New IGN feature (July 5, 2007)

[Algan]

IGN

IGN has posted a new feature about the new historical scenarios. New screenshots are also included.

Also IGN had this to say:
We'll be back in the coming weeks to take a closer look at the remaining scenarios, which feature either a futuristic or fantasy setting.

 

[Gaius Octavius]

Very interesting. No word on the "ranged attack mode" in the Defense scenario, though.

 

[ohcrapitsnico]

Great! Now I can make my judgments and criticisms.

Is it just me or is the link not working?

 

[Evie]

Interesting information all in all.

I like the bits about needing specific buildings to build specific units.

EDIT : Link is poorly typed. Here's the fixed link : http://pc.ign.com/articles/801/801206p1.html

 

[Virulent]

There's been quite a hubbub over the inclusion of Charlemagne as leader of the Holy Roman Empire in the standard game, but this scenario makes things a little more understandable.

I'm assuming some people from IGN lurk here.

 

[ohcrapitsnico]

Interesting information all in all.

I like the bits about needing specific buildings to build specific units.

EDIT : Link is poorly typed. Here's the fixed link : http://pc.ign.com/articles/801/801206p1.html

Thanks.

I'm looking forward to the WWII scenario. In general the scenarios look more interesting than the warlords. Civ defense doesn't looks a bit boring and it seems that crossroads is only their to display corporations instead of a grand war scenario. The raiders in crossroads reminds me very much of the viking scenario in warlords.

 

[grumbler]

interestingly, you will need specific factories to produce specific types of units so you'll need to plan your infrastructure carefully.

What's even cooler is that you can actually order air strikes specifically against these production buildings.

This sounds great!

 

[I_pity_the_fool]

Weird: 'The number one threat to America: Bears'

http://uk.media.pc.ign.com/media/896/896712/img_4679123.html

Fans of Stephen Colbert, I suppose.

 

[mice]

Crossroads unfortunately sounds like it will have a very limited lifespan. A bit one dimensional, and Gods of Old too. I hope Broken star has a bit more depth, but I'm not so optimistic about these scenarios now.

WWII on the other hand sounds better and better.

 

[Algan]

Weird: 'The number one threat to America: Bears'

http://uk.media.pc.ign.com/media/896/896712/img_4679123.html

Fans of Stephen Colbert, I suppose.

Wrong Link

That sounds like something Firaxis would do.

 

[Alter Ego]

Hmm. So von Papen will lead Germany in the WWII scenarios.

 

[Thorbal]

bears...

The Anglo-Saxons have a very interesting leader
http://media.pc.ign.com/media/896/896712/img_4679142.html
Oh and there are the continental Saxons as well... I hope the "minor factions" are playable! *drools*

 

[Gaius Octavius]

What I can't figure out is if that's a new animated LH just for this scenario. Weird.

 

[Thorbal]

I would guess that it´s just a picture, not an animated leaderhead. Looks quite static to me.

 

[Dom Pedro II]

I was initially supportive of the WWII scenario regarding the nazi content at first, but I'm really not satisfied with this solution... I'd rather that they just abstracted the whole thing and just used country names rather than leaders with flags as leaderhead graphics... I'm sure that at least some of the leaderheads will be flags since they won't have leaderhead graphics for all players, which is annoying if you have some with actual leaderheads and some not. I don't like the prospect of such inconsistency which I see they're already using in the Charlemagne scenario. I'd rather that they just made a portrait of Charlemagne and left out his animated head altogether in the scenario if the others aren't going to have animated leaderheads.

I mean, over all the scenarios sound interesting. At the end of the day, how it plays is what should really matter... but since I haven't gotten a chance to play it yet, I can't really say anythiing about that. But what I see gives me pause.

 

[grumbler]

I would guess that it´s just a picture, not an animated leaderhead. Looks quite static to me.

I'd agree. If you compare the two leaderheads, Joao appears much sharper, while the anglo-saxon has a certain fuzziness to himself (look at his fingers!).

 

[Dom Pedro II]

Seeing that made me wish there were a way to render the all the leaderheads as if they were animated oil paintings.

 

[Gaius Octavius]

We have a Saxon civ and an Anglo-Saxon civ... [shudder]

 

[Dale]

I was initially supportive of the WWII scenario regarding the nazi content at first, but I'm really not satisfied with this solution... I'd rather that they just abstracted the whole thing and just used country names rather than leaders with flags as leaderhead graphics... I'm sure that at least some of the leaderheads will be flags since they won't have leaderhead graphics for all players, which is annoying if you have some with actual leaderheads and some not. I don't like the prospect of such inconsistency which I see they're already using in the Charlemagne scenario. I'd rather that they just made a portrait of Charlemagne and left out his animated head altogether in the scenario if the others aren't going to have animated leaderheads.

I mean, over all the scenarios sound interesting. At the end of the day, how it plays is what should really matter... but since I haven't gotten a chance to play it yet, I can't really say anythiing about that. But what I see gives me pause.

All leaderheads in RtW are animated. There's no static or flags.

 

[Gaius Octavius]

EVEN THE POLISH LEADER?!