Ascendancy

aka: Ascendancy: De Galactische Uitdaging, Ascendancy: Macht der Allmacht
Moby ID: 257
DOS Specs
Note: We may earn an affiliate commission on purchases made via eBay or Amazon links (prices updated 3/23 1:24 PM )
Included in

Description official descriptions

Ascendancy is similar to, but nevertheless very different from, Master of Orion. You play one of many races, each with a special ability and special character traits, who set off to explore space, erect colonies (which can each have individual purposes, depending on their raw materials) and engage in battles when you clash with others who have the same goals. Weapons on the ships use power, which has to be supplied somehow.

This game introduces many original concepts, such as the Research Tree - a special scientific display in which discoveries are depicted as icons connected by lines to the "parent" technological breakthroughs and "child" ones, similar to the technology advances in Civilization, but presented in a much more visual way.

Groups +

Screenshots

Promos

Credits (DOS version)

31 People (23 developers, 8 thanks) · View all

Created by
Made possible through the efforts of
Additional support and content provided by
Packaging and Manual Art Direction and Design by
Packaging Illustration
Manual Digital Enhancement
AIL and VFX libraries by
Special Thanks to the Brøderbund Team
AIL and VFX libraries by
  • Miles Design Inc.
Design & Artwork Coordinator
Design
  • Bill Smith Studio - London
Photography
Package Design Art Direction
[ full credits ]

Reviews

Critics

Average score: 78% (based on 15 ratings)

Players

Average score: 3.9 out of 5 (based on 71 ratings with 14 reviews)

A good, addictive space sim

The Good
This game kept me awake for days and nights, until finally I beat it on a very dense quadrant, peaceful galaxy, and playing as the Govorom (efficient planets, it's better to have a few quick shipbuilding planets than a lot of slow ones)

The aliens are creatively made, each one having a different ability: block starlanes, compress time, turn planets into eden, instant research, invulnerability for a day, infinite population, etc. This should give a different playing experience, but it doesn't, most of these qualities are worthless/unnecessary against the very clever AI.

The Tech tree is 3-D, zoomable and rotatable. Each node may have multiple roots and multiple children - technologies are creatively diversified and scientifically believable.

The research through the discoveries made at buried alien sites is rather unbalanced. You may end up having a very powerful weapon/shield/artifact, but a weak power source - rendering it unusable in a given ship (all your ship power may never be enough for that hyperwave nullifier). Some weapons do not require power, and there is no relation between weapon strength, power used and the tech level.

There's a graphical representation of power used/produced when building ships, instead of plain numbers. Each ship is unique in its design, making easier to correct errors. There's no way of telling how a device will precisely work (i.e. range, strength, power used) in the field.

Combat is well-made and AI is competent. Lots of times I saw it making a retreat or blocking the starlane to its systems (even though you can't tell what the effective range of your weapons is.)

The Galaxy looks huge because of the very restrictive starlane system. Often, you'll spend hundreds of days marching through them and finally arrive in a system very near to your home planet (but the AI forgot to place a starlane between the stars).

It's fun to use your special power when it finally arrives (after 150,68 or 83 days)

The Bad
It's very, very, very boring after you set 7-10 colonies to get reports EVERY day about finished constructions. Some have free pop, others don't, to go there and instruct them to build another facility on another coloured area

So, you automate most of the planets and concentrate on 1-2 to grow and become ship-builders, only to see that all the other planets filled up with lots of missile launchers, surface shields and orbital shields, so you have to scrap all obsolete facilities and let the AI to build modern ones. Later you see that the very clever AI again filled them all with obsolete/unnecessary tech on the wrong colour tiles and forgot to expand population.

So, you got a ship,right? Filled with lots of starlane engines to make the painful assault on the enemy located at the END of a very long array of starlanes. But the AI slips some ships through the lines and occupies some of your less-defended, new worlds. So your new ships get scraped because of the loss of star systems.

In order to win, you need only to hold 2/3 of the quadrant OR all alien home systems. In a very dense galaxy this will take thousands of days.

If you have the antagonizer AI and play in a hostile galaxy, aliens will get allied with you. Park some of their ships in your systems, make a force build-up there, roam the galaxy in search for undefended planets and then declare war.

When building ships, the AI NEVER uses shields and has a good preference for obsolete weapons and devices.

The Bottom Line
Good classic space game, has a good feeling compared to Master of Orion (1, 2 or 3) and realistically-made physics, technologies and time scale (if you consider each day equal to one year, actually).

There is lots of micromanagement, the AI behaves strangely and it takes a lot of patience to win.

DOS · by lucian (36) · 2005

Both better and worse than MOO

The Good
The three dimensions were great. The nature of both the galactic map and the system display were great, and a definite plus over the flat universe of MOO. In addition, Ascendancy systems had the realism of containing multiple planets, although I found that the nature of these planets did not depend on the star type.

The races were, for the most part, quite novel, and my only complaint is that we humans didn't show up.

Weapon balance was, for the most part, very good. Although late-technology weapons were far better than earlier ones (and so they should be!), new advances did not necessarily make older ones obsolete. Nothing, for instance, ever exceeded the range of the plasmatron, a weapon you can get your hands on while still pretty early in the game.

The variety of technologies was, although not spectacular, decent. In contrast to MOO, which mostly offered improvements on a small set of technologies, Ascendancy research provides whole new tools and abilities. I don't think that I have seen any game with as many planetwide projects possible; there were I believe three or four completely different types.

One of the nicest bits was that most aspects of the game were not statistic-based. Battles and advances were decided not on the basis of rolling dies, but depended almost entirely on your actions (of course, there are exceptions; the technology you get from ruins is completely random, and planets are mostly evaluated based on their Three Statistics).

The Bad
The same thing nobody else liked about the game: the computer opponents.

It's a pity that the same effort which went into the rest of the game could not go into the computer code; the algorithms were far too simple, almost as if they had been quickly added to the rest of the game. Diplomatic reactions were far too simple as compared, say, to MOO, and a noticeable bug is that your allies never seem to expect you to honor your alliances.

Combat code, the other foundation of the game, was equally shaky. The enemy ships were clearly following a certain specific set of checks, which I could probably copy out here to high accuracy if it were not against the rules to give out cheats (and knowing how the computer will react to anything is, essentially, the ultimate cheat). Let's just say that I found any number of tricks which pretty much ensured military superiority, even when the enemy had the superior force. One remark I will make is that the game code is very offense-oriented; unlike in MOO where sometimes the other player will seem to "see" what you are trying to do and take evasive action. I have yet to see an Ascendancy ship retreat.

What else? Well, there are a few obvious bugs elsewhere (e.g., in the building code); it seems that they spent almost no time debugging. A tight deadline, perhaps? Another complaint is the complete randomization of the xenoarchaeological code; a race can get a valuable technology (say, large-scale construction or lush growth bombs) early in the game and have a decided advantage over the others.

The Bottom Line
Excellent game at first, and very replayable, but expect to master it quickly.

DOS · by somebody (6) · 2001

The best strategy game of all time!

The Good
I loved this game. I'm not a major fan of strategy, but I found this game so amazing and addictive, I found myself playing it for hours and hours at a time. The amount of control you have over each individual colony (i.e. placing buildings; orbital structures, etc.) is incredible, and it's automation features allow you to shift some control to the computer. The music is, with the possible exception of games like Myst and Riven, probably the best I've ever heard in any computer game.

The Bad
It can get a little repetitive after you've played it for a while... Each game pretty much starts out in the exact same way. It's only after you've played for a while that things really start getting interesting. Also, the game's AI is really bizarre... It always insists on moving enemy ships in huge groups, and, when attacking, they will behave in a rather odd fashion. Finally, as spectacular as the music is, there's only one or two tracks, and it just plays over and over again, so it can get a little annoying at times.

The Bottom Line
The most addictive game of all time. If you like strategy, get this game now! :)

DOS · by Null McNull (25) · 2000

[ View all 14 player reviews ]

Discussion

Subject By Date
Colonization vedder (70685) Feb 21, 2009

Trivia

PC Gamer controversy

A minor scandal surrounded the PC Gamer review of Ascendancy. PC Gamer gave the game high marks, and made it an Editor's Choice game. However, the individual who reviewed the game for PC Gamer also turned out to be the author of the game's Strategy Guide, leading many to wonder if the review had been padded in order to boost sales of the Strategy Guide.

In Computer Gaming World #151 (February 1997), a letter by William Trotter was published in which he shared his view on the matter. Summarized, he needed money to pay off repairs on his house and therefore gladly agreed to write the strategy guide. However, the developers failed to give him any information on the game, not even technology trees, and a one-month deadline. So he had no other choice but to play the game non-stop for two weeks, becoming eventually obsessed with it. So when PC Gamer hired him for the review, he really thought Ascendancy was a great game, and he failed to see the conflict of interest. In hindsight, he agrees with the bad review in Computer Gaming World (see MobyRanks), the strategy guide turned out to be pathetic and he didn't receive any royalties from it at all.

Awards

  • CODiE Awards
    • 1996 - Best Strategy Software

Information also contributed by Afterburner

Analytics

MobyPro Early Access

Upgrade to MobyPro to view research rankings!

Related Games

Tak: The Great Juju Challenge
Released 2005 on Nintendo DS
Masters of the Elements
Released 1997 on Windows, 1999 on Macintosh
Englisch macht Spass
Released 2008 on Nintendo DS
Magical Tetris Challenge
Released 1998 on Arcade, 1998 on Nintendo 64, 1999 on PlayStation
Astérix: Caesar's Challenge
Released 1993 on CD-i, DOS, 1995 on Macintosh
Magic & Mayhem
Released 1998 on Windows
Alternativa
Released 2010 on Windows
LEGO Star Wars: The Force Awakens
Released 2016 on iPhone, iPad, Android...

Related Sites +

  • Ascendancy
    official game page at Logic Factory's website, archived copy from 1997 by the Wayback Machine

Identifiers +

  • MobyGames ID: 257
  • [ Please login / register to view all identifiers ]

Contribute

Are you familiar with this game? Help document and preserve this entry in video game history! If your contribution is approved, you will earn points and be credited as a contributor.

Contributors to this Entry

Game added by Tomer Gabel.

iPad, iPhone added by Techademus.

Additional contributors: Rebound Boy, formercontrib, Patrick Bregger, MrFlibble.

Game added August 29, 1999. Last modified January 23, 2024.