Talk:Ascendancy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Famicom style controller This article is part of WikiProject Computer and video games, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as b-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Fansite links

I would like to add the links gathered at my fan site:

I also have updated the MODguide, available in the download page.

I'd be glad if someone reviews my request, thanks. --Legolas558 12:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added the link. I think it is in accordance with Wikipedia:External links. jacoplane 12:34, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thank you! I have edited the link to better fit the real linked content --Legolas558 16:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Broken link

I have removed the Ascendancy2.com forums broken link

Just to know, I could backup most of the content of those forums and now it is available in the downloads section ("historical downloads", requires registration) --Legolas558 16:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Antagonizer vs. Patch

I'm a bit indecisive about which one to use, I've played a while using Antag.exe, then run to a trouble, having my battleships equipped with Myrmidonic Carbonizer, but being unable to target enemy ships with it (just starlanes). So I switched to Patch.exe, which is two and half months younger (read: less buggy), proved to be right, as the enemy fleet was vaporized in few turns, but the AI got so lame it ruined the game in the long term anyway. Now I've looked in the .cob files and the Carbonizer is definend properly, so, what's going on, here? BTW, Replenisher replenishes the Carbonizer too.


[edit] Wrong shield strengths

Be warned, numerous faqs state incorrect strenght level of shields (cca double of actual values). This may be caused by incorrect values in commentaries in the help file, which was probably used to automatically create those faqs. Real values used by game engine are in other file, and were probably tuned down during betatesting, but not updated in the help file commentaries.

[edit] Gameplay description

I added a large gameplay description, which is in need of melding with the background description where it notes topography its elements. I think a portal is in need of this game, details on units, buildings, etc.--Notmyhandle 04:32, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I doubt the game is popular enough to warrant a portal of its own. I could be wrong, though. Chronolegion 11:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Are portals about popularity? I had just thought that it would add organization and allow more detail to the overall topic; will they not allow us?--Notmyhandle 22:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
All I was saying was that a popular game would allow more people to update said portal, correcting mistaken info, adding strategies and stats, etc. Chronolegion 12:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
If it exists, perhaps more people would contribute. I don't know how to start one, but if I did I would.--Notmyhandle 17:26, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Ship designs would probably make a great section to which players could contribute. I know there's an FAQ out there that has some great ship ideas. I particularly like the one that allows a ship to travel through multiple star lanes and red links in one turn, finally bringing the term "Blitzkrieg" to the game. Chronolegion 14:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)