception section? ck lostsword|queta!|Suggestions? 20:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, the task seems done with the new pic on the article. And, yes, I agree on working more now on the reception section; we´ve got plenty of links for research so lets get to it... ♠Tom@sBat 21:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the image of combat from the article as it doesn't actually illustrate any of the headings or points made - especially not in the multiplayer section where it was situated. ck lostsword•T•C 14:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Images (Again)

message: Do we need a spoiler warning on the campaign section? IMO, no - I feel that we don't give away enough details and the subject is not notable enough to merit the warning. ck lostsword•T•C 20:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the same light, is there any need for trivia section - again, no IMO, but there have been 2 'trivial edits' in a day. ck lostsword•T•C 22:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Spoiler: No.   is redundant in such cases.  And we really don't need one piece of trivia (that you removed)! Giggy UCP 03:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spoiler

message: Is there a way to work the game on Windows 9x? 58.170.198.30 05:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope PookeyMaster (talk) 03:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: There shouldn't be Havok Physics in the Engine row of the table at the right of the article. Havok is only a physics engine, not a complete engine like Source used in HL2, so the entry should be deleted. I don't know if they use someone else's game engine or their own.Quiark 13:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're correct on that: it shouldn't be there. Feel free to remove it yourself. · AndonicO Talk 13:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Havok is not a game engine 

message: I have removed the date links (as many as i could find) per the above recommendations. PookeyMaster (talk) 04:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linking Dates 

message: I have created a page about the game on Wikiquote. See here:  The problem is, this article is a bit too short. Feel free to add anything to the article. 58.168.147.119 (talk) 22:47, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. There are a lot of unnecessary/trivial quotes there... · AndonicO Talk 00:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikiquote

message: Please delete the campaign section. It is not detailed enough - it does not even mention some important parts of the campaign. And it is the reason the actual article about the campaign was deleted. I like that article and want it back. There was no reason to delete it fully instead of just redirecting it here. 58.168.147.119 (talk) 05:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Campaign

message: The flag of the Ottomans (i mean the Ottomans in the game not in the real world) is not correct, see the game or the web page.  --Ilhanli (talk) 12:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the same flag, except that we can't use the exact image that is used in-game (even though it's better, it's also copyrighted). · AndonicO Hail! 12:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It (the flag in the game) is same as the flag of Turkey, look at the star and it's angel to the Moon, Moon's and star's size. I was wery suprized when i sow the flag of the Ottomans'; it was not an Ottoman flag but it was the flag of Turkey. --Ilhanli (talk) 12:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't tell any difference, but I changed the flag to the one in the lead here. · AndonicO Hail! 12:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was going to change the Turkish flag with the Late Ottoman flag but I saw that you werte already changed it, thanks and sorry for my bad English. --Ilhanli (talk) 12:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Game Developers did not understand the Ottoman Empire at all. The Ottoman Empire ended in 1922 (technically right after World War I in 1918, because between 1918-1922, the Ottoman Empire had surrendered to England and was fighting against the Nationalist Turkish Army, hence Turkey and the Ottoman Empire are two different nations made of the same people), Turkey was created in 1922-1923 and it abolished the Empire, the Caliphate, and the Sultanate, creating democracy. The Turkish flag and the Ottoman flag are distinctly different. The Game Developers of AOE3 confused the two flags, and never bothered to fix it (Ensemble Studios was never known for its historical accuracy), so I changed the flag, it is now the Ottoman flag instead of the Turkish flag. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, historical accuracy and correct information is more important than what a certain game developer wrote. — talk § _Arsenic99_ 15:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Ottoman flag was being used in the article, which happens to be the same flag used in-game... I don't see why you changed that? · AndonicO Engage. 17:35, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Correct me if I'm wrong, but if this is an encyclopedia, wouldn't the correct thing to use in this article be the based off the flag used in the game itself, off which the the article is based? It is a fact that Elizabeth I was a Queen of England, not Queen of the United Kingdom, so calling her the leader of the British civilization is incorrect as she never was one. This, however, doesn't justify changing the name of the civilization or the leader to make it a true historical fact, as within the game, Queen Elizabeth is the British leader, although this is not true in reality. Even though this is not a fact in actual history, it is a fact within the game, and as this article reports on such, it should supply the most accurate information on the actual topic. This same theory, if true, would also apply to the flag of the Ottomans, the flag of France, etc. Mhavril39 (talk) 01:54, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I would tend to agree; in this case, though, the in-game flag is essentially identical to (one of) the real-world Ottoman flags--so Ensemble was historically accurate. I fail to see the issue... · AndonicO Engage. 03:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an encyclopaedic entry on a game, therefore everything must be accurate to the game- not real-life.  Also, I think people should only make major edits of this article if they have actually played the game before (I play it all the time!)- keeps everything more accurate by the game.Mod mmg (talk) 08:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag of the Ottomans 

message: The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.
*Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The article should have an appropriate number of paragraphs as is shown on WP:LEAD, and should adequately summarize the article.[?]
*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.[?]
*Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, if January 15, 2006 appeared in the article, link it as January 15, 2006.[?]
*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings.
*This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, then an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.[?]
*There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
**apparently
**might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?] 
*Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
**Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant -  “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
*The script has spotted the following contractions: aren't, if these are outside of quotations, they should be expanded.
*Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]
You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, The  Helpful  One (Review) 21:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  AutoReview 

message: In the Synopsis::Multiplayer section the acronym NAO is used but it is not defined.  I don't know what this is.  This should be fixed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.73 (talk) 21:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NAO not defined 

message: Could somebody please place the SVG AoE3 icon somewhere they feel appropriate:
AoE3 SVG Icon
Thanks
Will
:It's fair use, and we can well do without it... it's only used in the shortcut, isn't it? · AndonicO Engage. 16:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah its the shortcut icon, but I made it myself and put it under public domain  —Preceding unsigned comment added by WillT.Net (talk • contribs) 23:43, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, doesn't work that way; Ensemble (or Microsoft?) made it originally, they own the license. · AndonicO Engage. 23:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have  SVG version of the AoE3 Icon.. 

message: I have a few pictures of the screenshots that would probably come in use. But since this is a good article I was thinking that I should discuss it here first. They are mostly screenshots of skirmishes, cannon fire and horse battles and some battles against ships. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 Talk Contribs 23:56, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added 3. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 Talk Contribs 01:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say keep the trading post screenshot, but remove the other two. Screenshots are non-free use, so we can't have too many per article. Also, that many falconets isn't very realistic (in terms of the game... not real warfare, obviously). · AndonicO Engage. 14:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? I want to keep the first two images and get rid of the other one (the one with ships). I think it is quite realistic in a sense it shows the possibilities of skirmish mode. サラは、私を、私の青覚えている。 Talk Contribs 01:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, that would be okay. · AndonicO Engage. 10:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures

message: :i just added the 2008 scare of eso shut down. its not that good but someone can improve it for me. ty. CallMeAndrew (talk) 03:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: just added

message: It says that there can be 2 or more teams, but in AOE III, the maximum number of teams is 2. That's also kind of messed up because you used to be able to have MORE teams in both AOEs I and II.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.15.94 (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 or more teams? 

message: In the image where it says that "German Imperial Cannons are pulverizing Ottoman cavalry", the pictured cannons are not Imperial Cannons. They are Falconets. The picture in the battle menu is also the image of a Falconet. 
--Raven21niner (talk) 12:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image Mistake

message: I have to say, I'm concerned with the number of images on this article. This is definitely not an appropriate number of fair use images, which number nine. There needs some serious trimming - an article should never exceed two fair use images unless the images clearly demonstrate a specific fact of the article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image problems 

message: Not only has someone taken down the image I added to the article several months ago WITH CONSENSUS FROM AN ADMIN (I think it was more like a year), the following caption has been vandalised:
In skirmish mode, the Imperial Ottoman cannons pulverising the Imperial German cavalry. Cannons are available after Age 3 for all belligerents. The Dardanelles Gun and the Congreve Rocket(not pictured) are only available via card deck delivery where they are delivered as a shipment to the shipment drop off point or produced at factory.
Those are Falconets, and the word "Pulverising" is not very encyclopaedic.  "For all belligerents" <--- Blatant vandalism.  Also, there is NO Dardanelles Gun or Congreve Rocket in the game.  They are called the "Great Bombard" and the "Rocket".
I am reverting back to how the article was after I last edited it, so that all traces of vandalism are removed.  If any changes were made afterwards WITH CONSENSUS, they may be re-added.
Mod MMG (User Page) Reply on my talkpage.  Do NOT click this link 07:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blatant Vandalism 

message: Could we possibly replace the two image demonstration with an animated image to demonstrate? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animated image 

message: I restored one of the 3 images recently removed, as I found it a very clear depiction of the different types of units available in the game, and thus very appropiate for the "units" section. I think 3 screenshots is ok; I've seen other FA/GA video game articles with this amount. I think we should avoid copyright paranoia. ♠TomasBat 22:18, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoring 1 of the images 

message: Why is Australia not in this game or even any AOE games? In fact now that I think of it no games are set in Australia, why? Once again Australia gets shafted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collingwood26 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Australia?