Jump to content

Talk:Act of War: Direct Action

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

POV?

[edit]

I agree it needs cleanup, but what is POV about it? The previews are, indeed, extremely positive, that's a fact. And I say that it's great "according to previews" (finding enough links to support this is not a problem, I don't think there was a single negative/neutral preview yet).

The best graphics bit is rather obvious (Rome: Total War comes close and some may like it more, but overall Act of War does more impressive stuff). The rest of the text contains nothing but facts.

By all means, please go ahead and copy-edit, but there isn't really any POV to remove. Paranoid 22:24, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I sort of cleaned it up, and I say "sort of" because I fixed a grammatical mistake: the original sentence in the first paragraph of the "Plot" had "has" instead of "have" when it talks about gasoline prices. Let me copy both the original and my revised version: Original:"Act of War is set in what is only referred to as 'a near future' where the gasoline prices in the United States has reached to over $7 a gallon due to an economic crisis" --Fandelasketchup (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Revised by me:"Act of War is set in what is only referred to as 'a near future' where the gasoline prices in the United States have reached over $7 a gallon due to an economic crisis". See the difference? I think the rule is when a noun is plural (like "lyrics" or, in this case, "prices") the verb must switch to the singular (in the first case "The lyrics FOCUS on..." while in the second, cited above,"gasoline prices HAVE reached over....") --Fandelasketchup (talk) 13:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see by my previous comment, I also deleted the "to" from reached to over $7 billion..." because it's not needed when talking about money --Fandelasketchup (talk) 13:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion

[edit]

There's an expansion coming up, wich adds navy's, planable aircraft routes, mercenary's and more. It's due to be released in march 2006. (Source: PC Gameplay (Belgian-Dutch gamesmagazine))

Your post is grammatically incorrect, let me explain why: 1) "navy's" should be "navies" and "mercenary's" should be "mercenaries" amd also months of the year are always capitalized in English. --Fandelasketchup (talk) 13:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TFT superweapon

[edit]

It'll be interesting to note that the superweapon for TFT in the game (at least in Single player, not sure about multiplayer) is Wolverine "Baby Nukes". The Howitzer is virtually unheard of in the game. Can someone confirm this?

The article is correct. The TFT superweapon is a howitzer, the U.S. Marine superweapon is the Wolverine. Brophmeister (talk) 22:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soviet Era equipments?

[edit]

I don't know someone here insists on saying "Consortium chiefly uses soviet era equipments". Well, it doesn't. It uses French tanks and French IFVs as well as American aircrafts (Black widow) and superweapons (Falling Star). Although the name Akula is a Russian name but as Vega explains, stealth tank and Optical-Camo Soldiers were experimental American designs. Fleet Command (talk) 06:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by 74.73.125.140

[edit]

Hi.

I just had to tone the edits of 74.73.125.140 a bit since they seemed a little bit too superfluous. I think there is no point bombarding the reader with cryptic and fictitious statements like fictitious weapon code names or statements like:

The Falling Star, a space-based weapon of mass destruction that utilizes falling space debris and decommissioned artificial satellites.

This last one raises a lot of questions to the reader. "Space debris? What are they? Decommissioned artificial satellites? If they are decommissioned, what the hell are they doing up there? Artificial satellites? Now, I'm lost, but do they hurt?"

Let's leave it to the simple "space-based weapon of mass destruction". That much is understandable: A weapon in space that hurts a lot!

Regards, Fleet Command (talk) 06:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Act of War: Direct Action. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 15:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Act_of_War:_Direct_Action&oldid=1204497741"