Talk:Civilization IV: Beyond the Sword

message: The cover of the game seems to show mechs and futuristic soldiers, however these are not listed in the new units section. Are they even in the game? Is the cover therefore misleading?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.138.135 (talk) 02:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have the expansion, but I think those units are from a scenario. Professor Chaos (talk) 06:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct -- the assault mech is playable via the Next War mod or scenario.  Jkp1187 (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Units and misleading cover? 

message: i removed the speculation about Charles de Gaulle, the only reason it's thought that he is a new leader in the game is because of a picture that shows up at the bottom of the firaxis webpage about Beyond the Sword but the only reason that happens is because that picture (which is from Railroads) is a part of the web page template of the site so it shows up on every page. This was true before they announced Beyond the Sword so i doubt it's a sign that he shows up in the game (any more than it's a sign that they are going to retroactivly add him to Alpha Centauri or Pirates). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harlock jds (talk • contribs) 11:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you were right. Not because of the reasons you specify, but because the page shouldn't contain speculation at all. 195.24.29.51 11:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, he is right for the reasons he specified. It's from Sid Meier's Railroads!, and technically, saying that any of the leaders is speculation because it's not 'confirmed', we just know by looking at them. 124.186.191.102 08:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  heh looks like in the long run i was wrong. Oh well it was still speculation at that point. Now if they would just add him to Alpha Centauri :Dharlock_jds 13:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Charles de Gaulle

message: From http://www.strategyinformer.com/pc/civilizationivbeyondthesword/interview.html
"One of my favorite leaders is Queen Boudica of the Celts"
Stated by Alex Mantzaris, lead programmer and lead designer for Civilization IV: Beyond the Sword.195.24.29.51 11:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: it's already in the article Harlock jds 11:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queen Boudica 

message: Seeing a barrage of new information, I'm going to do a bit of a clean-up here. Nothing major, only a bit of restructuring and stuff. Nothing to be deleted. Sabre 08:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think events and corporations should be listed both in the new features and the new content parts like they were before. I see where you are coming from, but removing "new corporations" and "new random events" from the new content list, doesn't make to much sense when their content is still listed below. The corporations feature means there will be new content, in the sense of the new corporation buildings, so having them in both categories fits. Sneakyhomunculus 09:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Will do, and fixed. To be honest, I noticed that, but tried to play safe. And by the way, the gamespot article claims to have 100+ Random Events. Once the full game is released, I'm considering making a separate Random Events in Civ IV article. Sabre 08:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At the moment I don't really like how the Events and the Corporations are presented as lists inside the features section. I propose that, if corporations are really new buildings that can be build, they are both a new feature demanding a piece of text inn that section, as well as new content that should be listed in the New Content section. Therefore, I propose that if they are proved to be buildings, the list of corporations should be moved back to the New Content section while the current text explaining the Corporation system remains in the Feature section.  
Also, I agree with your suggestion of making a separate Random Events article. The Feature text about the new Random Events should just explain the new possibility of these events, while the complete list of the Events should be moved to a separate article to be created at a later date. Sneakyhomunculus 12:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has not been confirmed whether Corporations are buildings, or founded by the same. I believe they'll most likely come in with technologies, like religions, but that's just speculation. I think we're in a bit of a dilemma about where the Corp-list goes. I'm voting that we do not make a heading, but instead incorporate it with the Corporations heading. I'm guessing there won't be more than half a dozen corporations. As for the Event-list, we'll give about a dozen varied examples in this article, then create a big article. Sabre 06:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, although should keep an eye out for the corporation system and review the way we have listed it when more is known about whether they can be regarded as buildings or not. Sneakyhomunculus 10:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say it's pretty apparent they will be treated like religions, i.e. not a building per se (although you might well have to build a "branch" building to take advantage of their benefits, somewhat like temples and monasteries). But if the comparison to religion is to be meaningful, I expect the corporation itself to spread "buildingless" 195.24.29.51 11:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: I'm thinking of making a table at the New Buildings and New Wonders section. The "name (info)" idea doesn't look quite as clean. Anybody with me? Sabre 05:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be a good idea, if we had some more info, like building costs, great person points etc. I don't think we know enough to make such a table. Also note that we also didn't make tables for the wonders in Civ 4 and Warlords. That said, we of course could still do that. Sneakyhomunculus 10:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, on the other pages the number of buildings was certainly lesser, and it looked okay there. Here things are looking quite cluttered. Sabre 07:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Table?

message: The General Mills corporation currently redirects to an existing real-life company. I propose all corps are suffixed with "(Civ IV)" or somesuch so that the links remain red until specific Civ IV corporation articles are created. 
Either that or remove the link altogether - linking to existing companies is not right: Firaxis clearly intend for these to be generic company names not related to existing companies (or parodying them) 195.24.29.51 10:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the links should be removed.Sneakyhomunculus 11:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corporations 

message: I followed the link, but I find nothing on this feature in the http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?threadid=165702 thread. Please provide a better source, inform me of my blindness ;), or remove the claim.
thx 195.24.29.51 11:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think when that piece of text was moved lower in the text somehow the references was mixed up. Anyway, I fixed the link. Thanks for your good eye. Sneakyhomunculus 11:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Colonies splitting from their motherland to form new civilizations" 

message: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5481451&postcount=27 Seriphyn 21:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No ninjas in the game 

message: "Play as the Allies or Axis in both the European or the Pacific Theater of the Second World War." Shouldn't the second "or" be "and"? If you really can only fight in one theater in a given game it would seem this is actually two seperate scenerios. Also we're missing a source on this sentence. Jon 13:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WW II 

message: Has there been any information released about how this expansion pack will work with Warlords? Will they be inclusive or cumulative or exclusive? PolarisSLBM 18:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the difference between these types? In examples I would guess that exclusive would mean that you can't play with vikings (from warlords) and holy romans (from bts). But what is the difference between inclusive and cumulative expansion packs? Mamen 07:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: BTS includes everything from Warlords except the scenarios (i.e. you can play a regular game as the Vikings just by purchasing BTS, but you need to also have Warlords to play the Viking run-around-and-pillage-Europe scenario) --Nucleusboy 17:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can see in the manual, the civilizations from Warlords is NOT included in BTS, however they will be present if you have already installed Warlords. There are some aspects from Warlords included like traits, unique buildings (as far as I know), and possible vassel-states (since you need this to make a colony). Even when you have Warlords installed you can't play the scenarioes, without opening the Warlords exe-file. Mamen 07:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to this thread on the Civfanatics forums, the Warlords civs are included. --Nucleusboy 17:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Belatedly addressing the question... inclusive means you can run them together without problems (such as expansion packs for The Sims), exclusive means that you can *only* run one or the other expansion (I think Rollercoaster Tycoon is like this), and cumulative means you *must* have the previous expansion (Warlords) in order to run the new one. I can't think of examples for all these right now, but I've encountered them all over time. Anyway, thanks for the info. PolarisSLBM 13:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it would be sufficent if on prereqs section it just states Civilization 4. On the scenarios though, I think the ones in Civ III Conquests were much better than either the ones included in Warlords or Conquests and would have prefered it if BTS had ported those over into the Civ 4 engine (and added the civics / religions / UBs.). Jon 17:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  With Warlords 

message: Was the African Civ really confirmed? All the cited source says is 'Africa-related content'.
YEA ITS CALLED ETHIOPIA  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.223.240 (talk) 23:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  African Civ 

message: Isnt that another trait combination that is unused?
: Japan's leader Tokugawa will be Aggressive/Protective in this expansion, just as he has been since Warlords AlphaBetauri 22:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aggressive/Protective 

message: Recently the following information was added:
::As the details of the new expansion became known, reception by fans was generally positive. However, a large number of fans expressed astonishment at the inclusion of the Holy Roman Empire as one of the new civilizations, citing its duplication of Germany and the inaccuracy of Charlemagne as its leader.http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=228224http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=227976http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=227286 This has led some fans to criticize the developers with the allegation of bad history.http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=227902http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=227380
It seems to me like just about any game that will come out is going to not make all people everywhere happy. Becaus forums are not notable sources, I'm not convinced that this information is significant enough to be included. What does everyone else think? --YbborTalk 22:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: i agree this isn't noteable and shouldn't be in the article but we have a lot of references in this article that comes from forums... if we are going not include this because of it coming from a forum cite then we need to remove all forum cites.harlock_jds 00:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Usually a forum wouldn't be a good source, but the forum in question looks to be the most complete and reliable source of information about this game that we have right now.  The difference is if we're sourcing information gathered by the staff, or if we're using random users' opinions there to try to prove a point.  Shouldn't we avoid the latter?  If there was an article mentioning this on one of the big gaming sites, that could be a good source. AlphaBetauri 03:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  At this point everything that uses a forum as a reference is also available in a non forum source so it's just a matter of cleaning up and resouceing. I think we need to do this so we can safely say 'forums are not a creditable source' to every random user critisim that pops in using the forum as a source (like the HRE one)harlock_jds 11:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My issue isn't so much that the discussion is taking place on a forum, more that we're taking 5 random people's opinion and calling it controversy. I don't doubt that there's real concern out there about the HRE, just that I don't think we can prove this game has come under any significant degree of attack compared to every other video game that's come out. --YbborTalk 12:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I took the section out - it's inclusion violates Wikipedia's policies on original research.  If a reliable third-party source can be found, i.e., not a handful forum posts, it can be included again.  For example, an article on, say, the news page of the site (which is a reliable source), could be used.Rebochan 13:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of "controversey" section 

message: On the official website recently released, there's some information on the new scenarios that's conflicting with what's already been announced. Part of the page gives the early claim of 12 new scenarios, but if you read on... 
"The expansion will deliver 11 new scenarios..."
The Scenarios portion of the website lists these 11 scenarios, and theres no mention of "Chaos" or "Superrobo".  Filling one of those slots is "Civ Defense", a scenario focusing on defending against waves of enemies.
If there is only those 11 scenarios, Chaos could still exist in the expansion as a custom game option (I think it makes more sense that way) but Superrobo looks to have gotten the boot.  Can anyone make sense of this? AlphaBetauri 09:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing Information on New Scenarios

message: Recently some users (mostly IP's as far as I can tell) have added colors to the civilization tables in this article (e.g. 1, 2). However, User:Jack's Revenge reverted these changes under the edit summary "Removed color; please DON'T USE color in all Civ IV articles since it does NOT provide ANY further information and reduces clarity and is a helluvawork to remove!" I have to agree with him, as this color is unnecessarily eye-catching, and can be an eyesore depending on the tastes of the reader. However, I can see that this information could be useful in the sense that it does provide new information by showing what color a civ plays as in the game. My personal preference would be to have no color used in this context, but I think a good compromise would be to create a new column that shows the color for each civilization, but only in that box. What is the community's consensus? --YbborTalk 13:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey. I don't like the idea of giving information about civilizations' colors, since this is too specific to be explained here. I refer to two changes made in the past on the articles of Civilization IV and Civilization IV: Warlords: One user removed details about ...I forgot, doesn't matter..., the other user removed colors in an early attempt to "colorize" an article. So both changes, because they seem correct to me, have driven me to remove color in this article, too. Most recently, there's an attempt to put color in Civilization IV. I didn't remove it, though. - Jack's Revenge 14:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colors in Tables 

message: Any talk of a Civ-IV Gold Edition? Similar to Civ2 and Civ3's Gold Edition? (A Gold Edition is the game + the 2 expansion packs). Rypcord 14:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No information about a possible Gold Edition has yet been released. Sneakyhomunculus 15:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes the gold edition for civ 4 is announced sadly there is no mention of beyond the sword. It comes with civilization 4 and the warlords expansion. --SkyWalker 07:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are correct I read about the Gold edition only after I posted here. It will not include BTS though. Sneakyhomunculus 10:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think they are saving Civ 4 + Warlords + BTS for a future "plantium" edition to be released sometime either in 08 or 09. Jon 17:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gold Edition? 

message: There are some parts of articles which is violating WP:NOT such has new units,New technologies and few others. All this sort of info can be added in wikia. All the info which cannot be entered in wikipedia can be added here. Thank you --SkyWalker 07:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that later on these changes to the game need to be turned in running text. For now it may be useful to keep the info here though. Sneakyhomunculus 11:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the article. 

message: The game is released in the UK on the 20th of July... not the 30th like the "rest of the world". So first its wrong to make that statement and second if the UK date was wrong then what about the rest of Europe? Stabby Joe 00:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Chances are that the planned release date outside the US was the 30th but the publisher's branch offices for the UK and some countries finished ahead of scheldue and they then moved up the date in those countries. Effectively the UK release results in anyone in the EU being able to easily aquire the Engish version earlier but this doesn't affect the French, Spanish, German, etc. language versions. Jon 17:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PAL release dates 

message: Any word yet on Civilization V? The Rypcord. 13:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You will know it when take two announces.--SkyWalker 15:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No offical anoucements but compare the number of years between Civ 1, 2, 3, and 4 releases to get a very rough idea. Jon 15:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  CivV? 

message: I noticed a lack of imagery in this article. I have BtS, so I can upload screenshots for you guys. Just give me a situation, and I'll do my best. Quantum Burrito 00:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure you can add the pictures. It would be better if you add the pictures here :- http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page and from there it can be added here. --SkyWalker 06:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Umm, actually no, it wouldn't Skywalker. Wikimedia Commons is for freely licensed images. Screenshots of a computer game like BtS are copyrighted.As such, while some may be necessary to illustrate the subject, we shouldn't post an excessive amount of pictures. In any case, yeah Quantum Burrito, your screenshots would be appreciated. Just be sure you tag them with , and provide an accompanying fair use rationale. --YbborTalk 01:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as Warlords doesn't have any screen shots, this article shouldn't either. There's sufficent screen shots in the vanilla Civ IV article itself already. Jon 16:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

text: A screenshot of a new unit, such as paratroppers, might be good. Miles Blues 16:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screenshots, anyone? 

message: The game itself refers to it as native america.
Also, I think we should have seperate short description (Babylonia) and civ name (Babylonian Empire). 58.169.203.10 01:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I'll stop reverting that, then. !@$#ing Firaxis not releasing Mac ports concurrently with the PC version... then I would've known you were right. That's right. It's all Firaxis' fault. --Nucleusboy 15:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Native America"

message: Is it a stand-alone expansion pack, or do you need to buy the civilization iv first?] and then beyond the sword, or you can just buy beyond the sword?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.128.2.68 (talk) 23:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stand-alone expansion pack? 

message: Stalin is expansion pack "Warlords".  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.43.152.110 (talk) 01:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stalin 

message: The graphics must be designed to work best with the latest GeForce. My game is jerky. 24.4.131.142 16:44, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Graphics

message: I've been looking for news of whether there will be a Mac port of BtS or not, both for my own information and to put in the article.  I can't find any word either way.  Can anyone help? Professor Chaos (talk) 21:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is apparently the latest on Mac-BtS. Not encouraging at all, I'm afraid:
"I'd love for us to do Civ: BTS for Mac. I can't say absolutely we'll never do it (thank goodness!) but also can't say 100% we are going to do it. There are non-technical reasons it hasn't come to the Mac yet, and being in Development, those are out of my control, unfortunately. In a perfect world we'd have ported it and released it simultaneous with the PC (which we could have done technically), but for no single person's or company's fault it didn't happen that way.
Glenda"
That's Glenda Adams, Developer, Aspyr Media. Link: http://www.insidemacgames.com/forum/index.php?act=findpost&hl=&pid=340724 85.227.226.252 (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Mac Port

message: I suggest moving the article to Sid Meier's Civilization IV: Beyond the Sword since that is the game's full title. SharkD (talk) 01:24, 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: The Mesoamerica scenario doesn't appear to be included in the article. Was that added in an update? Chronolegion (talk) 19:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It was added in a 2008 patch: https://forums.civfanatics.com/resources/civ4-beyond-the-sword-v3-17-patch-pc.9800/ I have updated the article. Samboy (talk) 06:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mesoamerica 

message: It says Xerxes is a leader of Persia. He isn't in the game.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.157.170.117 (talk) 01:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xerxes? 

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) 12:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing Civ Tables/Trivial Lists 

message: Should Fall from Heaven should have its own page, like Rhye's and Fall? I think it is a great mod, much deserving of its own page. Anyone agree? Willbat (talk) 04:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fall from Heaven? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Civilization IV: Beyond the Sword. 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/20100104115230/http://www.firaxis.com/games/game_detail.php?gameid=16 to http://www.firaxis.com/games/game_detail.php?gameid=16
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100110092830/http://videogames.yahoo.com/pc/sid-meiers-civilization-iv-beyond-the-sword/review-523931-2 to http://videogames.yahoo.com/pc/sid-meiers-civilization-iv-beyond-the-sword/review-523931-2
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)