Solaris_Wave

Walking should have been in the game from the beginning. It looks a bit silly when your mercs are running everywhere, especially when a sector is cleared and civilians are walking around. I am happy to see that walking is now included but it seems cumbersome to need to press that combination of keys to do it. Not only that but if you change your movement method to left-click only (instead of it alternating, depending on battle mode or not), it is bugged so it won't work. Wouldn't it be more intelligent to have walking automatically be active for short distances in non-combat tactical movement? Then, for farther distances around that sector, running is either automatically activated or you can double left-click to make your mercs run?

I was wondering about the Left-click to move situation. As I have now started playing the game and am building a list of positives and negatives about it, one of my negatives is the alternating between left and right click to move, depending on what mode you are in. I remember other people saying this when the game first came out and there was a response as how to change it. I looked in the Options screen and found nothing. I guess a previous patch removed the option to change it, as I didn't start playing until the first or second patch was released.

I have noticed this as well. There is supposedly some risk vs. reward but it happens quite often where your scout(s) get wounded and then need a lengthy healing process. I thought the whole point of reconnaissance was to check out the area, make note of its layout, study enemy activity but avoid contact with them. They shouldn't get into combat to the point of being wounded. It takes long enough to recon as it is, let alone need to be healed after. They can't be very good scouts if they are getting into a firefight. Also, if they did, it would let the enemy know there are threats nearby. Plus, if your mercs can be wounded in the process, then why can't enemy soldiers receive casualties as well?

That's good to know, @Raeven. I will see how my first playthrough of the game is when I start the game in the next few days.

I can just visualise that image. Vicki dual wielding .44 Magnum revolvers! That must be an invigorating experience for any shooter. Part of the problem with JA2 was the built-in weapon progression that didn't really make sense in the real world. It was more of an RPG-style progression. Handguns gave way to SMGs, which gave way to battle rifles and then finalised with assault rifles (sniper rifles and LMGs staying relevant once they appeared). The progression didn't make sense because handguns, shotguns and SMGs aren't obsolete just because assault rifles exist (although SMGs have been largely replaced by SBRs and carbines in a military capacity). Therefore, there was little incentive to use the earlier weapon types in the game as there was no benefit in using something lighter and shorter. JA2 didn't feature specifications such as how short and manoeuvrable a weapon was. Plus, there was nothing about quickly switching to a backup weapon, like a pistol, in the event of needing to reload during a firefight. You could just happily load another magazine into your rifle, using the same amount of action points every time. The bad guys would wait. As I have mentioned often, I still used sniper rifles a lot in JA2 as they were the most powerful conventional guns, shot for shot. Single shots allowed you to aim at the head, which was the optimal way to kill the over-armoured enemy soldiers (especially the elites). Therefore, sniper rifles were the superior weapon (for me) to kill an enemy soldier the quickest. The assault rifles could fire in automatic but due to the weakness of each bullet (or strength of body armour), automatic fire was only truly useful if you could get up close to an enemy and ensure every bullet hit them. During the end game, the C7 (Canadian M16) was effective for this, due to its high fire rate. I will play JA3 soon but from most people's comments I am wary about the weapons because it sounds as if the gameplay will be the same experience for me as it was with JA2: single, aimed shots dominating the game (and in turn, sniper rifles being the best weapons to achieve this). I really wanted a good variation of weapon usefulness. That doesn't appear to be the case, without patching or modding.

That makes sense. Bullets shouldn't be able to differentiate who they hit once in flight. Unless they were smart bullets that would slam on the brakes if they recognised friendlies and then went off in search of enemy targets. Also, friendlies are less likely to shout out, "Don't worry, old boy! Just be careful next time." and more likely to start a sentence with the words, "You bastard…"

Some good ideas there. Someone else suggested coloured dots to better represent AP and HP ammo. That would be a helpful addition as normally, it would be easy enough to identify such cartridges in reality but maybe not so much in the game.

So that gaping wound to the waist and that blown out kneecap can be fixed with a spot of Savlon?

This would have been a very useful addition to the game. In fact, I wished I could do it in JA2 as there were a few times where one of my mercs was incapacitated and I needed to get them out of there, so they could be healed.

A bullet shouldn't do more damage or less damage just because more were fired or because the shooter stood at a different angle. Its factors should depend on things like weather, barrel length, quality of the ammunition, velocity and design. I think flanking should create the same amount of damage. Any flanking bonuses to the shooter should be to cause greater suppression, quicker morale loss or stress, and to reflect the target looking elsewhere if it doesn't cost any action points to turn direction, a penalty to actually do so. This could be done by now actually causing an action points cost to turn (provided they have been fired upon first), or if action points are used up to change direction, to double or triple them.

It sounds like I might have to spend so long revising each and every gun in a mod, that it is putting me off doing it in the first place.

Suppression should really come into effect if bullets are landing near the target, as well as hitting the target. Put simply, the target doesn't want to be hit by even one bullet, hence the decision to either stay down or brave it and move out. Suppression level should be stronger if the target gets wounded or if their comrades get hit. Suppression shouldn't just apply to bullets but any lethal area effect weapon. Grenades, mortar shells and other artillery will be just as suppressive as any inbound automatic fire. Reading stuff like this sadly tells me that JA3 is not the game I was hoping it would be. I will play when the opportunity comes and probably have fun but I know that it will feel like a throwaway game. Unless I or someone else mods in the realism that the game deserves. That was why I played JA2 in the first place: because it was more realism orientated and based on current real world weapons. I have learnt and experienced a lot in terms of firearms since then but it was still closer to reality than not. If I wanted fantastical weapons, I would stay with X-COM. Which is why the more I read about JA3, the more I read about lack of realism, cutting corners, lack of natural balance, following old mistakes while creating new ones. Basically a missed opportunity. For me, that is. As you have said, what is the point of having the AK-74 in the game if it uses the same cartridge as the AK-47/AKM? It is practically the same firearm, chambered for 5.45x39mm. Why does the SVD Dragunov use a weaker cartridge instead of the long range, full power cartridge meant for battle rifles and sniper rifles of that era? Too much has been made of individual weapon stats that don't make sense. Too much emphasis has been made of weapon mods. Jagged Alliance was an RPG combined with strategy set in the real world. Now it feels like they have shifted the balance farther towards the RPG side, making the weapons characters in themselves. Somebody could answer (and have answered for other games) that without these changes for the game, all guns are the same. That is simply not true. I could keep all the guns mod free and like their real life counterparts and still have plenty of differences. The various calibres are not hard to implement. I supplied such information in my Weapon Characteristics thread ages ago (now buried under several pages). All of that could have been included, keeping all the weapons viable and with plenty of difference. No one weapon would have dominated because no one weapon dominates in reality, in every field and in every scenario. Some cartridges are naturally designed for greater armour penetration too, without the need for specific armour-piercing rounds. But none of this really made it into the game, keeping JA3 focused on being just that: a game. A fun, little game to pass the time with. I am not expecting JA2 v1.13 levels of minute detail but I was expecting so much more than what JA3 appears to be and did what I could to try to get it to somewhere higher than what it is.

Just reading the comments about suppression, does that mean that sweeping machine gun fire will not suppress multiple targets at the same time?

The more I read about what is missing from the game, the less enthusiastic I am about even playing the game in the next few weeks.

How do they achieve this? Do they suddenly get rocket-powered roller skates or something?

As I have repeatedly mentioned, this is something I was concerned about long before release and made multiple suggestions on how to avoid this. Everything was ignored and now you just have this easy, boring method that seems to work in every situation. Another 'great' idea that wasn't all that great. Haemimont said that they had no damage reduction at first but this made the gameplay less enjoyable. However, they didn't properly test other methods to stop making automatic fire the most dominant. The end result is that is just furthers the emphasis on single shots that are aimed at the head. I would have kept all bullet damage the same between fire modes but would have increased recoil per shot and action point usage. I hope not. I still have to wait a few more weeks to play JA3 but the SVD Dragunov should be chambered for 7.62x54mmR. If not, then that is another mistake that needs fixing.

I have done that on more than one occasion and in more games than I can remember. However, it can become boring if it happens too often in the same game. Hence the need to have better AI that adapts to a situation. If you have a sniper picking off their forces, they shouldn't keep falling to the same method. Chess against the AI isn't something I play often but I haven't enjoyed the experience all that much. The reason behind this is because of the disparity between the AI levels of which I am good against. I am not a good Chess player but I will find one AI difficulty level too easy to beat, encouraging me to go to the next difficulty. It then becomes Gary Kasparov. I am unable to choose a level between the two. I am either not challenged enough or thrashed without the chance to gain experience on what I should do.

Interesting place for your mouse pointer to land. Picking Bella's nose.

I think there is plenty of room for a middle ground between every enemy AI soldier being John Matrix combined with General Patton, and a bunch of kamikaze lemmings who dream of being target dummies. Being thrashed by the AI isn't fun, especially when they have abilities you can't hope to match (usually a combination of ultra fast reactions, cheating and omniscience) but having the enemy act like skittles in a bowling alley can get boring (unless you enjoy bowling, in which case go wild and have a great time). Even if there are different grades of difficulty and less experienced players don't want to be outsmarted too easily, there needs to be variation to keep the game unpredictable and interesting. People's brains need to be challenged. It can be very satisfying to be presented with a problem and then find a solution. I want to be outsmarted by the AI by it being crafty (so no bullet sponges or cheating). I will then discover a way to deal with that situation. That would create enjoyment throughout the course of the game, instead of me just going through the motions until the end credits roll. Or, even worse, giving up the game because I felt it was tedious and monotonous.

Why did they have time issues? Who imposed them? They should not have been under pressure to release by a certain date. JA2 came out decades ago, I'm sure that us gamers would have been happy to wait an extra six months.

There really should have been other ways to affect stamina. Overall, I can think of a range of things such as weather and the sector environment affecting stamina for everyone, encumberment, gas grenades (lethal and non-lethal), flashbangs, concussion from nearby explosions (temporary) and serious injuries. Some of those should have at least been put into the game. That sounds like such a boring way to play but if it is the optimal way to play, why choose any other method unless you want to make it more difficult for yourself? I expected that style of gameplay to happen and commented so many times about it before release. Just using suppressed sniper rifles every time doesn't sound like fun gameplay, it just sounds like you are going through the game, half-invested in the battles until you complete the campaign. This can't be that hard to implement. If the game can record every individual's hitpoints and stats, I am sure it can also include ammo carried by each person on the battlefield (friend and foe). Enemies should really be able to run out of ammo and maybe switch to another weapon. Support weapons should not last forever either, so no infinite heavy MG rounds, mortar rounds, RPGs and grenades.

How are the individual pellets calculated? If you aimed at someone on an elevated position who was behind someone at ground level, do they both get hit or does the person in front (who isn't blocking the person behind) take the full force of the shot instead?

I mentioned this very thing in one of the Developer Diaries. I thought it looked silly that anyone classed as 'Almost Dead' is able to run, roll and vault over things. Anybody in that state should be bleeding as standard and moving slower. More energetic moves should not be allowed. The same applies to anybody at full health but tired. Less action points is one thing but nobody should be able to sprint around the map and perform more acrobatic moves if exhausted.

Either that needs fixing so the person in front can be prone, the next person behind crouching and another standing, to be able to create the old fashioned ranked fire, or maybe friendly fire could be disabled for anyone that is right next to someone else. Maybe friendly fire should only become a risk after one tile/space away. The game can't really produce what you could do in reality by being able to fire over someone's shoulder or slightly past them. Risk of hearing damage aside, the game needs to take into account that your mercs aren't necessarily crawling through a tunnel with no room to manoeuvre.

Do you mean that you can't even have a handgun in one hand and a knife in the other? Both are one-handed weapons (even if you should use your other hand to support your handgun), so it surprises me.