Talk:Age of Empires III/Archive 4

Added new screenshots....
Hey I just though the article could do with more representations of the different types of battles and weaponary in the game. I added some naval and artillery screenshots, as well as one to show the shadowing effects (esp. at night time).

If there are any problems please notify me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Someguy12 (talk • contribs).

Known issues
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 or reinstall DirectX9 completely.
 * --Ck l o stsw o rd|queta!|Suggestions? 13:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

AOE3
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)

Units of Age of Empires III
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)

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

Yes, your observation is correct, there is a historical error; but please note that this error has already been identified and that on the upper part of the talk page the list of historical errors can be found, which has been eventually deleted from the article; the list, for you to look at it easilly, is the following:

Errors and Discrepancies

Janissaries are portrayed in the game as bearded, although in reality they were banned from wearing beards. Clicking on the top right corner of the stats screen of a Janissary recognizes that they were not allowed to grow beards.

In the campaign, Natives taken captive are portrayed as Incans in Florida. However, the Incans originate from South America.[1]

The leader of the British civilization is Queen Elizabeth I; however, the Kingdom of Great Britain did not come into existence until over a century after her death.

The game confuses gunpowder with trinitrotoluene (TNT) several times, and the use of the latter is expressed before its supposed invention date. This is evident during in-game cinematics throughout the game.

St. Petersburg is portrayed as the main port of Russia. However, St. Petersburg was constructed during the reign of Peter the Great, not while Ivan the Terrible was in power.

The events of the Single Player Campaign begin in 1565, when the Ottoman Turks attack Malta. Therefore, Morgan Black could not have encountered the Aztec Empire, which had fallen in 1521.

Also in the Campaign, in the third act Amelia Black has to help Simon Bolivar gain independence for Latin America from Imperial Spain. However, Simon Bolivar died in 1830 and we are told that the third act begins just after the American Civil War, which ended in 1865.

The Doppelsöldner is a standard infantry unit while the Landsknecht is presented as an elite mercenary unit. However, Doppelsöldners were Landsknechts paid double for fighting on the front lines of combat. Clicking on the top right corner of the stats screen of a Doppelsöldner recognizes that they were elite Landsknechts. However, Doppelsoldner do, in fact, cost 200 resource units each as opposed to the 100 gold cost of Landsknecht units. They are also much stronger after their upgrades, while the Landsknecht units have no upgrades.

Hussite war wagons would be heavily anachronistic in a game that starts in the 16th century.

The dog soldiers were an elite warrior society of the Cheyenne tribe, which occasionally made alliances with the Lakota, but were not a part of them. Yet a dog soldier is featured as a "Lakota Dog Soldier" in Age of Empires III. Clicking on the top right corner of the stats screen of a dog soldier recognizes that they were part of the Cheyenne tribe, but most players do not read this.

The Seminole tribe, mostly of Creek tribal descent, did not exist prior to the 18th century. Tribes that inhabited Florida prior to that included numerous Timucuan tribes as well as the Ais, Calusa, Tequesta, Tocobaga, Mayaimi, Apalachee, and Jaega (among others).

Cherokee villages are seen as consisting of wigwams and longhouses. However, that is not their traditional pre-contact housing and structures. Their traditional homes were wattle and daub square or rectangular with thatched flat roofs, either an earthen or wattle and daub circular "winter"/"hot" house with a conical roof and thick mud walls they'd use during the cold winter, a large heptagon council house with a slight conical roof on a mound, and the village surrounded by palisades. Likewise, Seminole villages are consisted of wigwams when in fact they lived in chickees.

When accessing the French civilization section of the Age of Empires III Official Website,[2] a date reads "23-8-45", supposedly signed by Napoleon. However, Napoleon was not alive in either 1745 nor 1845.

The game recognises dragoons as a ranged cavalry; however, the correct meaning would be an infantry unit that travelled on horseback and normally dismounted when fighting.

The flag for the Ottoman Empire is actually the flag for modern day Turkey and is therefore different from the historical flag.

The leader of the Spanish civilization in Age of Empires III is Queen Isabella of Castile who died in 1504, even though Spain wasn't a nation until 1516. The first king of Spain was Charles I of Spain (Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor).

The leader of the French civilization in Age of Empires III is Napoleon, however it was Louis XIV who oversaw the greatest expansion of France into the New World. In fact, Napoleon actually sold French Louisiana to America and therefore brought about an end to New France.

The Native American scouts given to the French at the beginning of the game almost always seem to be lost. For example, Inuits have been given to the French even while playing the Great Lakes map.

The maps sometimes seem to be incorrect, for example, the Great Lakes map has a circular lake with an island in the middle, more similar to Crater Lake than any of the five actual Great Lakes.

The game ends in the late 19th century, but still includes the civilizations Aztec, Maya and Inca, which had been annihilated in the 16th century. The expansion adds the Aztec as a playable civilization.

The flag for the French should be the modern one, seeing as it was when Napoleon ruled.

The Portuguese leader Henry the Navigator lived 1394-1460 the game is set from 1500 to 1850 though.

In the Russian home city (St Petersberg), one of the buildings is St Basil's Cathedral, which is actually in Moscow

The Ottoman empire played little to no role in the colonization of the Americas.

The Germans played a small role in trying to colonize Venezuela but ultimately failed, yet are featured in the game as if they were major players. Other nationalities that played small roles, whether successful or not, were the Swedes, Danes, Scottish, Welsh, and Courland but are not featured in the game.

--TomasBat 23:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Very strange
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)

Did anyone else notice that the campaign is run a lot like in Warcraft III? --Krolm 18:14, 11 January 2007

Home city
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)

The highest I've seen is 106, but I don't know from there. | A ndonic O Talk 20:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The highest I have seen is 128, but I do not know from there...

--TomasBat 01:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

THE HIGHEST I HAVE SEEN IS 198 .....


 * Really? On ESO? · AO Talk 23:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Jon Armor Mode
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)Jon Armor Mode

Image Upload
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)


 * Answered on talk page. | A ndonic O Talk · Sign Here 14:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Please help! I need someone to complete the summary for an image which I uploaded and is in this article; if this summary box is not completed within 48 hours, it wil be deleted.

PlEASE SEE MY TALK PAGE FOR MORE INFORMATION!!!

--TomasBat (Talk) 01:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please upload this image for me, since I just cannot do it well?

C:\Documents and Settings\Jose y Valeria\My Documents\My Pictures\Tokxatron\Politicians AoE3.jpg

I would greatly appreciate any help... --TomasBat (Talk) 01:18, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Prose, tables and lists
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)


 * I agree completly. I'll help too. (the Warchiefs article is even worse!) | A ndonic O</b> Talk · Sign Here 18:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Images
In the article, we now have several fair use (ie. copyrighted) screenshots. WP:CVG states that there can only be two or three fair-use images in each game article. Therefore, we need some sort of consensus on what to include. Of course, the cover is necessary, but to the rest of the images (including a large number of flags that could perhaps be produced in copyright-free user-made versions), I believe that some consensus should be provided as to what should stay and what should go. The images are:

I say we discuss there inclusion in the article...

--TomasBat (Talk) 20:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Image:*country* aoe3 flag.gif restore previous version &mdash; I went through the same thing on the ZH wiki... these shouldn't be there, as they probably also count towards our fair-use limit. Can we please restore the images we had before? Most (or all) of them were taken from the commons, as it should be...


 * Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg, Image: NonFreeImageRemoved.svg pick one &mdash; The other is extra to me... also, I don't even recognize the Ottoman HC... is that Warchiefs?

'The Ottoman Home-City is not from The Warchiefs''. --TomasBat (Talk) 12:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)'''


 * Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg no comment &mdash; I'm partial to this one, because it looks nice, and does show the actual variety of units available on aoe3... do a collage of images go against fair-use? Not sure about that one :) Kareeser|Talk! 06:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have deleted the images listed as delete above and restored the copyright-free images from before...didn't realise they were there or would have removed sooner. I can't decide whether to keep or delete the 'units' image, since I uploaded it and am therefore biased. Someone else will have to do that! However, we now only have 3 fair-use images in the article, so unless improved versions of images are uploaded, it is probably unecessary to delete any more images at the moment. ck lostsword|queta!|Suggestions? 13:56, 28 January

2007 (UTC)

We should also comply with the fair use images per article criteria in the Age of Empires III: The Warchiefs article; it contains about 6 fair use images (of which 3 are flags). --TomasBat (Talk) 12:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

We have had to delete some fair-use images due to the fair use images per article criteria, which states that only 2 or 3 fair use images are permited in an article; but I have recently been looking at other video-game articles and have found quite a lot of articles which have got more than 3 fair use images... So, the fulfilment of this criteria should also be enforced in these other articles or we should just make exceptions...

Articles with more than 3 fair-use images are the following:


 * Age of Empires


 * Age of Empires III: The Warchiefs


 * Spore (video game)


 * SimCity 4

It seams to me as if we are the only ones following this criteria and that this criteria is only enforced in this article...

--TomasBat (Talk) 02:45, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The pictures you uploaded are quite exceptional. However, rules are rules. If you have a problem with other games' use of fair-use images, then take it up there, not here. Kareeser|Talk! 20:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you... But in the WP:CVG, it states that fair-use images much not exceed but does not establish a concrete limit (2, 3, 4 fair-use video-game images per article); for someone, not too many fair-use images could be 3, and for another one, it could be 4, etc.

Note: If the concrete limit is formally stated, then please notify me...

--TomasBat (Talk) 21:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I have Replaced the Landsnench image with a more usefull image depicting the real-physics engine in action; I believe that this does not break the fair-use liscence agreement since I am only replacing an existent image with another one and,henceforth, keping the numebr of fair use images inthe article exactly the same. TomasBat  ( @ )  ( Contributions )  ( Sign! ) 13:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I replaced the 'home cities' image and the 'montage' image with new ones to accurately reflect the detail that the graphics engine can generate when put the max settings. -Giligone - March 21, 2007

They look good... Well done! TomasBat  ( @ )  ( Contribs )  ( Sign! ) 22:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

GA on hold: Age of Empires III
Some issues I have with this before I can pass it as a GA, most formatting and info hierarchy: Dåvid Fuchs ( talk / contribs ) 00:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I oppose to the creation of a sub-article for just gameplay. --TomasBat (Talk) 02:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I concur. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 07:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine to me. Also getting rid of the tables would help too. Dåvid Fuchs ( talk / contribs ) 22:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Do it, then. :) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 03:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The changes have been done! --TomasBat (Talk) 03:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks a lot better, nice work —Disavian (talk/contribs) 14:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

David Fuchs, do you have any more suggestions? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 23:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * I think all the changes in the to-do list box have been done know... --TomasBat (Talk) (Sign) 18:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've cleared the todo list accordingly. :) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, lets wait for what Dåvid Fuchs says... --TomasBat (Talk) (Sign) 19:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. It's up to him, after all. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 19:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I left him a message on his talk-page... --TomasBat (Talk) (Sign) 19:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)

just checking
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)

You are correct, Manor-Houses spawn only one villager and cost more wood (135); but please note that by giving out this information we are giving outjust too much details to the occasional reader and the table heading says Main-Bonus. Also, there used to be a more complete table, but it was just too detailed and was, eventually, removed... --TomasBat (Talk) 01:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Question
Are you tring to get this to FA? · A ndonic O  <sup style="color:DarkSlateGray;">Talk  21:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * (Purely personally), ultimately yes. ck lostsword|queta!|Suggestions? 21:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. --TomasBat (@) (Sign) 00:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll help a bit if you'd like. · A ndonic O  <sup style="color:DarkSlateGray;">Talk  15:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 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! · A ndonic O  <sup style="color:DarkSlateGray;">Talk  19:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

All details for the campaign are in it´s main article. --TomasBat (@) (Sign) 19:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 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. · A ndonic O  <sup style="color:DarkSlateGray;">Talk  19:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure about it? --TomasBat (@) (Sign) 19:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * 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. · A ndonic O  <sup style="color:DarkSlateGray;">Talk  19:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Home-Cities Section
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)


 * 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. · A ndonic O  <sup style="color:DarkSlateGray;">Talk  15:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, your changes are fine! Thanks for helping on that section! --TomasBat (@) (Sign) 16:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Outline review
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? · <b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:black; font-size:x-small;">AO</b> <sup style="color:DarkSlateGray;">Talk 12:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur; I will see if I can help... TomasBat  (@)  (Sign) 01:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Should this bulleted list which appears in the Home-Cities section be changed to text?

TomasBat  ( @ )  ( Contributions )  ( Sign! ) 13:52, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, and the one about Rushing, Booming, and Turtling as well. · <b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:black; font-size:x-small;">AO</b> <sup style="color:DarkSlateGray;">Talk 20:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

An this one too or not?

♠  TomasBat   ( @ )  ( Contribs )  ( Sign! ) 20:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep - IMO, only keep the civ list in a table. ck lostsword|queta!|Suggestions? 21:02, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd agree to that. · <b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:black; font-size:x-small;">AO</b> <sup style="color:DarkSlateGray;">Talk 23:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The changes have been done. ♠  TomasBat   ( @ )  ( Contribs )  ( Sign! ) 20:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Civilisation summaries in Campaign
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)


 * 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. · <b style="font-family:Papyrus; color:black; font-size:x-small;">AO</b> <sup style="color:DarkSlateGray;">Talk 11:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Done ck lostsword|queta!|Suggestions? 18:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

ACID?
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * I suppose you both have certainly got a point now... What should I do? Can I withdraw the nomination from WP:ACID? Or should I better wait until it is disqualified (apparantly, will disqualify very soon...)? ♠  TomasBat   ( @ )  ( Contribs )  ( Sign! ) 21:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * May as well withdraw the nomination with a brief explanation in the edit summary. ck lostsword|queta!|Suggestions? 21:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)

Civilizations Table
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)


 * Add the name of the leader underneath the name of the Civ (in the same block); replace bonus with description. :) Gold  fritter  17:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with goldfritter - makes good sense. ck lostsword|queta!|Suggestions? 22:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, then lets get to it! ♠  Tom   @  s   Bat   22:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 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   @  s   Bat   16:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 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   @  s   Bat   01:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Good work on this section. However, it does seem slightly WP:NPOV. Please either reference or rewrite. ck lostsword|queta!|Suggestions? 22:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 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   @  s   Bat   23:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 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...  Gold  fritter  16:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I´m glad you edited it... I felt a bit lost and, also, I was more focused on other matters here on Wikiepdia... ♠  Tom   @  s   Bat   20:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Mercenaries
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... :) Gold  fritter  17:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)


 * Done. Thanks! Gold  fritter  17:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, Goldfritter, I had added that phrase and I didn´t note that it was to detailed, to game-guide (as you said); so... Thanks for fixing it! It looks better now! =) ♠   Tom   @  s   Bat   22:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Second Image
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)

Age of Empires III Review - User:Lethaniol and User:AndyZ/peerreviewer
The part that indicates that each civilization has a difficulty rating is incorrect. As in any online game there are constant updates to maintain balance among the civilizations. Also since the game is constantly updated and therefore changed, you cannot use the original manual as a reliable source of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.146.227 (talk) 10:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC) Hi everyone I have been asked by User:TomasBat to undertake a review of this article, to help give you some ideas on how to improve and help get it to Featured Article status. Note that I think this is already an excellent article, and that really it just requires tidying up and other small improvements. Note also I know nothing about this game (though it does sound cool), and though I have played computer games extensively I will try to bring an outside perspective of the article, and so help pick up anyway jargon/inconsistencies that might otherwise be missed. To start off with I have run an automated peer review that may highlight some issues. Note not all these issues may be relevant as this is review in generated by a BOT:

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. End of automated review.
 * Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at 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 Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006.[?]
 * Per Manual of Style (headings), avoid using special characters (ex: &+{}[]) in headings.
 * Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: honour (B) (American: honor), organize (A) (British: organise), criticise (B) (American: criticize), ization (A) (British: isation),  aging (A) (British:  ageing).
 * Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
 * While additive terms like “also”, “in addition”, “additionally”, “moreover”, and “furthermore” may sometimes be useful, overusing them when they aren't necessary can instead detract from the brilliancy of the article. This article has 29 additive terms, a bit too much.
 * 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.”
 * As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space in between. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2][?]
 * 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.[?]

Right I will spend the next few days adding my comments as I think them up. Thanks, and good luck User:Lethaniol 15:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) I would not wikilink to the disambiguation pages RTS or RPG instead use RTS and RPG . Have changed the first instances in the open paragraph but needs to be changes throughout article.
 * 2) Also for not computer game player RTS means nothing, better to expand the acronym the first time it used, again as I have done in the introduction.
 * 3) Synopsis section needs some work. Although mentioned in Introduction a mention here that this is based on the colonisation of the New World - at the start of this section would help. Also needs some tidying up/condensing e.g. There are two main branches to game play, the nation's military and economy, and winning a battle depends on a mastery of both of these. does not read well, and the use of the word skirmishes is confusing - what does it mean to a non-gamer (also it seems like a game specific term).
 * 4) Campaign - the name of the family and the names of the Acts too specific, maybe better just to say - during campaign mode the player follows a family through three generations with a specific story line - or something like that.
 * 5) Mutliplayer section – have linked to multiplayer, condense ranking system to basics if possible. What does home city level mean? Citation for connection speed needed. Link to website needed. Do not need CD key info, suffice to say that each copy of Age of Empires III does not allow multiple accounts or user name changes.
 * 6) Setting, change his/her to their (throughout article). Added wikilink to HP. Please use one style of quotation marks e.g. “Unkown”. This section contains a lot of in game jargon e.g. Wood, Coin, Food, seeded - that either need wikilinks to concepts, explanations or removal. Suggest condensing this section.
 * 7) Ages section to game specific, try to simplfy to general concepts especially the last paragraph.
 * 8) Civilisations section. I am not sure people will be that interested in the Main Bonus part of the table, maybe change it to pre-named wikilinked leader and if available a summary of this civilisation from the game.
 * 9) Home cities – need to emphasis that this part of the game is retained between actually play, and can lead to between game development and improved long term gameplay.
 * 10) Units – too much description of how explorer can be developed. Suffice they can be developed. Paragraphs too short – need to flow better with better prose
 * 11) Building section – this is a good section that should be used as a model for the Units section. No fancruft, description enough with good examples. Note might want to mention (in one sentence) what building do – e.g. allow use of certain resources or training of troops.
 * 12) Development – sort out use of Italics – should computer games titles be italiced – most likely yes – then do throughout the whole article. Add link to Mac OS X and PC. Add links to New England and Texas states. Need citation for criticism - otherwise remove. Add link to where to find patches.
 * 13) Reception – need citations for reviews, have added fact tags to remind people
 * 14) Wikilinks - remember to wikilink to gaming concepts that the average Joe won't know. Also make sure you link to the page you are interested in not the WP:DAB page.
 * Generally having spent a hour reading this - there is a little too much fancruft. There is a difficult balance to be made - putting enough info in to give the reader an idea of gameplay with a few real examples that make sense if you have not played games - without putting too much specific information about individual items. People should concentrate on description of the concepts not the individual attributes e.g. the explorer is used to search/scout out the map with some tactical functions (do not really need to explain the details much further- though can give interesting examples such a air balloon to allow quicker/further exploration). Note the Settler section is perfect it giving the concept and a few examples without going into too much depth. This is real difficult - good luck. Cheers Lethaniol 14:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I added a few details to some sections, while trying take take these considerations into account.
 * This is one of my favorite games and I may come back to this article and add further details and topics, but I don't want to add anything irrelevant to a Wiki article.
 * If you have any ideas for useful and informative sections please add them below. 142.139.0.69 (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Proofread Multiplayer section
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)  comment added by Retro2 (talk • contribs)00:19, 3 April 2008

Reception section
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: 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)
 * 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
 * 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)

Images (Again)
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 I'll upload an example of the latter image later. ck lostsword|queta!|Suggestions? 21:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * Starcraft has also got 5 fair-use images, and its an Fa... ♠  Tom   @  s   Bat   21:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * The images all look nice, but I still don´t quite really understand why we´re comparing graphics... ♠  Tom   @  s   Bat   01:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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   @  s   Bat   16:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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   @  s   Bat   21:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)

In the article Game Revolution said you can't rotate the camara, Well you can! With ctrl left/right arrow.

Spoiler
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)
 * 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)
 * Spoiler: No. spoiler 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)

Cookies Section
Someone better at wikicode than I should add a section for little cookies in the game. Here's one to get you started: The Explorer dog when dead has this text above him: "Horatio, I am dead.  Thou livest.  Report me and my cause aright to the unsatisfied." This is in reference to Hamlet's last words to trusted Horatio in Shakespeare's play.

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

Havok is not a game engine
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)
 * You're correct on that: it shouldn't be there. Feel free to remove it yourself. · AndonicO Talk 13:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Wikiquote
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)
 * Hmm. There are a lot of unnecessary/trivial quotes there... · AndonicO Talk 00:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Campaign
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) ANSWER! 138.217.145.45 (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Flag of the Ottomans
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)
 * 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  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:navy;">Hail!  12:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I can't tell any difference, but I changed the flag to the one in the lead here. · AndonicO  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:navy;">Hail!  12:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. &mdash; talk § _<b style="color:#FF0000">Ars</b><b style="color:#FFFFFF;">eni</b><b style="color:#0077FF;">c99</b>_  15:16, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

AutoReview
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question. You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, The   Helpful   One  (Review) 21:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please expand the lead to conform with guidelines at 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 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 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.[?]

NAO not defined
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)

I have SVG version of the AoE3 Icon..
Could somebody please place the SVG AoE3 icon somewhere they feel appropriate:



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)


 * 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)
 * Nope, doesn't work that way; Ensemble (or Microsoft?) made it originally, they own the license. · AndonicO  Engage. 23:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Pictures
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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Alright, that would be okay. · AndonicO  Engage. 10:33, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

just added

 * 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)

2 or more teams?
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)

Image Mistake
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)Raven21niner

Image problems
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)

Blatant Vandalism
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)

Animated image
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)

Restoring 1 of the images
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)

Australia?
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)

I know, Captain Cook finding Australia and the First Fleet in a campaign. I mean like a campaign dedicated to Malta? Nearly no one knows about Malta. Just imagine a cinematic of Captain on the HMS Endeavor when one his men find Australia!

They could also include the American Civil War! Vpitt5 (talk) 00:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC)