FANDOM

Mythril Wyrm

aka Devin

Bureaucrat Admin
  • I live in Texas, United States
  • I was born on February 5
  • I am Male
A FANDOM user
  Loading editor
  • I did an Opsie. I was gettinga picture for the Llanero and the picture had both Llanero and the Great general that clombia gets. and i dont know how to change it. can u help me with that plz

      Loading editor
  • Do you know that Siege units actually require at least 2 movements to shoot, not that they are totally disallowed to move and shoot in the same turn? So if they have a great general nearby or on a road, even a catapult with no promotion can still move and shoot in the same turn? I have 1000 hours in the game but rarely play domination, someone just told me that and I need to check before changing anything in the wiki. I just played GC and all of my siege units can move and shoot without promotions thanks to the extra movement, I thought it was a bug, people told me it was a feature since the beginning of the game.

    Btw, I'm changing "Civilopedia Entry" section to "Civilopedia entry", basically just uncapitalizing "Entry" on all of the great people pages, as on every other page, the word "entry" is lower case, the tiny inconsistencies on these pages just bug me. Just finished doing so for all the admirals. I will add new sections to the promotion pages as well, to separate the opener and the effects. I finished the ranged units and on to anticav next, but it will take a while as well, since there are a ton of promotion pages.

      Loading editor
    • I knew the bit about Great Generals allowing siege units to attack after moving, but I'd never noticed that they need 2 MP to be able to attack (and the in-game tooltips and description of the Expert Crew promotion don't give any indication of that). I've put about as much time into the game as you have, so if both of us are just now discovering this, it must not be common knowledge...and if you've been able to verify it, I encourage you to start making the relevant changes to articles.

      Thanks for taking the initiative to make the "Entry" in "Civilopedia Entry" lowercase and standardize the layout of the promotion articles. I know these aren't dramatic changes, but there are lots of them to make, and greater consistency is always a plus. :)

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Excuse me Sir. How to form a wiki partnership/affiliated with the wiki? I wished we can be allies/Declared friends since I am  a trainee admin from the Civilization Fanon Wiki . I cannot I understand and I need more training how to manage a wiki. thanks.

    VenzGrendalosCazatha 14:07, May 20, 2020 (UTC)

      Loading editor
    • View all 6 replies
    • I get that, but you need to ask yourself what your wiki's long-term goal is. Do you just want to collect information about as many fanmade civs as possible, or do you want to get them added to the games in mods? If you want them to be part of the games, then you should partner with the customization wikis I mentioned above - their communities are full of modders who could help you make your community's ideas a reality.

        Loading editor
    • I don't have any Civ games in reality since then. I don't play Civ 6 so much since I don't have that game in reality. I only played Civ 4 and its expansion. If I want to make my idea a reality I could've get them contacted.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • I feel using the Great People infobox on this page is a bit "off"? They are not a type of Great Generals, they do not replace GG as Colombia can still earn GG like normal, they only function rather similarly, they also have a different icon which I believe we will use to replace our placeholder eventually. I plan to use the unit infobox and treat it as a unique unit, but the complication is what to put for "Type". What do you think?

      Loading editor
    • I had to think carefully about this one before deciding which infobox to use. Yes, the Comandante Generals aren't exactly Great Generals, but they have much more in common with Great People than they do with standard units - they're described as Great Generals in the First Look video, and the in-game tooltip explicitly says they're a type of Great Person. Moreover, if they aren't unlocked through the tech or civic trees, can't be trained or purchased with Civ6Gold Gold or Civ6Faith Faith, and have undefined Civ6StrengthIcon Combat Strength, the majority of the fields in the standard unit infobox are going to be inapplicable to them. Therefore, I think the Great Person infobox suits them better than the standard unit infobox (unless we find out they're more similar to standard units than the footage we've seen so far suggests).

      As for the "Great General" type/image, I left them there as placeholders and they can be changed easily enough. If you're saying that the template itself needs to be modified to better accommodate this new type of unit, I can get behind that.

        Loading editor
    • Yeah, I think it is better to modify the great person infobox to accomodate a new type of great person, so that instead of putting great generals, we can just put comandante generals 

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/Sim%C3%B3n_Bol%C3%ADvar_((Civ6)

    I created it as a placeholder as I could not establish a new page with the conventional name. Thanks

      Loading editor
  • Hi I've added infoboxes for all kinds of great persons that were missing. But I have a problem with great engineers. https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/Category:Great_Engineers_(Civ6) I've put their special effect in the notes section, because many of them have more than 1 charge. But I don't think it's a good solution. I think they should be moved to the 'retire effect' parameter. But I think I (or someone else) could update the template so that if there is more than 1 charge it would render 'special effect' or 'action effect' instead of 'retire effect'. What do you think? Mike

      Loading editor
    • I agree that "action effect" (or perhaps "activation effect") is a better choice of words than "retire effect" in general. I have more confidence in your coding abilities than I do in mine (especially in regards to changing the display name of a field if an ability has more than 1 charge), so feel free to make the change to the template as you see fit.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Are you excited for Frontier Pass

      Loading editor
    • I'd argue keeping two of the three. It seems like the icons are better suited for small resolutions, and the policy cards seem better for larger resolutions. I'd replace the Civ6Icon files with the _slot_ group.

        Loading editor
    • I can get behind that. Downsized versions of the "Policy Card (Civ6)" files could be used as replacements for "Civ6Icon" files in templates and elsewhere.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • I have a problem with linking correct technology requirement for https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/Mass_Grave_(Civ6)

    I created yesterday a page for the tech, because there was none (I think so): https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/Civil_Engineering_(Civ6)/The_Black_Death

    I don't know though if the page name is correct. Maybe it should be "Civil Engineering (technology) (Civ6), like used here: https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/Invention_(technology)_(Civ6)


    But for teutonic knight in different scenarios we used a slash: https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/Teutonic_Knight_(Civ6)/The_Black_Deathhttps://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/Teutonic_Knight_(Civ6)/Jadwiga%27s_Legacy

    What is the correct convention? Many scenario-specific pages are wrong and should use an altenative version of a civic/tech/policy card etc. That's why I want to ask before I create the pages.

    Thanks for help!

      Loading editor
    • The convention is to append "/<scenario>" to the pagename only if the entities are the same type. The Teutonic Knight, for example, is/was a unit in both Jadwiga's Legacy and The Black Death, so creating a page named "Teutonic Knight (unit) (Civ6)" would not help in differentiating them.

      On the other hand, if the entities are different types, then we can add "(<type>)" between the entity's name and "(Civ6)" to easily differentiate between the two (and a for template to direct readers from one page to the other if they visit the wrong one). Civil Engineering, for example, is a civic in the base game and a technology in The Black Death, so I say we follow the convention established with Invention and its scenario-based equivalent for all other such pages and the convention above ("<entity> (Civ6)/<scenario>") for those where it can't be applied.

      This is the first time such an issue has come up, but I think this standard will help us avoid any such discrepancies in the future. I'll rename the new Civil Engineering page and invite my fellow admins to opine on this discussion.

        Loading editor
    • I think Mythril Wyrm's idea has merit. I would have dealt with the Teutonic Knight situation like this:

      • Teutonic Knight (The Black Death) (Civ6)
      • Teutonic Knight (Jadwiga's Legacy) (Civ6)

      I might have even done that to Civil Engineering. I am good with any proposal. We probably need a manual of style, which will take a long time to create.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • I've cleaned up images/icons categories. Some images can be deleted (I don't know how can I do that) https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/File:Mercury6.png https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/File:Gems_(Civ6).png https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/File:Silver6.png

    I'm preparing now for uploading unit civilopedia icons. The names of the files will be <unit> icon (Civ6).png But what category should I put them in? I think we have not settled this in previous discussion. Maybe we should divide Unit icons (Civ6) into Unit portrait icons (Civ6) and Unit civilopedia icons (Civ6)? Do you have a better name for the categories? Another question is if I should upload them with the cilopedia portrait background? Great person icons are uploaded this way - see https://civilization.fandom.com/wiki/Category:Great_People_icons_(Civ6)

    Mike

      Loading editor
    • View all 15 replies
    • I think our best option is to work with the pages as they are and create redirects to the "Barbarian" subsection. We can even create pages like "Barbarian Galley (Civ6)" and "Barbarian Horseman (Civ6)" that redirect there. All the other relevant images can be added to the Gallery sections as previously discussed.

      Go ahead and upload the Barbarian Horse Archer's portrait and icon - even if they're identical to those for the Saka Horse Archer, it's a distinct unit, and we use the same icons for the standard districts and their unique replacements anyway, so there's a precedent for it.

      I think adding information about the Barbarian-specific units to Barbarian (Civ6) is a fine idea. What you've discovered and shared leads me to suspect that the three units in question were originally added in Jadwiga's Legacy and then incorporated into the base game, though Firaxis didn't do a particularly good job of documenting the changes or updating the XML code accordingly.

        Loading editor
    • I've uploaded Barbarian Horse Archer icons.

      I've found why we can see barbarian units in the Civilopedia in Jadwiga's Legacy scenario. The query in CivilopediaPageQueries table are different.

      Query in the scenario: SELECT UnitType as PageId, FormationClass as PageGroupId, "Unit" as PageLayoutId, Name, null as Tooltip FROM Units

      Query in the standard game: SELECT UnitType as PageId, FormationClass as PageGroupId, "Unit" as PageLayoutId, Name, null as Tooltip FROM Units where TraitType is null or TraitType <> "TRAIT_BARBARIAN"

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
See archived talk page
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.