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.
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. :)
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.
I'm not sure what you're asking for. I don't see the point in forming a partnership, since your wiki has a very different goal and reader base than ours does - our goal is to catalog developer-sanctioned Civilization game content, whereas your wiki seems to focus on cataloging ideas for civilizations that haven't been developed. If you're looking for people to develop mods that add your readers' and your ideas to the game, you should reach out to the admins of the Civilization V Customisation Wiki and Civilization VI Customization Wiki for help.
On the other hand, if you're looking for someone to teach you the finer points of being a wiki admin, I recommend visiting the Community Central forums and posting your questions and requests there. Many talented people there will be happy to assist you.
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.
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.
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?
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 Gold or Faith, and have undefined 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.
Hi I've added infoboxes for all kinds of great persons that were missing. But I have a problem with great engineers.
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?
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.
Does posting on my wall repeatedly do anything to help you find the information you're looking for? If not, perhaps you should search for it on your own: browse the game's XML files, watch the credits, or reach out to one of the developers, for instance.
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.
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.
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)
I think "Unit Civilopedia icons (Civ6)" would be an appropriate name for the category, and I also support uploading them with the Civilopedia portrait background for the sake of consistency. Keep in mind that "Civilopedia" should be capitalized, since the word is always capitalized when it appears in the games.
You need administrator privileges to rename files. Tell yours truly or one of the other admins which ones need renaming, and we can take care of it for you.
Thanks for all your hard work on this wiki! You've done a lot to improve the look of pages and make them more informative to readers.
I see no need to create a separate page for the Barbarian Horseman. If it uses the same icons and in-game name as the basic unit and has mostly undefined stats, its page would be minimalistic anyway. A mention in the Strategy section of Horseman (Civ6) will suffice.
Is the Barbarian Horse Archer referred to as the "Horse Archer" or "Barbarian Horse Archer" in the game? If it's the former, Horse Archer (Civ6) can be retooled and used as the page for it; if it's the latter, you can either rename Barbarian Horse Archer (Civ6) (to "Barbarian Horse Archer (Civ6)/Jadwiga's Legacy") and retool Barbarian Horse Archer (Civ6) into a page for the unit in the base game, or just add the icons to the Gallery section of Barbarian Horse Archer (Civ6). Again, the Barbarians' version of the unit is mentioned in the Strategy section of the page, and our policy up until now has been to avoid creating individual pages for units unless they have a Civilopedia entry that can be viewed within the game. (It may be time to update that policy.)
Same question as above about the (Barbarian) Raider, though I think I know the answer to this one. I've seen a weaker version of the Galley spawn from coastal Barbarian outposts (which is currently mentioned in the Strategy section of the Galley page), but I think it uses the same name as the Galley and I've never seen a Civilopedia entry for it (perhaps because it replaces the Galley). If it uses the same name and doesn't have its own Civilopedia entry but is otherwise a distinct unit, you could create a page called "Galley (Barbarian) (Civ6)" for it. Keep in mind that the vast majority of Civ6 players and readers of this wiki aren't going to look through the XML files to find out how units are identified, so it's important that we follow the in-game naming conventions as closely as possible.
Yes, I'd say the Great Person portrait icons should be moved.
Let me know if you have other questions or concerns to raise.
As I reread my previous post, it sounds like I'm giving three different answers to similar questions. This time, I'll try to be more straightforward and consistent (if not less verbose).
I don't know how much of a need there is to create separate pages for NPC (i.e. Barbarian) units that have the same name as those available to players and no Civilopedia entries or unique portraits/icons. Values such as Production and Gold maintenance costs are meaningless to Barbarians, so the infoboxes for these units would be largely filled with irrelevant information and the Civilopedia entries, if present, would be copied from the units they replaced. (I say "if present" because none of these units have entries in the in-game Civilopedia. Please see the attached screenshots for proof.)
Basically, if we do create separate pages for these units, they'll exist mainly to catalog information that's already listed in the Strategy sections of the corresponding unit pages (with the exception of the Barbarians' replacement for the Galley, which has some unique images). Players won't be able to find any information about these units without poring over the game's XML files, and having separate pages for them increases the likelihood that readers are going to visit the wrong page when looking for information on a unit they'll be able to use without playing a modded version of the game (e.g. visiting "Barbarian Galley (Civ6)" when they intend to visit "Galley (Civ6)"). I don't support using the names of the units from the XML files because these aren't the names used in the game and therefore are not going to be the names that people commonly associate with the units. If you believe that we should use the names from the XML files instead of the in-game names, you'll first need to convince me that this wiki is written for modders.
If you're convinced that the Barbarians' Horseman, Horse Archer, and Galley need their own pages, I propose the following naming convention:
<in-game unit name> (Barbarian) (Civ6)
This will make it clear that the unit in question is exclusive to the Barbarians and is not usable by any of the playable civs, so it should reduce the risk of readers visiting the page and thinking "Those stats are completely wrong!" or "Why have I never been able to train this unit before?" It'll also provide some justification for the article itself being shorter and following a different format than the articles for units available to the playable civs.
If anyone thinks there's no rhyme or reason to my proposal or would like to put forth a different one, I welcome your input.
Thanks for the answers. I see that you would like to stick to civilopedia data, but we all know that there are many missing informations in the civilopedia :)
I agree with you with the Horse Archer and Horseman (only some stats would be different and I can't find unique civilopedia texts for them in the xml files too).
For the Barbarian Raider I know looked again through game database, and it seems like the icons were designed for some kind of melee unit, while in game it clearly just replaces the galley.
Excellent good! You can add them to the Gallery sections of the appropriate pages whenever you're ready.
Interesting find on the image for the Barbarians' Galley! It looks like they were going to be used for a Barbarian-specific land unit (like the Brute or the Hand-Axe from Civ5, possibly) before it was removed from the game and replaced with the Barbarian Galley (which was itself a Barbarian-specific naval unit in Civ5). Gives us an interesting look at the history of the game, anyway.
I think creating the redirects to the Strategy sections of the articles in question is a sound idea, and I came up with another idea as well: if the Barbarians' units have identical names but different stats, we could expand the intros to the unit pages and include some bullet points explaining how the Barbarian unit differs from its counterpart (like we do at the beginning of the unique unit pages). This will give readers all of the relevant information and numbers at the beginning of the article, which would be more convenient than the current Strategy blurbs.
In any case, it's full steam ahead once we know what the Barbarians' Horse Archer is called within the game. The destinations of redirects can be changed easily enough if needed.
Barbarian's Horse Archer is called "Barbarian Horse Archer". Interestingly, Barbarian's unique units are displayed for example "Barbarians - Barbarian Horse Archer", while common units are displayed as "Barbarians - Scout" or "Barbarians - Archer" - see the attached screenshots:
With the Barbarian Horse Archer page it's a little bit odd that it's a scenario-specific page, while the Barbarian Horse Archer is an unit in a standard game. Someone might have a little confusion here. I don't know what the best solution is though.
The icons for Barbarian Horse Archer is the same as for the Scythian Saka Horse Archer (both portrait and civilopedia icons). Should I upload them too?
In Jadwiga's Legacy scenario I'm able to find Barbarian unit pages in Civilopedia. But without the historical context (I think Firaxis messed up the the data in the XML). Barbarian Galley has indeed a Barbarian Raider icon:
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.