Talk:Europa Barbarorum

Pictures
A moderator deleted all the pictures. =( Since he validated my pictures as fair use, I've decided to re-upload them. Intranetusa (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm a she actually and not a moderator/admin/sysop :). I don't know if you'll be watching my talk page so I thought my reasoning had best be here. An image that is captured in a game as a screenshot, is property of those who own the copyright, i.e. the maker of the game. So I changed the licensing to reflect that the images are non-free, meaning that they are copyrighted. This means we need to have a fair use rationale which is an explanation of why the image should be allowed under WP:NFCC policy. There are certain criteria that an image must abide by. The criteria that these images failed were, 3a, (minimal use of copyrighted material), 8, significance (each image must be significant in adding to a reader's understanding of the topic) and 10c, (a link to the article the image is used in). I haven't deleted the images, I've just removed them from this article. You can still find them by looking at a previous version of the page. If you click on each image, you will be able to change the information to make it compliant with wikipedia policy :). If you need any help, feel free to leave me a message at my talk page. Seraphim  Whipp 01:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm one of the directors of EB and we are fine with those images being used. Our members placed some of them on here in the first place. I personally created the map that was deleted, and our members created the unit textures and models. At the absolute minimum, the out-of-game images of the units are fine, along with the map, since they are 100% EB creations with nothing from the game (RTW) visible even. Overzealous interloper. - Teleklos Archelaou —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.172.118 (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, the great majority of the content in a screen would be copyrighted by EB, not CA, if I understand correctly. Only a few very minor things have not been replaced graphically. Either way, I see no reason why the map would be deleted, and should probably be re-added, as it is important to understanding the feel of the mod, and one of the important differences between RTW and EB. VIABellum (talk) 01:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Added EB pictures
These are 3 pictures I took while playing EB. Intranetusa 04:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Elite_Phalanx_Pic_wiki.jpg - EB battle action - Elite Seleucid Phalangites assaulting a city gate
 * Getai_General_wiki.jpg- Getai Cavalry General
 * Polybian_Rome_Carthage_wiki.jpg - EB battle action - Polybian era Rome vs Carthage spearmen

?
Can some one tell me which mod is better Europa Barbarorum or Rome total realism???

Does anyone elses game crash at the year 242BC??

Europa Barbaroum > RTR in realism, graphics, improved campaign AI, etc Intranetusa 04:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

User: Byzantine Dragon 10:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC) Europa Barbarorum wipes the floor with Total realism, although you could try both.

Second the game does crash occasionally, much the like the vanilla does The remedy is to a) if it crashed upon selecting tactical battle, simple redo the strategy (auto battle or change army composition etc) b) if it crashed when you click end turn just go back into the game and move some of the pieces around some more and hit next turn

C) If you have a save file just before the crash, send it in to the Modder to release a new patch

Yeah i think your right about EB being better than RTR but RTR runs way more smoothly and EB takes an age to load anything then it crashs etc it might be a better a mod and more historicaly accurate but i personally think RTR is better built as it doesnt seem to crash and takes less time to load. I have attempted about five full campaigns on EB and each time no matter what its crashed in the year 242BC so eventually i thought forget it i'll just play RTR.

EB is far superior. The only downsides are the longer loading times and the few occasional CTDs [Crash To Desktop]. Otherwise it is simply better, being more realistic and featuring much more original content (like music, graphics etc). Also, I've never had a crash on the year 242BC, so perhaps this was due to some problem with the Script in an earlier version? Maelkoch (talk) 14:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The CTD that you were talking about that happens in 242 BC could be one of these things:

1) Related with the Polybian reforms for the Romani (a scripted event that happens in 242 if certain conditions are fulfilled)

2) A corrupt install

3) A build pre-0.81a, I've come past 242 BC with no difficulties at all (in both 0.81 and 1.0) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elphir (talk • contribs) 22:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Elphir (23:29 GMT+1, 18 December 2007)

viruses
be careful which site you download it from, right now im digging through my computer looking for the trojan horses it caused.

I think ive heard of this before my computer recived a virus after i downloaded this and im sure it was trojan horse User: King Alaric

That is total malarky. Ask the tens of thousands of players - many hundreds of which you will find on either of the two big gaming forum that EB is located on - and they will let you know. There are zero risks in downloading the mod directly from the EB servers.

The so called virus was nothing more than a file that was detected as a virus by certain anti-virus programmes.

For more information on this matter I recommend consulting the forums on their website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.92.49.238 (talk) 16:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah after i downloaded EB my computer came down with trojan house and died on me im not saying it was EB just a possibility —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.81.182 (talk) 19:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I just downloaded it 2 days ago, and today I found a trojan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.246.159 (talk) 04:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the EB Team said on their forums that such virus reports were false positives (assuming you downloaded EB from a legitimate source - full list here for version 1.1). After having installed the mod, look here for official bugfixes and resolutions to common problems. It Is Me Here (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality
I have noticed that some people have simply copied sections of the www.europabarbarorum.com website into this article; this cannot happen, as the website has clearly been written in such a way as to sell/advertise the mod to others, and so the information in this article should be checked for neutrality.

It Is Me Here (talk) 08:48, 15 December 2007 (UTC)It Is Me Here

I agree that the article shouldn't feature material simply copied sections, and those should be rewritten (heck, I even might, if I'll find the time and no one else bothers). However, the closest thing to advertising that the text features are the 'more accurate/accurately' comments, and as far as I can see, those claims are true.

So, unless someone could point to some untrue/merely advertising claims, rather than descriptions of features in the mod (et cetera), it would seem that the text could simply have need to have portions of it rewritten... Anyone disagree? (I sometimes miss the most obvious stuff, so asking this...) Maelkoch (talk) 14:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I second Maelkoch. This shouldn't be some kind of advertising thing, it should be fan-written honest opinion, if people are interested in hearing the Team's advertising they can always go to the website.

Elphir 23:42 GMT+1, 18 December 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elphir (talk • contribs) 22:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

mAIOR I disagree. I don't see how this is not neutral. If it is copied, then that's because it must be the best way to represent game features. I'd only advise whoever wrote this article to remove the line regarding bonuses. But still, that's not very important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.137.24.80 (talk) 15:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The comment in Faction Changes that "fantasy" units are no longer present must be balanced by claims by more than one person on the mod's own forum that certain Celtic units, as well as much other conjecture on the Celtic factions, amounts to fantasy. I have noticed that some of this Europa Barbarorum material has leaked onto German Wikipedia's Celtic Warfare entry (Keltische Kriegführung - http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keltische_Kriegf%C3%BChrung) and caused trouble there, with the result that the entire entry was scheduled for complete revision (April 2008). This needs checking for neutrality, since it is currently a subject for debate among the modders themselves. Paul S (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

- Would the current text be considered acceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.90.17.189 (talk) 09:52, 13 June 2008

CTD
Anyone getting CTDs in around 219BC? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.51.129 (talk) 11:32, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

These are bugs in the RTW engine itself. Go to the offical RTW Europa Barbarorum forums for tech help and more info: http://forums.totalwar.org/vb/forumdisplay.php?f=70 Intranetusa (talk) 04:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Release history
I've consolidated and expanded on the sections about current and future releases, ending up with the "Release history" section (I nicked most of the formatting from the "Release history" section of the article about The GIMP). If anyone has any more information on release dates, smaller bugfixes, internal versions etc., please do add it! See this for more details. It Is Me Here (talk) 13:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Concerns
I see no citations, and although most of the information appears correct, some of it is clearly wrong: For instance, it currently states that in-game wonders directly affect lag. Someone more knowledgeable about this than I should really go in, add citations, and review the content.

>>query Where should such citations come from? this project is digital in entirity, the websites(plural) where it is discussed/developed, both homepage and various other website forums are digital, the project is not printed or distributed, other than digitally, so please, where do you want citations from?? barooca of the org - in no way "affiliated" with EB >>end query —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.92.185 (talk) 04:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi there, I moved this post further down the talk page so that it would be listed in the contents normally (you can use the + button to add a new post in future). Anyway, I am currently in the process of revamping the article somewhat. I have already added some external sources and will continue giving Europa Barbarorum a lick of paint - watch this space! When I am satisfied that I have done all that I wanted to do (for the time being, at least), I'll leave another note here, and probably run Europa Barbarorum through peer review to see where the article should go from here. It Is Me Here (talk) 11:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's already looking much better! Keep up the good work. The main challenge here is going to be referencing the information in the article. But if there's one comment I could offer, the release history should be trimmed and summarized as prose. Tables and lists of exhaustive releases are not really appropriate for Wikipedia (more for a game FAQ). You're better off saying something like "the original release featured X and Y, but by version 0.8 the team had expanded the mod to include Z." Anyway, I'm sure there will be time for more of that... in the meantime, do your best with what you can now. Randomran (talk) 06:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'm about 60% of the way through what I want to do now (at time of writing). I'd got the idea for the table (and nicked most of the formatting, if I'm honest) from here, or a very similar version of that page (I can't remember exactly when it was that I'd read that article). I thought that sort of layout would, in fact, be quite informative and easily accessible if filled out with enough information? It Is Me Here (talk) 12:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * We generally try to avoid these kinds of lists as per Embedded list. I suspect a peer review will tell you the same thing. But this isn't a pressing issue, and we can leave it until you actually file your peer review. Randomran (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Done! Feel free to comment over there as well! It Is Me Here (talk) 17:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

New factions
..are also: the Tribe of lusotanna in Spain, the Casse a tribe of Celts in Britannia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.149.177.161 (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Both Casse and Lusotannan are on the list. It Is Me Here (talk) 12:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

EB Member
Hi I'm an EB member and if there's any information or something you need (fact information, so it wouldn't bias the article) you can always talk to me or ask away on the talk page of this article. Grtz Moros Titirius (talk) 18:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi there. What I'm probably most keen on right now is more information on the internal alpha versions for the release history section, and so if you could make the relevant forum threads available, that would be very much appreciated. As well as that, a copy of the March 2005 edition of PC Gamer (UK) would also be useful as a reference. It Is Me Here (talk) 08:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look and see what I can come up with. Titirius (talk) 11:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

good job!
This article is coming along nicely. Other than copy-editing and shortening some of the parts that could do with a tighter summary, I think it would be really helpful to find someone who speaks Italian to read the review of the Italian PC Gamer review and so on... I know this might be asking for the moon. But you'd be surprised what you can accomplish by emailing around. I managed to get scans of a 1993 magazine emailed to me just by asking! Be persistent. Randomran (talk) 17:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback. I've had someone whom I asked to search for an edition of PC Gamer (UK) reply to me on my talk page recently that they were trying to find that issue, so I'm still keeping my fingers crossed. It Is Me Here (talk) 19:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

GA Status
I see this has been nominated for Good Article status, but I would recommend sorting out those [citation needed] tags first, as I doubt it will pass with them there. SynergyBlades (talk) 19:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I see. The thing is, though, that it was me who put them there (I'm also the person who nominated the article at WP:GAN), so they are more notes for me than anything regarding where I still need references, and hence some of them might be trivial enough to be discounted. At least, that was my thinking. It Is Me Here (talk) 19:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't use user forum posts as references
Especially for reception. They're not considered reliable unless you can prove the poster is a reliable source of information.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Aye, I agree and it's been discussed above (at the GA nomination). The problem is that the developer team uses forums to communicate, as written above, that same information would be acceptable if it was on their website. As for the reception section, the two forum references are to TWC awards which are, again, only published there (I will try to find another link, though, and one could also argue that such a site isn't particulary notable after all). If you could find reliable sources, I/we would be much obliged (as I believe the prose is good enough for GA, maybe beyond). --VPeric (talk) 17:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the .ORG and TWC are just fan forums, and, as such, the awards are just community awards. Thus, I could simply remove that paragraph if you feel that unofficial awards from the fan community are not particularly notable?  It Is Me Here   t / c 20:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It just occured to me when writing that, but yeah, it's probably best if that whole paragraph was removed. Speaking of the reception section, I don't like the "Mini-mods" title, and I think dropping it wouldn't hurt much. While we're there, might as well drop that first lead sentance (it's unsourced and disrupts the flow), and then drop the "reviews and awards" heading too. Thoughts? --VPeric (talk) 07:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Like that?  It Is Me Here   t / c 16:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it looks better that way. The info about alternate versions could be useful though, I wonder if we could stick those two-three sentances somewhere else. Maybe the development section? --VPeric (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that for this reason you have removed the section on minimods. Since I happen to be the author of one of those ports (the port to Rome: Total War: Barbarian Invasion), I have replaced the forum link with a link to a website that I maintain for it. I have not changed the link to the Rome: Total War: Alexander port, since I am unaware of a non-forum website that. I have also cleaned up the section a bit. Any suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnadolski (talk • contribs) 01:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Assessment as of 29 April 2009
It's going along pretty good. One thing I have to stress though is before going for GA, check with the video game wikiproject's source list to make sure all your sources are reliable, that'll be what makes or breaks you in GAN's or higher. Also, if a site like Boomtown doesn't have an article, don't use a direct link to it here, goes a bit against WP:MoS and counts against you too.

I wish you luck with this, you guys are doing splendid.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. The mod's website should get an overhaul in the foreseeable future, and hopefully news announcements will be moved there, which should enable us to avoid referencing forum posts (although the web content will be the same word-for-word, theoretically).  It Is Me Here   t / c 20:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of sources, would this page on the offical website be considered more reliable than a forum? A lot of info could be sourced from there. --VPeric (talk) 18:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Europa Barbarorum. 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/20110722062905/http://www.totalwar.com/rome to http://www.totalwar.com/rome

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Europa Barbarorum. 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/20110722062905/http://www.totalwar.com/rome to http://www.totalwar.com/rome

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) 06:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Europa Barbarorum. 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 tag to http://freeformatics.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=1&products_id=1&zenid=l5vh41uqpujkpuhu4q10n346d2
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110728214242/http://uk.gamespot.com/features/6110568/rome-total-war-game-guide?page=16 to http://uk.gamespot.com/features/6110568/rome-total-war-game-guide?page=16
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120503194134/http://uk.gamespot.com/medieval-ii-total-war/previews/medieval-2-total-war-designer-diary-7-down-with-clone-armies-6159360/ to http://uk.gamespot.com/medieval-ii-total-war/previews/medieval-2-total-war-designer-diary-7-down-with-clone-armies-6159360
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120503194000/http://uk.gamespot.com/medieval-ii-total-war/previews/medieval-2-total-war-designer-diary-9-making-combat-look-good-6161390/ to http://uk.gamespot.com/medieval-ii-total-war/previews/medieval-2-total-war-designer-diary-9-making-combat-look-good-6161390
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120503195213/http://www.gamesradar.com/europa-universalis-rome/?page=2 to http://www.gamesradar.com/europa-universalis-rome/?page=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) 22:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC)