Talk:Civilization IV: Colonization

Criticism section

Reference 27 to the Variety article is a dead link. Sorry if I'm not editing/contributing properly, new to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.73.207.206 (talk) 19:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Article says that "Firaxis has responded to criticism about the concept of the game, citing the injustices that had occurred during the colonial time period."

Linked response says no such thing - indicating simply that Colonization "treats the events of that time with respect and care" and allows players to make their own moral judgements.

217.43.45.30 (talk) 22:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Changed itOldag07 (talk) 13:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The citing of a blog that claims the game is offensive is not substantial enough to warrant it being mentioned in this article... There are very few games that that could be considered NOT offensive in some way or another. This is a historically based game, and thus should not be looked upon as being "offensive". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.182.250.162 (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

First off, get an account. Second, Firaxis did respond to the comment, so it has some merit. Third, just because "very few games could be considered NOT offensive" does not mean criticism is invalid. it just means that every game article with offensive material should put a blurb about what that game does wrong. We are trying to make neutral and balanced articles. fourth, the statement links to a large wikipedia article with does list out the injustices of colonization: Impact and evaluation of Western European colonialism and colonizationOldag07 (talk) 14:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure a blog posting (albeit at Variety) truly meets the requirements of WP:V or WP:Reliable. On top of that, this is the ONLY source making this criticism of the game (and it is speculative criticism too, as the author has never actually seen or played the game (or any of the games in that series)). Thoughts? Dp76764 (talk) 15:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• The criticism itself is an opinion. And his opinion and statement isn't dependent on playing the game. It isn't like saying, well 10000 people died of the black plague in 1450 (made that up). You can refute that. If I were to make a movie glorifying the holocaust, and make an ad about it, than some person could tell me that the subject of the holocaust was distasteful and thus the movie was distasteful simply based on the marketing blurb.
• The blog posting itself seems to have generated a huge storm online. The blog post itself seems to be generating quite a storm on the net. as of now [a google search] pulls up four pages on a search on "Sid Meier's Colonization 'Ben Fritz' ". I am willing to compromise and say "Variety blogger, Ben Fritz has made criticism of the game's concept (not the game itself) because of the injustices. . . . ." Oldag07 (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• It's amusing how there was far more reaction to his reaction then people sharing his view. Actually, the coverage of his coverage might actually make it notable! lol But your suggestion sounds like a good way to phrase the situation. And perhaps we could add in something about the responses to his opinion? Dp76764 (talk) 22:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• Sounds like a good compromise. i am going to put up the "Variety blogger, Ben Fritz" now, and then, right up the response. Oldag07 (talk) 04:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• I had problems finding responses other than Firaxis' that were not on message boards, comments, or a blog. It would be difficult to just write stuff and still keep a NPOV. Suggestions?Oldag07 (talk) 05:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

• Should probably have checked out this section before I removed this part from the disputed section. I'm not sure that this deserves any mention, as it is a poorly leveled rant by someone who clearly has not bothered to play the game at all. The question of ethics and their place in video games is absolutely valid, but he does an extremely poor job here of presenting the issues in any coherent way specifically relevant to the game. 71.238.253.71 (talk) 17:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

• It isn't the greatest criticism in the world, but again, we should have a NPOV. Just because it is criticism, doesn't mean it is good criticism. And again, the "reporting on the reporting" gives it reason to be mentioned. Oldag07 (talk) 17:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I personally don't agree with the argument. And if the argument was used, than AOE III could have the same criticism. Not to mention the mortality of Grand Theft Auto (a game Fritz reviewed very positively). That being said, NPOV Oldag07 (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• I understand that. My issue isn't a NPOV. I don't agree with the article or its central premise, but I think there's a damn good ethical argument to be made about the game as is (how often did natives happily relinquish their settlements in history?). I also happen to think there's plenty of deserved criticism to be leveled at the game, with my personal opinion being that if any other designer but Sid Meier had been behind this game, it would have been critically panned. With all of that said, with regards to Wikipedia guidelines, I think this may fall under the category of #8 in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines#Inappropriate_content since it most certainly is speculation. However, it may be considered 'notable' under #1 due to the press it's received. But I suggest that this link belongs under a video game ethics link (perhaps a new article on video game ethics which doesn't seem to exist or mention under a new heading here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_culture) rather than under this article since it is at best tangentially related to this game. If Ben Fritz were to write another column detailing his experiences with Civ4: Colonization and leveled specific charges of cultural chauvinism at the game, I think it would absolutely deserve mention here.71.238.253.71 (talk) 23:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

• While the argument I am about to make certainly isn't strictly a wikipedia guidelines argument, at the moment, this page needs to be expanded, not contracted. We can, and should use the old Colonization (video game) page as a template for expansion. Once, the page is large enough, then I think that that the debate to remove the paragraph would be practical then. That being said, being one of the largest editors of the page, I honestly, don't plan on owning the game. I have enough problems with Wikipediholism. That is all. Oldag07 (talk) 16:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, does the un-noteworthy rantings of some nobody belong here? Just because the article is short, doesn't mean it can be padded out with someone's ego trip? It must be removed. pjh3000 (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok.. This reviewer wrote his article when merely seeing the game's name and a short description of it. It says so right in the first line of the article? Why is this still considered worthy of note? Are we going to go back and find every article involving "oh no, not another Batman movie!" and slap them into the wiki pages for the films? I would suggest its mention to stay had the article been made post-release, but it wasn't. Its someone disagreeing with the choice of name, totally ignoring the fact that all of the other Civilization games cover the same principles involved in Colonization. Firaxis would probably respond to any serious sounding email or article that's calling them racists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.13.176 (talk) 12:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This is just some babbling by a nobody game reviewer who hasn't even played the game. He is just trying to get publicity and publishing this crap here is just playing into his hands. I will continue to remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.232.35.6 (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

"third game of the Civilization IV franchise"

Third game? Civ IV itself was the first, but which one was the second? Or rather, which one of Warlords and BtS doesn't count?

Do note the reference is correct - the Firaxis home page also says it's the third. Still wrong, though. CapnZapp (talk) 12:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Website says:

Sid Meier's Civilization IV: Colonization is the third offering in the award winning Civilization IV series.

The term "offering" is in question. It could be interpreted as 3rd game after the original game. i don't know but I am clearing it up. also see discussion at civfanatics.com [1]Oldag07 (talk) 05:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Fansites

Why are fansites not appropriate? Most other games on Wikipedia have fansites listed, as they're good pointers for finding the community of the game. Thamis (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Fansites are explicitly not appropriate under the guideline for game articles. "Most" other games is a bit extreme, but just because other games do does not mean this one should. Thanks! Fin©™ 21:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Oo, good policy to read. I also thought some of the reasoning in Wikipedia:FANSITE#Links_normally_to_be_avoided was relevant. Dp76764 (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Mac version

ESRB listed the Mac version. I don't know how to properly link a specific ESRB listing - I've seen it done before. Also, see if anyone can find any other references to the Mac version (release date, etc.) JAF1970 (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I have found no other release date information. Especially one that says "Christmas 2009." I'm changing the citation to link needed 128.146.207.252 (talk) 18:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Forum

I am not sure exactly why someone (someone without an account) deleted all of the information on this board and posted up the not a forum code. All of what we were saying had to do with this article.

• "third game of the Civilization IV franchise" Questions wording of a specific section of the article
• Fansites- enforces wikipedia policy

• Mac version- Question on factual accuracy of the site

As for what was removed on the criticism section, that was a question of what sources were to be used in an article. If the deleter felt this page was too crowded, than Help:Archiving a talk page Oldag07 (talk) 13:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

That is true, all of the deleted discussion was relevant to the article. Thank you for restoring it. Our anonymous sanitizer should feel free to make his opinions known, but in less forceful ways. I have removed the notaforum template as well. In my opinion this site functions better when it uses a fairly free, friendly approach, and discussion about the article subject that isn't directly about the article can still lead to ideas about improving it, so the template works best when it's not used pre-emptively.
On the other hand, I also think that hanging bananas from the university ceiling with transparent fishing line is a marvellous idea, so make of the above what you wish. --Kizor 20:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

True.71.238.253.71 (talk) 23:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

First Line

It seems like the first sentence is incredibly difficult to write. Heck, Fraxis called this game "the third game of the Civ IV franchise".

The current sentence is as follows: Civilization IV: Colonization is the fourth game of the Civilization IV franchise.

I recently reverted this: Civilization IV: Colonization is the third expansion pack to Civilization IV.

My argument against this change was that at the time I felt that Civilization IV, Colonization was not an expansion pack, but rather a stand alone game. However, there are several problems with the existing terminology. One could argue that an expansion pack is not an actual game, but merely additions to the original game. Moreover, while skimming through the expansion pack article, some games with are termed "expansion packs", are standalone, my key argument for removing the expansion pack argument. here are some possibilities of how we can change the first sentences.

Keeping the existing terminology: "fourth game"

• Pros: This is the fourth peace of software sold by Firaxis with the Civ IV brand.
• Cons: The definition of "game" is very vague.

Changing the terminology to "third expansion pack"

• Pros: Seemingly more precise terminology. Expansion packs, as mentioned above can be standalone.
• Cons: The standalone expansion packs mentioned in the article, like Half Life 2: Blue Shift, are still fundamentally the same game. CIV 4: COL, is radically different than CIV 4.

Changing the terminology to "Total Conversion"

• Pros: Distinguishes clearly that the game is very different that the original game.
• Cons: The term "total conversion" is almost always used for mods. the pages for

Half Life: Counterstrike do not use the term "Total Conversion"

Removing how the game relates to the CIV IV franchise.

• Pros: None of the mess above
• Cons: Less accurate

I am not sure what to put. Any thoughts? Oldag07 (talk) 04:36, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, Firaxis calls this the "third offering in the Civilization 4 series" [2] (it also mentions total conversion). I would definitely not agree with calling this an 'expansion pack', since it is not an 'addition (of new content) to an existing offering', but a total remake. Why not go with the Firaxis line of 'third offering'? Dp76764 (talk) 05:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Use WP:V. What have reviewers been calling it? On a related note, IGN for example say: "The awkward title makes it seem like an expansion pack but Sid Meier's Civilization IV: Colonization is actually a remake..." - I would also use the word "remake" rather than "inspired by" as the gameplay is rather faithful to the original.

Then, perhaps, "Civilization IV: Colonization is a remake of Sid Meier's Colonization using the Civilization IV engine." Marasmusine (talk) 09:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

All good suggestions so far. maybe the term Civilization IV brand, might be more approprate rather than the term engine. keep the suggestions coming. Oldag07 (talk) 21:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Why not go with "Civ IV: Col is a remake of Col 94 using the Civ IV engine"? Fin©™ 23:47, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I like "engine" and "remake", WP:V again; [3] "Utilising a heavily modified version of the Civ IV engine, this remake of 1994’s Colonization..." Marasmusine (talk) 08:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

A stand-alone game

My Clarification of Civilization IV: Colonizations' stand-alone status, as opposed to an expansion - as with former titles, Civilization IV: Warlords & Civilization IV: Beyond the Sword - has been reverted by Dp76764. Before purchasing Civilization IV: Colonization, I came to this article searching for this information; without any success. Thus I think the games' stand-alone status is to be commented on in the article. I'll revert the reversion, pending any opposition here. Nigholith (talk) 13:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the articles for Warlords and BTS, they both clearly state that they are expansions. This one is clearly stated as a 'remake'. (btw, why didn't you look at the manufacturer's site for standalone/expansion info? it clearly states that it is standalone [4]) Anyway, I have no objection of noting the standalone nature, but the way you'd written it, "unlike other C4 expansions", was inaccurate and undermined the recently reach decision on how to phrase the lead paragraph, thus the revert. If it were phrased differently, I would support the statement. DP76764 16:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I did read the above debate regarding the format; which is why I never named Colonization an expansion pack in my edit; it's technically inaccurate. The title, Civilization IV: Colonization, and the nature of the two former games, easily leads to the conclusion that Colonization requires Civilization IV to play; thus I see this fact as a necessary piece of information to the reader. One could easily visit the producers website for clarification; but then why have this article at all? When I could simply visit the Producers site for all of the relevant information. If you feel the context of the former expansions needs to be removed to clarify the article, I have no opposition.Nigholith (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

How about "Colonization is the first stand-alone game in the Civilization IV series; the previous two titles are expansion packs requiring the original Civilization IV to run." - or variation thereof depending on your semicolon preference? Using the reference already provided, I don't think this strays into WP:SYNTH. Marasmusine (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

• I like how it was re-added actually. And, for the record, "Unlike former Civilization IV expansions" implies that this is also an expansion, which is why I objected to the first version of your add. DP76764 18:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

That interpretation certainly wasn't my intention; though I can see how it could be easily mistaken as such. Nigholith (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

"first stand-alone game in the Civilization IV series" - Technically the second stand-alone game . . . . the original game being the first. that being said, this definition thing seems to be giving everyone headaches. I like the new wording. Oldag07 (talk) 03:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Oki doki, KISS is best here. Marasmusine (talk) 10:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Gameplay

I've been playing for a day or two now, and can't find any information on the Custom House, if that is different from the original it might be worth mentioning 69.114.22.80 (talk) 15:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Nick 11-9-08

Please contribute! Heck, i have the most edits to this page, and I don't intend to play the game Oldag07 (talk) 02:26, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no Custom House in CIV:C. Instead, a fully expanded warehouse automatically sells overstock at a reduced price. Whilst this has been mentioned in lots of forum threads, I'm not sure if any reliable sources (required for WP:V) have made this comparison. Marasmusine (talk) 10:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Game manual? Oldag07 (talk) 06:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It simply says that excess goods in a warehouse are lost. Since it's in game, I don't think it's worth mentioning it unless a reviewer discusses it. Marasmusine (talk) 11:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The custom house has been replaced by the warehouse expansion. Building custom houses in COL 94 is an easy way to keep making money when boycotting or rebelling. The new rules force the player to trade with whatever Natives are left or the other Colonies, which encourages players to NOT KILL. Generating Liberty Bells to convert the player's population into rebels acts like culture in CIV4, and wipes out any Native camps near player colonies. Since the King's Army is directly tied to LB production, and can get wildly out of hand if the player starts producing LB early, the player is encouraged to NOT generate bells and again to NOT wipe out the Natives. A small caveat, perhaps "white guilt" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.49.126 (talk) 07:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Needs a reliable source otherwise this is original research. DP76764 (Talk) 17:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Changes from old game section

It would seem that much of the following section does not follow (WP:GAMEGUIDE) I have recently put back changes that Dp76764 has removed because I didn't see some other sections of this text in any less in violation much of this paragraph. i have copy pasted the section and we can decide paragraph by paragraph what should stay in, and what should leave.

In addition to updated graphics engine and a multiplayer segment, Civilization IV: Colonization has many new gameplay mechanics. When starting the game, in addition to choosing a starting European nation, a player chooses between two governors, each with different advantages. In addition, national borders is a gameplay concept taken from Civilization IV. This means that rivals cannot pass into each other's land unless they have an open borders agreement - or unless they have declared war.

• Open borders and Governor section in question. I feel that they are notable because those mechanics are taken from CIV IV.

Unlike the original game, nations cannot recruit the same founding fathers. Each founding father is recruited by one and only one nation/player. Moreover, founding fathers will only join nations with certain criteria, namely a certain level of "points" obtained in various categories (political, military, exploration, religion, and trade).

• Founding father changes in this much detail?

After the player declares independence, players draft a constitution determining the government style of their independent nation. For example, if a player chooses a monarchical system, then he can still trade with Europe during the war for independence.

• Declaring independence in this much detail?

Unskilled citizens are placed in a school or college to learn, rather than a skilled colonist being placed in that building to teach.

Settlements now have build queues. If tools are not present but are required to complete a construction, the next building in the queue may commence. When the required tools are available, the pending building can be completed without affecting the current construction.

• Similar argument as with open borders and governor

In the original game, a treasure train took up the entire 6 slots of the cargo hold of a Galleon. Now these ships carry treasure in a single cargo slot, allowing them to transport six.

• is this needed?

All Indian settlements train more than one colonist. In the original game, only the capital could do that; the other settlements refused further training after the first.

• is this needed?

If the Dragon Units are defeated then they are destroyed, in the original game, when the Dragon units were defeated, they become soldiers, and when the soldiers were defeated, they become the original colonist, a colonist was not able to combat, if atacked, are captured.

• Is this needed?

When the player declares independence, in the original game, all the veteran units becomes continental soldiers or dragons, and the rookie units become veterans. The continental army was more powerfull than the veterans. In the remake, the units are not promoted when you declare independence.

• is this needed?

Oldag07 (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah, the section was a little excessive to begin with; I was just trying to keep it from expanding exponentially. The first few paragraphs (thankfully sourced) aren't too bad, but most of the later stuff can probably go (such as things talking about actual game mechanics). Maybe put a {{fact}} tag on em and give people a chance to provide sources? If no sources in a couple weeks, I'd say yank em all out. DP76764 (Talk) 23:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

• Sounds like a good idea. Oldag07 (talk) 01:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

• Unskilled citizens are placed in a school or college to learn, rather than a skilled colonist being placed in that building to teach.
• Settlements now have build queues. If tools are not present but are required to complete a construction, the next building in the queue may commence. When the required tools are available, the pending building can be completed without affecting the current construction.
• In the original game, a treasure train took up the entire 6 slots of the cargo hold of a Galleon. Now these ships carry treasure in a single cargo slot, allowing them to transport six.
• All Indian settlements train more than one colonist. In the original game, only the capital could do that; the other settlements refused further training after the first.
• If the Dragoon Units are defeated then they are destroyed, in the original game, when the Dragoon units were defeated, they become soldiers, and when the soldiers were defeated, they become the original colonist, a colonist was not able to combat, if attacked, are captured.
• When the player declares independence, in the original game, all the veteran units becomes continental soldiers or dragoons, and the rookie units become veterans. The continental army was more powerful than the veterans. In the remake, the units are not promoted when you declare independence.

Cut em for reasons explained above.Oldag07 (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Good; if I recall correctly, that last one isn't even true - in the original, Veterans were promoted to Continentals when independence was declared only if they were in a colony, and in proportion to the colony's rebel sentiment. --Duneflower, resident weirdo (talk) 05:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

References

Minor powers info

Without a good reliable source discussing how these powers were 'left out' of the game, commenting on them constitutes original research. Historical articles about those powers doesn't address this game (and article) directly and would seem to me to be WP:SYNTH. DP76764 (Talk) 20:28, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

reworded the portugal section. Gamespot's article did note that Portugal's removal was of note.Oldag07 (talk)

from the gamespot article: "Four colonies aren't much to choose from, and the Portuguese are a notable omission. The Italians made the rounds. Heck, even Germany gave colonization a shot in Venezuela. The New World was anyone's game in the 1600s, and it seems that having only four countries to choose from is a bit limiting." http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/sidmeierscivilizationivcolonization/news.html?sid=6193071 Oldag07 (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Looks good. Given the quote, we might be able to expand the statement to address 'minor powers' (the lack thereof) in general; but perhaps not mentioning more specific examples. DP76764 (Talk) 02:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• took a stab at it. take a look. Oldag07 (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Looks good to me. =) DP76764 (Talk) 18:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

• Clearly Italy, Germany and Belgium are minor powers. But Portugal isn't. Note that it was the first nation to colonize both in America, Africa and even Asia (and also the last to loose its overseas possessions. And a distinction is clearly to be made —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.80.209.159 (talk) 02:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Rename/move article

I suggest moving the article to Sid Meier's Civilization IV: Colonization since that is the game's full title. SharkD (talk) 01:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems reasonable, a similar action was taken on Sid Meier's Colonization. Oldag07 (talk) 06:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

- BTW, you might want to look at Help:Moving a page. there is a template that should be posted on the article. Oldag07 (talk) 06:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It is moved Oldag07 (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

No. Is it Sid Meier's Civilization IV? This was discussed months ago in the Civ IV page. Why would you have this be Sid Meier's Civilization IV: Colonization and not have it Sid Meier's Civilization IV? If you want to change the name, you'd better convince everyone at Civ IV to change its name to Sid Meier's Civilization IV, because it isn't going to fly. You'd also have to change the names of the two other expansions, too. (ie. Sid Meier's Civilization IV: Beyond the Sword?) PS. It shouldn't be Sid Meier's Colonization to begin with, because there's no other Colonization game. The only reason you use the maker's name in a title is to differentiate it - see SimGolf and Sid Meier's SimGolf. JAF1970 (talk) 22:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

More discussion has occured here. SharkD (talk) 01:42, 29 January 2009 (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#Removal_of_tables_of_Civilizations to see if we can't reach a consensus.-Oosh (talk) 12:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Mods

Can the modding community be mentioned in the article, maybe in the reception section? Because my reception of the game was very poor, since its release I played it once, was disappointed and didn't touched it again until I was recently introduced to The Authentic Colonization MOD, which IMHO is exactly what the original game was about and what this one should have been. I don't know how WP notability works, but as far as fans of the franchise and gameplay the modding community put this game on the map.--84.111.101.105 (talk) 03:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Generally the answer would be 'no, niche communities and their opinions are not notable', barring quality sourcing of course. DP76764 (Talk) 04:10, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Civilization IV: Colonization. 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/20080828023645/http://www.firaxis.com/games/game_detail.php?gameid=21 to http://www.firaxis.com/games/game_detail.php?gameid=21
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828023645/http://www.firaxis.com/games/game_detail.php?gameid=21 to http://www.firaxis.com/games/game_detail.php?gameid=21

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:44, 8 August 2017 (UTC)