Jump to content

Questions about doors, CQB and ground combat


Recommended Posts

I don't have to remind you how important stupid doors were in JA2 🙂 A lot depended on whether they were closed or open. The tactical situation partly depended on the presence of this piece of wood.

Meanwhile, in the available materials, I have not seen an opening/closing door even once. Yes, I understand, maybe it's too early, especially since it's always been the bane of developers. However, maybe this is a good time to say whether the door will be there or not.

In trailers and screenshots, the fight takes place mostly on the ground level. Yes, I saw the rooftops and the ability to climb them. Therefore, the question arises, will the buildings have several floors and will it be possible to fight in close quarters like in Silent Storm?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sincerely hoping ‘Close Quarters Battle’ will be something to consider in this game. I would actually say it would be vital to do so. It would create the real difference between using a long weapon vs. a short weapon. That long FN FAL your merc is carrying might be lovely when trying to hit those enemy soldiers that are 30 ‘spaces’ away but there should be a penalty to trying to use that when indoors. At that point you want to switch to your sidearm or wait for another merc that might be carrying an SMG to go in first.

I did cover this in my Weapon Characteristics & Other Suggestions thread because one main flaw that JA2 has, is that there is no need for handguns and SMGs once the assault rifles are available.

A weapon with greater weight and size should create more action points to use and maybe some other factor like a close range loss of accuracy (maybe a minimum range to hit and anything under that causing a negative factor), due to being able to handle it. This creates the necessary divide between battle rifles and assault rifles, when comparing to sub-machine guns, machine pistols, pistols and revolvers. This overall means that weapons with handgun calibres are excellent for short ranged combat but are weaker per damage dealt and have reduced range. Full length rifles are better in terms of damage per bullet and have greater range, while being less manoeuvrable. Carbines will be the middle ground. You can then modify within those criteria when working out things like large calibre handguns (damage per bullet vs. action point cost to simulate cost of recoil and weight of gun). That .44 Magnum could kill that enemy in one hit but you would be able to fire 3-4 9mm Parabellum rounds instead.

More powerful ammunition, whether it is from a rifle or handgun, has a chance to over-penetrate the target and keep on going. You might not want that to happen so something weaker would not only reduce that but it is easier to fire and keep on target. On the other hand, you might know there is a bad guy behind that wall and want to shoot right through it, so over-penetration is what you are after.

Maybe there can be another factor that can be added to the game. Most games just give an enemy a number of hitpoints. Each bullet reduces the hitpoints, with more powerful calibres causing a greater reduction. However, it shouldn’t just be that simple. There should be a hidden percentage to cause critical damage or incapacitate the target. This allows weaker ammunition to still potentially kill with only 1 or 2 bullets. To use the above example of .44 Magnum vs. 9mm, we could say that one hit from the .44 Mag will definitely cause more damage per bullet than 9mm, but while .44 Mag would nearly always kill or incapacitate the enemy soldier in one bullet, the 9mm doesn’t always have to hit 4 times to make up for being weaker. One of those bullets could hit a critical location, maybe even the first one. This then simulates the factor of one of those 9mm bullets entering the heart or neck, for example. The .44 Mag would definitely do more damage every time you hit with it but the 9mm could also do the job. Otherwise, you would always take a .44 Magnum handgun instead of a 9mm pistol, because you were fed up having to shoot every single enemy 4 times. In addition, it would definitely avoid the unrealistic scenario of stealthily shooting an unsuspecting guard, needing to hit him multiple times and by the time the action points have run out, the guard is still standing and then gets to turn round, fire back and raise the alarm (I can’t stand games that do that!). You might even have something weaker than 9mm Parabellum! A .22 pistol can still kill but it is less likely. You just don’t want to have to shoot one bad guy 10-15 times while he stands there, fists on hips, head up high and laughing heartily like a Marvel supervillian.


Shotguns can be worked out separately. Using buckshot from short to medium range instead of a slug will create an accuracy bonus but might be stopped by body armour. Shotguns are often long too so have you got a sawn-off double-barrel or a cut-down tactical version? Less shells available before needing to reload, less maximum range and a greater spread. However, with it being shorter and lighter in comparison, there is no minimum range penalty. The shorter barrel does cause greater recoil though so it doesn’t cost less action points to use.

That last paragraph has made me realise something else that could be implemented in some way. I am trying to think how recoil from a gun will be able to be incorporated into the game. When firing automatically, a gun that has higher recoil due to more powerful calibres and/or firing that from a shortened barrel, would see every bullet after the first have an accuracy penalty. That is offset by the skill of the merc firing that class of weapon and whether weapon familiarisation is programmed into the game, to give them a bonus for that particular weapon model. However, what about follow-up shots for any of the semi-auto weapons? How would that be done? Maybe, the first shot would cost a certain amount of action points but then further shots would cost a little more to simulate having to comfortably follow up with further shots? Either that or program in a slight accuracy loss for any follow up shots in semi-auto, while keeping the same amount of action points needed for each shooting action in that turn and until another action is performed, such as moving. What do other people think?

Edited by Solaris_Wave
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...