Talk:Civilization IV: Warlords

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Flashback

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Deleted information

message: 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)
thread_title: Paragraph in "Omens" needs fixed for accuracy.

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Statement accuracy? 

message: Please add colours for all countries, or remove them entirely. 195.24.29.51 08:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  This hurted my eyes! --89.181.60.133 20:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, hurted my eyes, too.  I'm changing it. Professor Chaos (talk) 07:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done! - Jack's Revenge (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh wait... it's still colored! Still not the best solution IMHO. - Jack's Revenge (talk) 13:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Unique Buildings table colours 

message: :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)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Warlordsboxart.jpg

message: 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)
thread_title:  Japanese Special Building 

message: 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)
replies: text: More discussion has occured here. SharkD (talk) 01:41, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename/move article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Removing Civ Tables/Trivial Lists 

message: See: Talk:Civilization_V#2012</br>
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)
thread_title: 2012