Solaris_Wave

In some ways, while you are the player that simply controls your soldiers, in regards to Jagged Alliance itself, you are more than that, as you are the employer for a team of mercenaries. They are not just 'units'. They are soldiers that have various levels of experience, personalities, quirks, histories, theatres of war they have already fought in and skills already in place…before you hire them. They are not green recruits and nobody is going to turn mercenary without a level of experience they gained during military service, whether that was as a professional soldier or a revolutionary fighter. Some people might criticise a game where your mercs aren't paying attention to you and could possibly say, "They are my soldiers! Why won't they do what I tell them!?" The thing is, Jagged Alliance is pretty generous in allowing control over your team. If your mercs have got a problem with how you are running things, you are probably not doing a very good job in the first place!

Perks could be called something like 'Natural Leader' or 'Commanding Presence'. They would give a bonus to morale and be able rally those who are wavering or in full blown panic. I'm not sure how they could overcome Suppression but maybe they could limit how fast it increased if it was in effect. Sometimes, no matter how inspiring your commander is, if lots of bullets are chewing up the ground next to you, they are going to think otherwise.

Definitely. The locals are far more likely to trust someone native to their country, and if they have good leadership, also be inspired by them.

Both good points. I especially am curious about what you mentioned in the first paragraph and whether that sort of thing would be available to the player full-time? Being able to hire someone who is from Grand Chien would surely be a useful addition as they would have the best knowledge about the enemy and how to get around the country. They wouldn't just be a worthy soldier, they would also be an important adviser.

I think it would make sense for certain mercs to be very good in a command role. I can't remember whether JA2 showed their former ranks when they served in their nation's forces. Were any of them former officers that by nature will have good leadership? Whether the other mercs trust that leadership is another thing entirely, especially if they are from typically opposing nations (would an American merc want to be commanded by a Russian or Chinese merc, for example?).

Further play-throughs of the game will definitely benefit from random items, otherwise you would just make a bee-line for certain sectors to get the best stuff. There would be a limit to how random that loot is though. If the earliest shop you visit has got some top of the range gear, there needs to be some explanation how this lowly merchant got their hands on it. Equally, only the better enemies should have the better equipment but you could put in a 1% randomiser that means a single enemy militia is carrying something decent, simply because they looted it themselves. During the Libyan civil war, there was news footage of some random male waving round an FN P90. Another one had an FN SCAR. I also agree that whatever equipment was being carried by an enemy soldier when you killed them, you should be allowed to take for yourself, if it didn't get used up in battle against you. I have seen games in the past where you will get an enemy using all sorts of things but when you kill them, all you get is what has been decided you are allowed to pick up.

What people want from a Jagged Alliance game seems to be the same key things: A modern day, real world setting (even if set in a fictional location). Realistic combat with weapons from a real-life setting. Destructible scenery. Large maps during the combat part of the game. Traditional turn-based mechanics during combat. A storyline with an open-world campaign that you can tackle in any order you desire. Various quests and side quests. Units that you control to not just be generic units but individual characters with personalities that may or may not agree with their employer (i.e. you). To have a distinct mercenary based theme, involving money used to hire people and buy/sell equipment. How that is achieved is an open field but it seems that we all want things that fit that criteria (and anything else I have possibly missed).

I can imagine how dramatic a night mission during a thunderstorm would be! That would be a great way of stealthily approaching an enemy compound, avoiding any lights and taking out guards with suppressed weapons and knives. When you are talking about random loot, do you mean something that is in the sector itself or randomised equipment on the enemies you kill in that sector?

Lots of people are wary of crowdfunding these days. While it is rare to happen, crowdfunded games have sometimes never been completed and remain in an alpha or beta state. Progress is slow, or things are always being added, or the vision is too great to truly make into a workable game. For crowdfunding in the case of JA3, it isn't necessary. They already have a large enough team and publisher. Crowdfunding is more for a small group of people (or one person) that have an idea and want enough funding to make it happen. Not every game will turn into Star Citizen, but that is probably the most (in)famous game ever that is crowdfunded as it shows that no matter how much money is thrown at it, you can't guarantee the game will ever be finished. I reckon that game will get finished but the vision is so great that by the time the game is released, nobody will want to play it because humans will have actually been able to colonise outer space for real. I don't know what pre-orders are like these days. At one point, it was getting stupid as one games store was selling the game with one lot of exclusives, another store with another lot of exclusives and you had to decide what you wanted to see in your game. Those exclusives might appear as payable DLC at some point down the line but then again, they might not. There was always the worry that you might miss out on the complete game experience (and if you were buying the game in the first place, you want to see all of the content there is to offer) and the publishers thrived on that. I don't know if that is even a thing now that physical copies of games have faded in favour of downloadable games. There is definitely still the issue with review copies of games not being what the retail version is like. These days, that might be where the review copy is just the 'finished' game and the retail copy is the game but absolutely festooned with micro-transactions and gambling incentives "surprise mechanics". Bait-and-switch tactics do still happen but the public are more wary these days because of certain publishers getting away with it in the past, despite lawsuits.

While I agree that animated portraits would be far superior, I am thinking that with the current portraits it wouldn't be possible. They look hand drawn and unless they switched to a different but fairly similar looking rendered model, it isn't possible. If they were hand drawn and animated, it would require lots of slightly adjusted stills (or frames) to build up an animation. Basically, the old fashioned way. When you see a lot of drawn portrait art integrated into a game these days, they often have a few different looks and then alternate between them, jumping from one expression to the other. They might flip it and rotate the face slightly back and forth. They might even just make the eyes blink to give some life. Actual animated characters these days though do tend to be rendered 3D models. The days of animating 2D pixel faces is really as old as JA2 and unless a modern game deliberately goes for pixel art (or deliberately plain faces to produce different expressions from), it doesn't feature these days. Throughout the 1990s, it was more common as the resolutions were much lower and you would have an easier time of slightly adjusting some pixels to move the eyebrows, eyes and mouth.

Battlefield was more my scene as well. I loved the open battlefields, integration of vehicles and the destructible scenery. I never played the first few, PC-only games, such as BF:1942, BF2 and BF:Vietnam. I played the first one to come out on the XBox 360, which was BF2: Modern Combat. I didn't really like it because it would demote you in rank if you didn't get enough kills per match. Despite its scope, I found that the best way for me to play it and gain ranks, was to run around like I was playing a faster multiplayer, arcade FPS and get loads of kills in close quarters. However, that wasn't the way I wanted to actually play it. Bad Company 1 came out afterwards and was so much more enjoyable. The sound effects and the destructible scenery created such an immersive experience. Bad Company 2 went one better with how much you could destroy and some of my most memorable experiences were in that game. BF3 was the last one I played and brought more realism to the game. It felt like a step sideways rather than a step forward though. The developers had to remove the fully destructible scenery and there were only certain parts of the maps that could get wrecked. I never played any of the others because I never moved to a new generation XBox and at the time, didn't have a gaming PC. I feel like I have kind of missed out on the right time to play any of the sequels.

Thanks for the link. I couldn't really tell what effect it had though, like you stated. I wonder if being suppressed affects your total action point allowance in those turns that you stay suppressed, while at the same time affecting morale? It should probably also affect accuracy if trying to shoot back. Effects from low morale would eventually lead to panic, leading to a variety of results: a turn could be missed as they become unresponsive and then they either remain where they are but cower in place, fire wildly in the direction of the enemy, run off to another location they consider to be safer, flee the battlefield altogether, or try to surrender. How experienced that person is would lessen the chance of losing morale so quickly.

I got a little mixed up on velocity being affected by suppressors. I was thinking of integral suppressors, like on the MP5SD, deliberately reducing bullet velocity to quieten the shot. The same can be said for old fashioned suppressors that contained 'wipes'. They would slow the bullet and be very quiet. However, they didn't last long as further bullets would shoot through the wipes until they had no effect. As you said, subsonic ammunition these days plays a significant role in reducing noise and they have a lower velocity. I didn't really want to include the fact that some suppressors can actually increase velocity (which isn't by much) as I didn't want to confuse anybody, such as the developers, if they were looking at balancing the use of suppressors in JA3. Everything else remains valid though, I believe. Weight can be a good thing as more weight lowers recoil. That said, some suppressors are heavy and you can feel that extra weight on the end of the barrel. Again, it is an older suppressor but I remember thinking how heavy the Soviet PBS-1 felt.

This post is not strictly related to my previous posts on night combat but does have a few things that will be in conjunction with it: Laser sights won't give away your position that easily, either from the point of origin or what is being aimed at. While visible, a laser point isn't that easy to see unless it is moving around. Mounted laser sights produce a small dot and it is only under certain lighting and atmospheric conditions that you can see the beam itself. Big, visible beams panning around the area is for Hollywood movies. I am guessing that audio detection is in the game, where noise can give away the position of someone, whether they are moving through bushes or over wooden floorboards. What about smells? A bonfire, the smell of tobacco, strong deodorant, body odour or coffee could announce the presence of human activity. While not particularly being able to precisely locate such activity, it could prompt one of your mercs to whisper that they can smell something in a certain direction. Cigarettes, cigars and pipes would give away a position at night as well. You might not see a guard standing still in the darkness, until at some point they decide to use their lighter or strike a match to smoke something. Not only that but cigarettes and cigars would occasionally continue to glow at night, everytime that person takes a puff. The inclusion of tobacco in the game is obviously down to the developers and publishers, especially in this day and age, even if it isn't truly advertising the use of it. While I have always been a non-smoker and can't stand the stuff, it is nonetheless still in wide use, and probably more so during the timeline that JA3 is set in, so I included it here for the sake of authenticity and another way of revealing a position.

If suppressed weapons are handled correctly, they won't dominate the game to the point of making unsuppressed weapons less effective. Some games just let you stick a can on the gun, make it harder to be detected by the enemy and there are no negatives. In reality, a suppressor will lower the velocity so the overall range of the weapon is reduced. The bullet travels slower so its accuracy at range is less and that slower speed means the damage per bullet is lower. Bullet penetration through cover is reduced too. That might be a good thing or bad thing, depending on what you are trying to hit, or avoid hitting. Suppressors can be long and heavy. This increases overall length of the gun. That along with the extra weight makes the gun more cumbersome. To translate that into the game, the longer and heavier a gun is, I say it should cost more action points to fire the first bullet in that game turn (due to pointing and aiming the gun). Follow up shots are faster in general unless the merc moves. This overall means that by staying still, you zero in on your intended target. Follow up shots with a suppressed weapon are easier because of reduced recoil but the gun will heat up more and the suppressor will wear out. Firing fully automatic isn't recommended as it causes the suppressor to cook and eventually be useless at suppressing anything. They get hot anyway so semi-auto and single shot is the better method. You would need to perform maintenance on both the suppressor and your gun in-between combat (or maybe even during, if the situation got that bad). If you wrecked the suppressor from firing too much, you would just have to perform maintenance on your gun and look for a new suppressor altogether.

Night Combat (Part 2): The second part covers muzzle flashes. Muzzle flashes will give away the position of the shooter when they were previously surrounded by darkness. You will see this from any angle so you can aim for those flashes from whatever position you are related to the enemy. Muzzle flashes are not constant and not every bullet fired will produce the same flash, all the time. You are more likely to see those flashes at night, even though they can still be seen during daylight. Some guns will produce a bigger flash than others and it depends on the following: Whether the gun has a flash hider in the first place. Whether a gun is firing fully automatic. Whether a gun has a shortened barrel and is firing a round meant for longer barrels. If a gun is firing more powerful ammunition. If a gun is larger calibre. If a gun has a compensator. Some guns don't have or need flash hiders as standard (almost all handguns, revolvers and even most SMGs) or, in the case of an assault rifle, they might have come off, if they are a poorly maintained weapon. Flash hiders also vary in quality with aftermarket flash hiders being better quality (and more expensive). The main use of a flash hider is actually for the benefit of the shooter themselves as it prevents them from being blinded or dazzled by the notable flash, caused by such things as gunpowder and gases when the bullet leaves the barrel. Short-barrel rifles often have a bigger muzzle flash than their standard barrel counterparts. While shortening the barrel length will make the gun lighter and more manoeuvrable, you are increasing recoil, muzzle flash, noise and blast, wear and tear, while also reducing velocity. Standard issue carbines try to find the sweet spot before the whole idea of shortening the rifle becomes detrimental. Compact carbines often accept the loss and their uses are limited to certain scenarios. Over-pressured ammunition such as +P will create a higher muzzle flash. Compensators, either built-in to the gun or mounted externally are designed to reduce recoil. Their downsides will create a higher flash, more noise and a bigger blast. Built-in compensators can reduce velocity too. Flash hiders will only work so much at hiding the muzzle flash at night, to anybody looking at where to shoot back. Mounting a sound suppressor will work to a greater effect (as well as obviously reducing the gunshot). It doesn't entirely eliminate it but is very effective at reducing it. The downside of a suppressor is reduced velocity, which affects maximum range, accuracy at range and damage per bullet (due to slower travel). Other than affecting the game cosmetically and needing to have the guns produce bigger or smaller muzzle flashes, what actual gameplay effects do these muzzle flashes have at night? As I mentioned near the beginning of this post, it will give away the position of the shooter to anyone else. Ways around it would be to fire semi-auto as even though a flash will still occur, firing a burst is going to multiply what is happening; have a good quality flash hider; mount a sound suppressor. While it would be unrealistic to light up the shooter as if they were standing under a street light, there should be an outline of where they are detected, kind of like sound detection. Maybe a red outline of a human being would work. This outline only lasts for one turn and will only re-appear if the shooter was to fire the next turn, and so on. Because the muzzle flash is quick, there should not be a bonus to hit the detected shooter, unless they are firing full automatic (providing a more consistent muzzle flash). It is otherwise only a point of reference for your merc to actually target something. How will the shooter's eyesight be affected by their own weapon's muzzle flash? If the flash is bright enough, caused by the points I listed above, it should reduce natural night vision in the same way that artificial light was covered in Part 1 of Night Combat. To further assist the merc, they could buy protective eyewear like shooting glasses. These can still be worn at night, unlike sunglasses.

They used to use the same portrait and animate them during conversations.

Night Combat (Part 1): While not strictly related to weapons, I was wondering about combat that takes place during night time? The reason I have posted this comment in this particular thread is because I have been thinking about the use of tactical lights mounted on firearms. Tac lights will illuminate what is in front of it and can be very useful in dark interiors and outdoors, especially if it is a moonless night. However, keeping the light switched on, is not a good idea as it also gives away the position of the user. The use of light during night battles, in turn-based squad games, doesn't seem to amount to more than to make an area visible or not. Each character will have a surrounding aura of light around them to show awareness but there doesn't seem to be any other factor, such as being blinded by powerful lights, having night vision disrupted by lights or a mounted light giving away the position of the one using it. This will be something that only a JA3 developer can reveal but those above factors could hopefully be included into the game. I know it is yet something else for the developers to consider but maybe one or two of those could be included for night battles. A character moving from indoors to outdoors could have a delay of several turns for natural night vision to appear. Until then, their visibility is reduced except for what they can see lit up by street lights, search lights, a flashlight/torch or a mounted tactical light. The immediate surrounding area of a character will not be affected as this will be their situational awareness. It is important to note that nobody else can see that situational awareness. While that light aura might light up for that character, the aura is not visible to anybody else. If a character is outside and underneath a street light, if they end a turn under that light, their night visibility is lowered for one turn afterwards. They can however, see anything else illuminated by artificial light. I don't know how or if, being blinded by a light could be included in the game, with the exception of using flashbangs, because even if you make a character look in that direction, how do you know what their eyes are looking at? Maybe a character's visibility could suffer if they are directly facing a beam of light up close. This doesn't include street lights but would include search lights, car headlights, flashlights and tac lights. Basically, any light that is powered in one directional cone or beam. Light beams from search lights, car headlights, flashlights/torches and tac lights will naturally provide a cone of illumination that has a maximum range. Everything within that light cone will be revealed. The important thing to note is that this light can be traced back to the point of origin. A shooter can aim for that light and try to destroy it. This is one of the reasons why mounted tac lights often have a pressure switch alongside or instead of an on/off switch. While it is handy to light up an area you can't see, you don't want to be continuously doing it as your light can be seen by others. Equally important is the distance and facing of that source of light and something that I hope can be programmed into the game. If Man A, with the tac light is up close and illuminating someone (Man B), it will be hard for that illuminated person (Man B) to look at the light (tactical lights can be very bright!). If they try to shoot at Man A, there should be a penalty to accuracy as the light is being shone in their eyes. If Man B is not in close range, let's say, out of the cone of illumination, their eyes are not dazzled by the light source. At this point, they actually get an accuracy bonus to hit because they can shoot at the dot of light. This would also apply to any other person who would wish to shoot if they were at a similar distance. If Man B was to the side of Man A, there should be no bonus or penalty to hit. He is not being illuminated and hence dazzled. Also, he will not see the point of light to aim at. If Man B was behind Man A, because of some reason, there should be no bonus or penalty at shooting at Man A. Yes, he could follow the cone of light back to the source but he wouldn't have a dot of light to aim at and I don't think there would be a worthwhile bonus to hit, unless something like 5-10%. It must be said that detecting that point of light (to get the accuracy bonus) is only valid if they are not lit up by anything else. You must see that dot of light in the darkness to target it. To finalise, is it worth mounting lights on guns if they can potentially give away your position? Definitely. Your natural night vision will never compare to the visibility gained from artificial light. Even night vision goggles aren't superior as they don't create the same visibility (and are more expensive). It comes down to how stealthy you want to be and how well you are able to take advantage of natural and ambient light. Some areas you will simply struggle to see, and if navigating terrain used by hostile animals that can see you in the dark just nicely, you will want to illuminate it. If you are approaching a compound with street lights, you can probably leave your own light switched off and let those other lights do the work for you (while also letting you see guards walking past them).

Looking at the portraits again, I think most of them are very good. I think the issue I have and maybe others have, is the choice of clothes they are wearing. The majority of the mercs look fine in terms of facial appearance. The clothes they are wearing is what sometimes gives them a cartoony look, or makes them look as if they are going for a casual night out on a cruise ship. Also, looking at the nature of the portraits, I am not sure how they could be animated. They are drawn, rather than rendered, it seems. Unlike the days of JA2, you are not needing to alter a few pixels here and there to change eyebrow positions, make the eyes blink and the mouth move.

Those are excellent points. Several of us have commented on terrain and their effects on combat before but I think it goes further than that. General map travel should create more fatigue if the terrain chosen to travel through is harsh enough. The roads will obviously be the easiest and fastest route but the enemy might have those too well guarded and patrolled. Needing to take an alternative route will possibly slow your mercs down in general travel. Additionally, if driving a vehicle, could it possibly break down or need refuelling mid-journey? Will your mercs need to carry more water or food to keep their energy up? Due to being in a hotter climate, that should be a factor, although not taken to the extreme that a previous Jagged Alliance game did (constant exhaustion issues). Those alternative routes may also create a sudden random hostile encounter. If not against the army or bandits, what about deadly animals? Will the enemy possibly experience fatigue when you engage them? Surely they get tired too? What about weather? Will there be rain, thunderstorms, mist, haze or certain days with extreme heat? That will slow movement in general and in battle, plus visibility will be affected, meaning there could be shorter range combat.

Long range combat is vital as it will create a use for sniper rifles, bolt-actions, battle rifles and machine guns. Hopefully a suppression mechanic will be in the game as machine guns will really come into their element, whether they are heavy machine guns (e.g. M2HB in .50 BMG), general purpose (M240 in 7.62x51mm) or squad automatic weapons (M249 in 5.56mm). Having one of those to lay down fire as your other mercs close the distance, so they can use assault rifles, carbines, SMGs and shotguns will show the value of a weapon like that, rather than just being 'nice to have'. Hopefully, there will be further in-game mechanics that limit the use of sniper rifles and single shot fire. I have said this in numerous posts and covered it in detail in my own thread on Weapon Characteristics. Sniping should be reserved for the mercs skilled in using such a weapon, rather than just having every merc with a high weapon skill being adept at sniping. Single shot fire (bolt-action or semi-auto) shouldn't win out over full auto fire like in JA2 (except at point blank range). If you get rid of being allowed to choose which body part to aim for, unless at close range or through a full power telescopic sight - provided the target is not running, that will make it so you can't just keep shooting an enemy in the head all the time to quickly kill them, due to having so much body armour. In real life, shooting at an enemy in the distance that is using cover, moving around and possibly shooting back, makes choosing their head to hit extremely hard to do. Again, map sizes will not only create multiple ways to attack and defeat the enemy, it will create the necessary variety for the various weapons. Closer ranges, such as when going into buildings, should make SMGs, handguns, shotguns and carbines a viable choice. Where their range is lowered (and if using pistol calibres, weaker damage per bullet), their lighter weight and shorter length should be advantageous compared to anything else. You get that by having less action point cost to aim and shoot, plus depending on the weapon and ammunition fired, possibly less recoil per bullet. I know I have explained all of this so many times and in greater detail, but it doesn't hurt to keep saying it until we know what the battlefield ranges will be like and that no weapon type dominates all of the others.

JA2 had humour that was often black comedy, which worked very well alongside the obvious violence and aftermath (e.g. carrion birds). Some of it was pure comedy but kept restrained in its amount (Deidranna constantly chastising Elliot and your mercs visiting the brothel). I am wondering if the art direction has inspiration from the Tropico games that Haemimont Games previously worked on? Are any of the artists that are working on JA3, artists that have previously worked on the earlier Tropico 3, 4 and 5? While maybe not quite as cartoony, they still have similar bright and bold colours. I am hoping the peg leg characters will be a one-off character, rather than frequent enemies you have to fight. That would go from being comical to being downright silly.

The best gaming platform is actually dependent on the type of game being played. Consoles are definitely more accessible and compact but PCs are more versatile. As a general rule, any game that works on a console, will be just as good on a PC…provided it is made well enough. Some companies have created poor PC ports or even used older generation technology in the PC version of the game. If the games are handled correctly, the PC is capable of superior resolutions, better effects and faster frame rates. If your PC is powerful enough, it can look better than the console version and still have a faster frame rate. Most people won't mind, especially if they are just sat in their lounge and playing a game on their TV. Versatility-wise, the PC blows the console out of the water. There are more control options and gamepads can be used on the PC if desired. That is important because gamepads are the best option for certain games, instead of trying to use the keyboard. The PC can have steering wheels like the consoles have (and often ones with more authenticity and function). You've also got high quality joysticks and throttles. Finally, using a mouse is superior for aiming instead of a thumb stick on a gamepad. Yes, gamepads can be used for First-Person Shooters and successfully so but much of the interactivity between the player and their onscreen weapon is in conjunction with aim assist to compensate. The PC also allows for a far wider choice of games. Strategy games, whether they are real-time or turn-based are so much easier to control with a mouse and keyboard. Being closer to the screen also allows for smaller graphics, icons and text, which a more precise mouse can click on. Most simulators, with the exception of driving sims, need a keyboard to handle the extra functions. You might be able to use a keyboard with a console these days but games designers will often assume the the average console gamer will just have a gamepad and base their game off of that. As I said, it really comes down to the game being played. Consoles can be sufficient for a variety of game genres and the gamepad (being the main interface) will accommodate for that but it is more of a 'readily accessible' device for the lounge or bedroom. The PC is what you will choose if you have the money, a bit more space and more desire for the best experience that the games can offer.

I am guessing that the characters in the game are not finalised and could still see lots of revision. I do understand that the mercs all need to be easily identifiable so their clothes are very much part of their personality. You wouldn't be able to clearly tell who's who if there are five mercs all unshaven and wearing BDUs. That said, I have thought that some of the mercs look a little too game-like and not mercs that you would hire for their combat skills. I have frequently mentioned how unrealistic Leisure Suit Larry Smiley looks for a professional for hire. Looking at the images posted by @LoboNocturno previously, you've also got one guy in a purple shirt and white slacks, who looks like you would hire him to organise a beach party for Playboy magazine. You've got the second guy who looks like an East European Duke Nukem and the third merc looking like he drives a gold Hummer and fires his Glock 17 (or gold plated Desert Eagle) sideways.

The second photo is a lot clearer to see you, not just because it is zoomed in but because of the better resolution. I was struggling to spot you in the first photo and I think the low res played a part in that. Also, I wasn't sure of the scale of yourself when compared to the trees. I wasn't too far off your actual location because I saw what looked like a face. However, I couldn't tell precisely and wasn't sure if you were kneeling down or had your head lowered. All of that would be plenty of time for a sniper to take me down. I enjoyed looking through the photos of the links you posted. The camo patterns are excellent and remind me of a mix of Canadian pattern (CADPAT) and German Flecktarn. The first link's winter pattern has got some great examples of it blending in with the terrain. On a games and entertainment level, it does make me wish for more combat games that are set in a winter environment. It doesn't matter whether it was an FPS or a tactical scale turn-based strategy. Due to the cold temperatures, there could be some survival mechanics in there but not so it dominates the entire game. I find that with strict survival games, you are constantly hungry and thirsty. Nothing seems to sustain you for more than five minutes. The game doesn't even have to be in a modern day setting. It could be set on Earth during a new ice age or be on another planet altogether. Saying all of that also reminds me when I used to play Call Of Duty, over ten years ago and never to the level of mania that others have played it (I always thought it was overrated). There was one map set in the snow and I was laying prone with certain perks that made me harder to detect. I was near the edge of the map and underneath some trees. I was so busy looking towards the main building, and due to my position, I didn't think anybody would end up behind me. An enemy player actually crawled right past me, got up and sprinted off towards the building. They must have thought I was a mound of snow that couldn't be climbed over. I deliberately didn't kill the player as soon as I saw him, because that would have revealed my position (especially if I used a knife). Not only that but the game often respawned an enemy player you killed, behind you for a cheap revenge kill, particularly if your team had all moved up and the sides were swapped over. I waited until they were about to go inside the building before I took the shot. With it being hardcore mode, there was no kill camera either, so the shot could have come from anywhere. Sniping was too easy in the Call Of Duty games though. All bullets had instantaneous travel and no drop in velocity at any range.