Talk:Civilization IV: Beyond the Sword

Units and misleading cover?
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)


 * I don't have the expansion, but I think those units are from a scenario. Professor Chaos (talk) 06:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Correct -- the assault mech is playable via the Next War mod or scenario. Jkp1187 (talk) 22:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

New civilizations
As i did commented on the previous expansion, it's glad to see the Netherlands are coming back =), i just guessing who will be the leader, might be William of Orange? as in Civilization III Conquests? .. perhaps yes, maybe not. Just time or any spies over there will answer those questions, and about that commentary of racism towards poland i think that is out of place, hey folks this is just a game. If one civilization is not included on the expansion that doesn't mean sid is making some sort of bias, however it is always fun to find new civs time to time. --HappyApple 19:23, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I really hope he include Polynesia and Ethiopia personally. I actually think Polynesia may be possible because one of the new wonders is the Easter Island statues. By the way what are the references for the Sioux being included, if it is only the screenshot on the their website it could just as easily by the Iroquois (and I personally hope so). The Iroquois are the closest thing to Canada that will (and after all, within reason should) be in civilization. Poland and Hungary would also be cool but they already have enough eurocivs. :)


 * i think that the Sioux are only included because Sitting Bull (who is their most famous leader) is one of the new leaders. However i don't think it's safe to assume that means the Sioux are one of the new civs and i'll prob take it out (since it is OR) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harlock jds (talk • contribs) 11:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC).


 * The Sioux are being taken in together with the Iroquois and others as a united Native Americans Civilization, I believe. Since nothing has been officially declared at this point, I'm switching the civilization to Unknown, unless someone provides a proof. Sabre 17:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * looking at the offical firaxis site for the game (http://www.firaxis.com/games/game_detail.php?gameid=16) they say

Leaders such as Hammurabi of the Babylonians, Abraham Lincoln of the United States, and Sitting Bull of the Native Americans will provide the player with even more choices on who they want to play.

that seems to me to be a clear sign that they are going to have a generic Native American civ for Sitting Bull to be leader of. I'm going to go ahead and add this in, if someone thinks it is too big of a leap of faith put a note here and delete it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Harlock jds (talk • contribs) 00:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC).


 * I believe the New Leaders section should include only leaders for existing civilizations, since new civilizations are already covered. Proceeding to delete Hammurabi and Sitting Bull from New Leaders. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sabretooth (talk • contribs) 17:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC).


 * i disagree mainly because it assumes that all the new civs will only have one leader (and that may not be the case). I think it would be better to remove the Leader Traits and Favored Civic from the New civilizations and list them in the New leaders but i'll wait for more feedback before making the switch. Harlock jds 17:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you're right, maybe. My line of development stems from the Warlords page, which I designed myself. It would be better if all the Civ IV pages were in a similar template.


 * agreed i was going to check the other pages and see what template they used. If this page matches the warlords and civ IV template then i have no problem keeping it as it is .Harlock jds 11:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Now it's official, William of orange is the leader of the dutch in this expansion.HappyApple 15:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Charles de Gaulle
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).
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Queen Boudica
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)


 * it's already in the article Harlock jds 11:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It should have been Micheal Collins as the new leader of the Celts.

Cleanup
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Table?
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

Corporations
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)


 * I agree that the links should be removed.Sneakyhomunculus 11:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"Colonies splitting from their motherland to form new civilizations"
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)


 * 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)

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

Schafer says "not technically Ninjas". He has not denied the presence of Ninjas. Sabre 04:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

There are tons of ninjas in the game! (They're just so ninja-like that you haven't even noticed them)--72.67.9.126 22:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

WW II
"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)

With Warlords
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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)


 * According to this thread on the Civfanatics forums, the Warlords civs are included. --Nucleusboy 17:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 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)

Just to clarify, I bought Beyond the Sword and didn't buy Warlords, and it works just fine. From what I can see, BtS has almost completely destroyed any need to buy warlords now, since it includes near everything it had. The only thing I see missing are the scenarios. Should we include some sort of info that BtS contains all the stuff Warlords had? I'd assume some people would be checking the wikipedia article if they're just getting into Civ IV, and planning on buying it with the expansions. It would help people to save some money. - August 23rd 2007, 7:34 PM [Central] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)


 * 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)

African Civ
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)

Aggressive/Protective
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)

Inclusion of "controversey" section
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.  This has led some fans to criticize the developers with the allegation of bad history.

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)


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Confusing Information on New Scenarios
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)

Colors in Tables
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)
 * 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&#39;s Revenge 14:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Only 11 scenarios not 12
People, I'm getting tired of fixing this time and time again. I know earlier sources noted 12 new scenarios including among thing a Chaos scenario, but the official site is clear. There will only be 11 new scenarios and no Superrobo or Chaos scenarios. Instead a CIV Defense scenario has been included. Please don't change it back to 12.

Gold Edition?
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)


 * No information about a possible Gold Edition has yet been released. Sneakyhomunculus 15:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)


 * 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)

About the article.
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)


 * 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)

PAL release dates
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)


 * 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)

CivV?
Any word yet on Civilization V? The Rypcord. 13:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You will know it when take two announces.--SkyWalker 15:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)

Screenshots, anyone?
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)
 * 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)
 * 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 Non-free game screenshot, and provide an accompanying fair use rationale. --YbborTalk 01:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * A screenshot of a new unit, such as paratroppers, might be good. Miles Blues 16:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

"Native America"
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)
 * 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)

Stand-alone expansion pack?
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) You need to buy the civilization iv first - Thekidz2237 (talk) 02:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Graphics
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)

Mac Port
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)


 * 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)

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

rhye.civfanatics.net
I recently removed links to this site added by the site-owner

This issue spans Wikipedias in multiple languages so there's a discussion underway on Meta-Wiki with the owner of this site at the bottom of this page:
 * meta:User:COIBot/XWiki/rhye.civfanatics.net

Given the history discussed there, neither the site-owner, IPs nor new user accounts should add these links or write about these mods in article space since it's against our Conflict of Interest Guideline). If established editors wish to add neutral material about the owner or his products, that's OK. Any material should cite references that meet the requirements of our No Original Research, Reliable Sources and Verifiability standards.

It's also OK for the owner to discuss suggested changes on article talk pages, as long as he/she isn't just nagging for inclusion (see WP:CANVASS).

If you want to comment on this post, it would probably be best to leave any remarks at the link above, not here, since this discussion spans multiple articles. I think that if you're already signed in on this Wikipedia, leaving a post there will automatically set up an account there for you there but I'm not sure -- you might want to make a sandbox edit there first to be sure. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 12:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Temporarily removed material
I temporarily removed this material from the modding section:


 * In general, with the exception of Final Frontier, the "external mods" (official mods originally made by users, instead of by Firaxis) had the best reception: "Rounding out BtS is a selection of mods and scenarios. Some are the best of the mod scene, others Firaxis designs. Sadly for Firaxis, it's the already existing mods that shine - the excellent fantasy-set Fall from Heaven, the intriguing, history-following Rhye's and Fall of Civilizations, and WWII: The Road to War.


 * For example, Rhye's and Fall of Civilization was defined "one of the most exciting and robust mods you'll ever see for any game" in Yahoo! Games review, and "a fresh new coat of paint to the core Civilization gameplay" in the Gamespot one.. French magazine Cyberstratège reckoned it the best of the scenarios released in Beyond the Sword, assigning the best mark (9 of out 10) among them.

It had several edits by Rhye's site-owner and IPs embedded in it and I was unsure how to separate them out without screwing up the section. Established, neutral editors are welcome to work on this and then add it back. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 12:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I also temporarily removed these paragraphs:


 * Rhye's and Fall of Civilization
 * Another improved and updated favorite among fans' mods for Civilization IV that revolves around the re-enacting of history on Earth, guiding your game through an alternative, but still realistic history, unique every game you play.
 * The most important concept behind the mod is that civilizations don't start all at the beginning of the game, but appear at different times. For instance, picking the Arabs, the game will autoplay until 620 AD, when the player will take control and find a world that may have developed in an unpredictable way.


 * Dynamic rise and fall of civilizations, stability management (unstable empires will risk secessions and civil wars), plague, world congresses, customized AI, unique civilization powers and world wars are the most prominent and innovative features of this mod.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am going to add the name (and only the name) back in the list so we have a complete list of the new scenarios included in the game. We can work on a less 'tainted' description. harlock_jds (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds good, thanks. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * no problem I agree the description was a bit over the top in uncited 'floweryness' and needed to be toned down a bit. I went back to 2007 and copied that description (with a few changes) to useharlock_jds (talk) 02:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This is perfectly fine for me. I added a longer description because that was the scenario with the shorter one (1 line) while others have a more detailed one.
 * I would re-add the following lines for completeness:


 * Dynamic rise and fall of civilizations, stability management, plague, world congresses, customized AI, unique civilization powers and world wars are the most prominent and innovative features of this mod.[5]


 * Rhye20 (talk) 11:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * All of that sounds too much like marketing talk for my taste. The only scenarios with a long description is the Fall from Heaven one and that's just world background (ok Afterworld may need a bit of trimming too). Personally i think the current description is enough and more detailed info could go into a separate article about the mod.harlock_jds (talk) 11:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, it does sound like marketing talk, but that doesn't seem much different from the other mods, especially Fall from Heaven which is given extensive space in the article. Besides the conflict of interest in the mod author writing the description I see no other valid reason for cutting down mention of this mod so substantially.  I will work on writing new language.  KPalicz (talk) 14:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * i looked at cutting the Fall from Heaven description down but i really couldn't see a way of doing it unless we just totally wanted to remove the description of the setting (which is what makes it so long it's got a much more involved setting than the other mods). I don't mind the length but it was the overly flowery and redundant descriptions (things like 'unique every game you play'. What game of Civ isn't unique every time you play?) that bugged me. harlock_jds (talk) 14:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Parity is important, but beefing up one entry seems preferable over cutting down another. I took out some of the more obviously flowery language (I hope) from my revision, I hope it works.  Plus I added something about the Road to War which is the other notable fan-mod included in BTS.  Having the three of them all listed I think is well balanced.  FFH still is a bit more wordy and flowery overall I think, but it looks far more balanced now. KPalicz (talk) 03:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Mesoamerica
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)
 * 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)

Xerxes?
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)

Removing Civ Tables/Trivial Lists
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 to see if we can't reach a consensus.-Oosh (talk) 12:14, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Fall from Heaven?
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)

External links modified (January 2018)
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)