Talk:Civilization V: Gods & Kings

Release date?
I had checked in New Zealand source and the date will be released on May 25, 2012. ApprenticeFan work 03:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Says 'estimated date' and retail sites are notoriously unreliable in this regard. -Oosh (talk) 05:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Another source has a release date on March 30, 2012 as for the pre-order in the UK.  ApprenticeFan  work 04:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Now you have two contradictory unreliable sources. -Oosh (talk) 08:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I live in the UK, I have pre-ordered the expansion pack from www.gamefly.co.uk. They say it will be downloadable on the 16th Romping Cloud (talk) 12:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Gamefly now say the pack will be available on the 21st. Romping Cloud (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Religion and Espionage Sections
I have to disagree about these two sections being gamecruft and being removed. One, they did not go into excessive detail at all (at only 3-4 sentences, a short overview of how they function, and nothing specific that can remotely resemble a strategy guide or manual). Two, both are primary selling points for the expansion, so a discussion of them individually is called for and there's nothing so similar between them to warrant they be combined into one section). Third, the descriptions also focused on the new way that both features have been implemented and how it differs from past games (customizable religions, spies not built, spies gaining levels). Fourth, both features and how they function have been a major focus of every 3rd party source we have on the expansion establishing notability. So really, stop being overzealous on this gamecruft thing. These two sections did not meet the requirements. I do not think there's any reason to expand them past what they currently are, but they do not need to be reduced.Flygongengar (talk) 18:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I personally think they fall afoul of the following:
 * Lists of gameplay items, weapons, or concepts. Specific point values, achievements and trophies, time-limits, levels, character moves, character weight classes, and so on are considered inappropriate. Sometimes a concise summary is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry.
 * What essential encyclopaedic knowledge was missing from the previous cut-down entry? Because all I see now is the re-addition of lists. -Oosh (talk) 23:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Where does it state anything that can be considered "Specific point values, achievements and trophies, time-limits, levels, character moves, character weight classes, and so on are considered inappropriate"? It doesn't. And there's a difference between just listing concepts in a game and talking about two new concepts/mechanics which are the primary selling points and additions of an expansion, nor were the two mechanics similar enough (or at all) to warrant combination. As I said, both sections are substantially talked about by 3rd party sources, and the descriptions primarily state how they function differently than past games. Gamecruft is a matter of detail, point 2 "Saying that a character can jump, shoot, and drop bombs is helpful to understand the game, but avoid explaining button combinations or cheat codes." There's nothing in the entries that say how to play the game, or specifics akin to a strategy guide. Plus, Discussion by outside sources establishes a degree of notability and trumps most guidelines. There are examples of cheat codes, and button combinations which are notable enough and have articles on wiki. I'm not going to stay arguing about this, though. If you want to remove them, go ahead, however I still don't think they violate gamecruft or that it's the right call.Flygongengar (talk) 15:51, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. Sfoske70 (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. My vote also goes to keep. I consider a list of new empires and leaders important information in an encyclopedia article about a Civilization expansion pack.  Civilizations leaders and nations can have a very considerable impact on the game.  New leaders is always a big change and should definitely be listed out.  Likewise the religion and espionage features are a very new (for CivV at least) and one of the main selling points of the expansion.


 * Note: My argument/vote is only valid for this article. I know a similar argument is going on in Talk:Civilization V. Zell Faze (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I got reverted and pointed to here... What is the benefit of flooding your articles with pointless templates? Does no one actually write this encyclopedia for the reader anymore? Looking at some of the edits by revert warriors in the page history of both this article and its parent, it seems some sort of wierd game is being played here by you Wikipedians. I'll leave you too it, sorry for trying to improve the page for readers. :\ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.6.105.188 (talk) 08:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

New information and update
I read the new update on this article and now includes Theodora of Byzantines as the leader. ApprenticeFan work 16:34, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * For Hunnic Empire haven't any chance than leader as Attila the Great, capital as Itil, unique unit as Alps (plural of Alp, means The Great Warriors), religion as Tengriism--95.58.118.3 (talk) 23:21, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

No info regarding the Hun cities, uniques, or leader has been given. Yes, most likely it will be Atilla, but until it is officially revealed in an interview, press release, or screenshot it can't be added to the chart. Aslo, Itil was the capital of the Khazars, not the Huns. The seat of the Huns was around Partiscum/Szeged.207.237.208.153 (talk) 21:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

PAX
There's a lot of new info confirmed at PAX (Austria, info concerning the Huns, etc.). I'm not sure how to source conference presentations or internet streams, however the info is valid to add to the article.Flygongengar (talk) 18:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I added a source that includes a link to a recording of a PAX interview.Flygongengar (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Still a Stub?
I was wondering if the article now has too much information to become a stub. Sfoske70 (talk) 01:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

No it's not. --Niemti (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)