Solaris_Wave

Looking at those screenshots, you can definitely see how JA1 was from that era. So many games around that time had those fonts and the digitised portraits for cutscenes. It is obvious that Brenda is meant to be eye candy with the long legs and green eyes and a young me would have zeroed in on that. I never actually bought JA1. I played the demo and thought it was good but limited in what you could do. I felt that it needed more flexibility for character movement. When JA2 came along, it provided everything I was looking for in an in-depth squad strategy game. The demo for that caused me to immediately put down an order for the full game. It is almost as if JA1 was the new recruit at boot camp, learning to become a soldier, while JA2 was the seasoned veteran.

I think it just goes to show how much content JA2 and older games in general had 'out of the box'. These days DLC is both a good thing and a bad thing. I tend to buy most DLC for a game as I want the whole experience but it only really applies to expansion of a storyline or expansion to gameplay. I rarely buy cosmetics and only if they are cheap. Even then, I always feel that that sort of thing should have come with the game. If a custom merc option arrives via DLC, I am pretty sure it will bring criticism. Why wasn't it with the main game, why was it made DLC when everyone would want it? If it arrives alongside the main game's release, those will be the criticisms made. If it arrives later, people will say, "Why not just put back the main release date until it was integrated with the main game?" The later release of it would also make people wonder whether they should restart the game as they want the full experience and don't want to complete the game once before playing again with their custom character.

I can definitely see what you mean about that camo pattern being too busy. It looks as if it would only be ideal for very specific circumstances (just the right terrain position, just the right amount of trees and branches, and just the right amount of sunlight) and too complex almost every other time. Maybe that kind of pattern isn't so bad if you were in a tree line and you were some distance from anybody who was looking out for danger. Meanwhile, those other patterns allow for more diversity in where you are and what the environment is looking like. Thank you for posting them!

Those camo patterns in the second and third images are a lot better. Just enough to break up your profile so you are not one solid block of colour but not so much that it defeats the object of ‘blending in’. Out of curiosity, have you ever taken photos, or had a friend take photos, of you wearing those different camo patterns to see how they blend in with a snow covered woodland? How obvious would you be in the distance if wearing the clothing in the first image? Also, it is interesting to see a lack of velcro, or so it appears. There are pros and cons to using velcro pockets and I know it was some time ago when velcro was being phased out of United States BDUs (to be possibly replaced at some point by ‘silent velcro’) but I can imagine the scenario of creeping up on an animal with superior hearing, only for them to run away as soon as they hear that RRRRIIIIIIIIIIIP as you attempt to get something out of your pocket, maybe with birds taking flight for added effect. Either that, or the animal is of the angry variety and is now charging towards you.

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?

Hopefully, it truly was due to an early build being shown. It would make no sense to ditch the various ammunition types. Multiple games have that now and if they just stuck to Full Metal Jacket for rifles, SMGs and pistols, while it might be realistic from an army issue point of view, mercs get to buy what they want when they have enough money and a decent supplier. At the beginning of the game, you might only get FMJ rounds and if Soviet-issue, probably cheap, corrosive ammo. Later on though, you should get to choose if you want Hollow Points and Armour Piercing (if AP is made for that cartridge). FMJ would be the middle ground between the two, with HP causing greater damage to the body but being easier to defeat with body armour. AP gets through but causes less damage due to little expansion and high penetration. I don’t think you need to go more in-depth with that and start choosing different grain weights for cartridges. That would unnecessarily complicate things when you are adjusting velocities, rates of fire, range and damage by minute detail. It would be better to pick the most common details or go for an average.

That sounds like a good compromise, to have custom apparel to appear on a custom merc. The only thing is, would people then complain as to why you can’t see custom and progressive gear on all of the other mercs? JA2 was easier to create different outfits for due to it all being bitmap graphics and yet the character models didn’t change, no matter what they wore. My custom merc always wore a white tank top except for when camo had been applied. I don’t see why a custom merc can’t be added at some point later in the development. They would need a similar process to JA2. You would have character faces to choose from, a small range of character models to choose and then what speech pack you want, all depending on gender and skin colour. In JA2’s case, much of that character creation also went to the personality creator questionnaire.

It could be interesting to see today’s current timeline. Technology-wise, most of the tech that is around today is a refinement of what was around before 2001, when JA3 is set. The phasing out of SMGs in favour of compact carbines, the refinement or creation of new calibres to work with shorter barrels, more common use of rail interfaces and lots of customisation for handguns and rifles. The only thing is, I don’t know how much difference you would see in a game, from a gameplay perspective, even if it focuses on realism as much as possible. Twenty years on won’t produce results that much differently. If there is body armour that is penetrated by the newer calibres, then it simply means finding better armour in the game. The use of foregrips, optics and other add-ons or modifications for your gun is either to make it more comfortable for you to use and shoot, or is a refinement of existing tech that was making waves in the late ‘90s. As an alternative, how about going back in time to the ‘50s, ‘60s or early ‘70s? Say, the Middle East during that time or Africa again? This would be when post-WWII gear would be common but being superseded by battle rifles like the FN FAL, H&K G3, M14 and SKS. Assault rifles were not as common at this point so 5.56mm isn’t widespread. SMGs and shotguns are very much in favour and optics are basic and heavy. Rail Interface Systems aren’t a thing except for bespoke clamped-on sights. Anything else gets taped to the gun. It would all be a real back-to-basics setting but still advanced on significantly from WWII. If that doesn’t appeal, how about setting it in the 1980s with wars against drug cartels? Set it in Central or South America?

It is good to know that so many fans of the earlier JA games exist, especially JA2. It shows that we all want to see an in-depth turn-based strategy with as much realism as possible. I know publishers these days want games to be as accessible as possible but that often comes at a cost of detail and what makes sense (e.g. “Why won’t the game let me do this?”). The thing is, a lot of strategy games that came out in the mid to late 1990s and early 2000s weren’t immediately accessible without a learning process to begin with, and yet we all somehow survived and today, have fond memories of them. Also, despite JA2’s depth, I personally found it a very accessible game and easy to learn (and think that the realism could go further and still remain accessible). I am not saying that the developers will ‘dumb down’ JA3 and the posts made by @Haemimont_Boian have sounded very positive. It is funny though how gamers often complain about games being ‘dumbed down’ and yet, the only people who repeatedly seem in favour of doing so are the games publishers, and possibly the developers, of so many other games over the years.

It is interesting to see other people showing concern about JA3 taking too much influence from XCOM. I know I have repeated that sentiment over and over in these forums (and I am assuming that other people's views are regarding the XCOM reboot and not the X-COM original (which is a pain that they named them so similarly)). While it has been expressed how people are worried that JA3 will feel like a reskin of XCOM both in these forums and on Steam, it could be worthwhile saying precisely what things you don't want JA3 to be, and what XCOM-like mechanics you don't want to see. We have been told that the maps will be larger than what has been shown so far in previews, but map size was one of my own concerns. I'll also add that I don't want to see the removal of the action points system in favour of two general actions. I vehemently do not want to see the inventory and equipment system of the XCOM reboot, where you can only carry one secondary item or another unrelated item (medkit or grenade or a pistol…and so on). Whoever came up with that idea should have been severely thrown around the room. I know it was done for ease of play and for simplification, especially as it was also for consoles; and gamepads aren't pixel precise like a mouse is. Regardless of that reason, it proved immediately frustrating and unrealistic for me. It just made me think, 'Why am I playing this when I have played turn-based squad games that are so much better?' I don't care if games magazines called the XCOM reboot a 'breath of fresh air' compared to the old games, as if we all unanimously supported the idea. I like a game that allows me to really plan and tool up for the battle. I don't have the short attention span that 'apparently' plagues every single gamer of the last 15-20 years (and I'm sure it isn't the case, despite what games publishers would really like you to think). So, I have given my specific concerns for JA3, and I apologise for sounding like a broken record by repeating the same things. What are other people's specific concerns about JA3 potentially not being a Jagged Alliance game and instead being an XCOM clone? Also, given that we haven't seen too much gameplay footage and the game is still firmly in development, are those above concerns genuine or unfounded?

Some games have remained the same. There are turn-based war games that use the same engine over and over, even when it is many years out of date (and probably looked crude but serviceable when it first came out). I am not a graphics snob because I grew up with the 8-bit era (and before) but some of those games I find immediately off-putting due to their appearance. I can’t remember which Jagged Alliance it was, either 1 or 2 but I remember the base game was highly praised. However, when the expansion came out, it was criticised by one of the PC games magazines I was reading for being more of the same. Sometimes you can’t win. There will be the purists and there will be the ones wanting something different. I am a bit of both. I don’t like lore being changed to make something more accessible or appealing to a younger audience. I don’t mind, if something like a game tries a new direction while keeping the lore. It is hard to pin down though and like I said, I like both. I like old X-COM but not new XCOM (although I have yet to try XCOM 2). Meanwhile, I remember enjoying but not being bowled over by the original Syndicate. There was then an FPS ‘reboot’ of the setting and I think every magazine criticised it for not being an isometric RTS. I very nearly didn’t buy it because of the hate bandwagon but did so and ended up enjoying it a lot, even if it had an abruptly ending storyline. I enjoyed the graphics, music, inventive guns and thought the world itself looked fantastic. I think it goes to show that at the end of the day, you can can always finish an argument by saying, “You either like something or you don’t.” It is funny you mentioning that, had Jagged Alliance naturally progressed as a series, with each game being successful, it could very well have gone first-person and looked like the Far Cry series. It certainly worked for Grand Theft Auto. The first few games were a top-down view and when there was talk about GTA III going 3D, I wondered how they were going to pull it off with the draw distance and amount of cars and people. They successfully managed it and it has progressed to what it looks like today. I can definitely visualise JA having an FPS spin-off, maybe with just one merc and it playing out kind of like the Far Cry series, as you mentioned, creating new fans and annoying others. I can even visualise something playing out like Fallout 3, where you can pause time, switch into phased actions and choose where to aim, while being able to jump between each merc in your unit. There wouldn’t be as many mercs to control and maybe scenery and terrain wouldn’t get damaged or destroyed, but other than that it would play the same and be just as large. I am not saying I would want to see that, I am just saying that I can visualise an alternate recent history with the series possibly going in that direction, had JA continued to be both successive and successful as other games series, right after JA2.

This unfortunately occurs with so many forms of media, whether it is games, movies, TV shows or whatever. You can wait a long time for something to appear, so much so that it inevitably fails to match the hype and expectations that will build around it. A good example of this would be Half-Life 3. If it ever did get made, no matter how good it would be, it would never be as good as what people would imagine it could be. I am personally not too worried about this. To me this is standard procedure when developing something. If you release information too early, you can generate hype too early and too soon, before anything is really in any way presentable. Also, during early stages a lot of it is on the drawing board and could be scrapped or altered. You don’t want to be making any official comments or news about it if at some point it gets altered. Otherwise, people would comment, “But you said…” It is better to wait until you really know what is going to be the main structure of the game before revealing anything. As an aside, I find myself no longer paying attention to ‘sneak previews’, ‘teasers’, trailers and so on, because all they are really doing is trying to get your attention for something that might be a year away (or more). Any details shown at that point aren’t much more than an impression of what the finished work will be and yet, you might get magazines and video reviews doing articles on “What we know so far…”, even though all they have to go on is one or two made up screenshots or a quick video. With the video reviews I have never understood how they can then make a video of them chatting about vague information and the length of their video is something like 30-60 minutes. I know it is for them to sound like the ‘go-to’ oracle of information but all they are really doing is building up the hype train too early and to unrealistic expectations. At best, you might get burnt out before the product is actually released. At worst, you might be angry and disappointed when you think about what it could have been. Nowadays, I just patiently wait. Maybe because I am older and have been playing games for decades, or because, even if I have no interest in something and read/see the expectations of others who are excited for something, I see it time and time again where that something is a disappointment, whether it is a game, movie or TV show. I am not saying that JA3 will be a failure and if I were you, I wouldn’t put the delay in the Developer Diary starting up to be a sign of indecision or panic. As I said, it is normal for a creating party to want to wait until they have something concrete to reveal. This is something that does annoy me but usually when it comes to making a sequel in a movie franchise (although games franchises can be at risk of this too). You can have a film, for instance, that you are a fan of and being a fan, you are happy to see more of it, if done correctly. There has been a long gap since that last film was made. You find out that a new film in the series is being made and are looking forward to it. When it comes out, you couldn’t be more disappointed in it. Why? Because some silly sod thought it would be a great idea to change the characteristics of what made it so great in the first place, to match their ‘creative vision’ or to appeal to new audiences. It inevitably fails because the fans don’t like what has been changed, because it didn’t need any changing. Meanwhile, the new audience don’t care because their interests lie with other things. You then get the producers of that title thinking that it was a waste of money because the fans were ungrateful and that time has moved on, leaving it an as unviable product. And yet, it happens every time! A new Alien or Predator movie changes the lore somehow, Star Wars gets taken in a new direction and changes a character, or a TV adaptation of Halo, Lord Of The Rings, Warhammer: 40K or something else throws the source material out the window. Nobody wins that outcome. The fans complain it isn’t anything like what made them fans in the first place, and new people don’t care either way because what they really like is something else. It is the fans, however that should make up the target audience because they are the ones that have knowledge about it in the first place. So why change it to appeal to newer audiences?

Thanks for uploading the vid for this game. I didn’t even know about this one and it goes to show how many games might slip under your radar if they never get featured by magazines, video game sites or even a Steam recommendation. For a Work In Progress, it is looking pretty good so far, although the gunshot sounds need improving. I am also personally not keen on the current character models. Close-up in game or on the selection screen, they tend to look a little shiny and plain, almost as if they are painted plastic models. The character faces don’t really match their models and for some reason, the British soldier’s face looks like Vladimir Lenin, while the U.S. soldier looks like the actor, Noah Emmerich! It is definitely good to see this game being made because there are not that many turn-based WWII games that are at squad level and show actual characters instead of tiles (such as Heroes Of Normandie and Lock n’ Load Tactical: Digital, as much as I enjoy those games). Silent Storm was the last one and even that game couldn’t resist adding some retro sci-fi content. There is another game that bears similarity, that you may or may not know of. It is called The Troop. When you first mentioned an XCOM game in a WWII setting, I thought that The Troop was the game you were referring to until I watched your posted video.

SIG have had numerous reported incidents with their P320. These reports have been around for a while now and the last time I read about it, a factory upgrade was seen as 'optional'.

Thanks for the reply, @Haemimont_Boian, I'm sure your other work (i.e. working on JA3) is more important! 😉 When I created my Weapon Characteristics thread, I tried to think of things that could be added to a game in terms of scale, numbers or percentages. How would this gun compare to that gun from a scale of 0-100 in a particular category? I have done some game mods in the past, with my most extensive work being for SWAT 3, back in the day (under a different alias). I also did a private mod of JA2, just for myself. The flexibility of JA2 was actually more constrictive than I thought, when it came to balancing certain guns (I remember the H&K G11 being hard to do because of its vastly different rates of fire between burst and full-auto). The main drive for my Weapon thread was how developers for JA3, such as yourself, would be able to read it and then put those considerations into the game. It had to be done from a game development point of view and not just a firearms enthusiast. There are so many variables with real firearms, the cartridges and calibres, that results are never fixed. As an example, one calibre might be better than another for certain things, but not others. However, that can change depending on what gun it is fired from, what brand it is, what weight it is, what the quality of the ammunition is, what the wind is like, what angle the bullet hits, what material or part of the body it hits, and so on. Unless a game is programmed to allow for a little randomness in several different categories, it is probably expecting fixed numbers. I felt it was important to generalise as much as possible in my thread because I didn't know what your team would actually be putting into the game. As for the question of whether you should possibly miss at point-blank range, I would say that yes, it should happen but the game engine should allow or calculate from certain factors: 1) Is the target sprinting? There should definitely be a difference in movement and a character or enemy should be able to particularly 'sprint'. When sprinting, they can move more spaces in a single turn at a greater cost of fatigue. They cannot fire any weapons because they are too busy running as fast as they can. If sprinting, there is a penalty to hit them, from any range. If you were trying to hit a target that was farther away and sprinting, it would still be as difficult as trying to hit someone that is close to you and your eyes and reactions are trying to compensate. Like I mentioned in my thread, a sprinting 'tag' would cause a to-hit penalty and would create a greater reason to fire full automatic or a burst, to increase chances. Two of my biggest criticisms of JA2 was that body armour was too strong, causing several hits to be required, even to the head; and that semi-auto fire was always better than full auto. Semi-auto fire was more accurate, allowed for definite head shots (which you would nearly always choose to kill the enemy as quickly as possible) and there didn't seem to be any penalty to firing one bullet at someone, whatever their range and whatever they were doing. You would only choose full-auto if you could kill someone in one turn because they were only a few spaces away. There was no real suppression mechanic to make it worthwhile and trying to kill several enemies close together never really worked due to how much damage the body armour could absorb. 2) Is the target moving perpendicular to you? Is there any way this could be programmed into the game so that such a thing would be recognised? If someone is moving at a right-angle to the shooter, it should be harder to hit them than if they were moving directly towards or away from the shooter. Now imagine sprinting at a right-angle to the shooter (e.g. from one side to the other). That would be hard to hit with a single bullet. 3) Are you getting Opportunity Fire during the enemy turn? Even if on overwatch, you might be surprised by an enemy dashing out from somewhere. Maybe there could be a slight penalty to hit if you are using Opportunity Fire. Aiming at specific body parts should definitely be disallowed during Opportunity Fire (and I am not a fan of body part aiming in general unless either looking through a telescopic sight at a stationary or slow moving target, or during your own turn, the target is up close, allowing you to go for headshots). 4) Is your weapon a shotgun with buckshot loaded? That should increase your chances of getting a hit. Hopefully, each individual pellet is calculated. Buckshot increases the likelihood of a hit but those pellets only really do a lot of damage if lots of them hit your target. I have seen games in the past calculate even one pellet as maximum damage. 5) Is your carried firearm more manoeuvrable? A shorter barrel SMG or rifle, or a handgun, is easier to aim at closer things. There should be a bonus to doing so because they are lighter. Handguns and machine-pistols (e.g. short SMGs like a MAC-10) would have the highest bonus. The smaller and/or lighter a weapon, the less action points should be needed to point and fire it. Trying to hit someone at point-blank range would definitely be easier with a pistol or revolver (although I think a Taurus Raging Bull would be pushing it 😆). If these factors are implemented into the game, there will always be a use for handguns and SMGs. They would be a better choice for Close Quarters Battle because they are more manoeuvrable by virtue of their size. They obviously lose out when it comes to range and damage per bullet against armoured and non-armoured body locations (although large calibre handguns would offset that and certain ammo like 5.7x28mm is excellent at penetrating armour (but still weak compared to rifle rounds for damaging the body)). JA2 made handguns and SMGs redundant as you progressed through the game. They were seen as entry-level weapons that would give way to assault rifles as time went on. Once they showed up, there was no need to use the smaller weapons because there were no penalties or benefits to any class of weapon beyond range and damage per bullet. Hopefully, JA3 will do it differently because such weapons still have their place in the real world, depending on the situation. A backup handgun is definitely a benefit because if your primary gun jams or you need to reload, switching to your pistol is faster. I hope this all helps!

I haven't read any official word but just in case you don't get a response from one of the developers here, you could try the Developer Diary forum and asking there. At the time of writing this, they recently started the diary and are answering questions.

Thank you, Haemimont_Boian for finally posting the much awaited start to the Developer Diaries. It has been excellent and reassuring reading! Do you often read the General Discussion forum threads? There are plenty of excellent suggestions for JA3 from several posters and myself. Have you had a chance to read through my Weapon Characteristics & Other Suggestions thread? There is a lot of in-depth information in that thread that I hope can be considered for the game. Realistic and believable weapons are a paramount factor in a game such as this. If they are not done right, it will detract from the game. The bottom line there is that arbitrary weapon balancing (or 'game balancing') is never as good as realistic balancing because realism balances itself.

I definitely agree on the need for randomisation. The local warlord or gangster controlling the area, for instance, could be the same situation every time but be at some randomised village or town. I also mentioned some time ago about having a well known enemy sniper disengaging before they are found and killed, maybe in another thread. If you get to kill them straight away, there isn't much of a build-up of how they are a major threat to you.

I remember Mike and his Heckler & Koch G11. That was a fun encounter. Nice rifle too, even it didn't really behave like the real thing would have done. The idea of a named enemy merc or elite would be too good for the developers to pass up for JA3. I think a lone enemy sniper, who's reputation precedes them, would be a good choice and a cause for concern for the player. A 'celebrity' sniper fits better than a celebrity machine gunner or rifleman. It also worked for movies like Enemy At The Gates and Behind Enemy Lines. The latter movie in particular inspired the look of the main character in GTA IV. I would like to see something where there are these named enemies who are a cut above the rest, such as the aforementioned sniper, maybe another one who likes to use close combat weapons (they could be stealthy characters or loud, brutal types who just like using machetes and striking fear into their enemy), and then as the campaign progresses, your main villain realises that they are up against well-trained mercs who are causing too many problems. He/she then decides to call in a team of elite mercs or PMCs to wipe your mercs out. Just think about all of that together: enemy national militia, standard trained enemy soldiers, veteran enemy soldiers, individual named enemies (army or merc) and then a called-in hit squad of private military contractors to hunt your guys down. Then, you have local threats like bandit warlords or gangsters who control towns. Plus, aggressive animals to watch out for. Keep those guns well maintained…you're gonna need 'em!

I was wondering about showing helmets, backpacks and masks actually. Maybe there could be presets for certain items that don't really look all that different to one another? Instead of the 3D model fully reflecting precisely what is worn, each merc has an additional preset model for wearing items of significant change that gives a general idea of what is being worn? For instance, there are several different types of gas mask in use by each nation but for the sake of game purposes, a generic gas mask is worn on the 3D model to signify any gas mask equipped. A generic helmet can be shown to cover all types of helmet. The idea then is to have each merc continue to have their individual look but to then show another 3D model that is exclusive to that merc when they are 'bulking up' with certain clothing and equipment. So Preset 1 shows the merc with standard appearance, Preset 2 if a mask is being worn (but still otherwise looking like Preset 1), Preset 3 for when that merc is wearing more equipment and so on. While all of that does sound like the developers would have to model every single type of clothing worn and interchange where necessary, I am visualising something in between not showing any differences and having to model every change. Meanwhile, the inventory equipment images are the ones that show actual variation as for that you only really need to create a bitmap image for each distinct item in the game. At the end of the day, I am just trying to picture a merc gearing up a little as the campaign progresses. While it might show individuality, having Smiley look like he is wearing a casual suit for a night out at the casino and his favourite jazz club, doesn't look like he is taking the job too seriously.

It is nice to know that long distance engagements will feature in JA3. Larger battlefields open up the choice on tactics and how to engage the enemy. It will also mean that battle rifles, assault rifles, sniper rifles and machine guns will play a role that will separate them from shorter range weapons. It also makes me wonder if there will be tense engagements where there might be an enemy sniper that is in a position to overlook the entire battlefield! Hopefully, there could be an individual enemy merc or a named elite soldier that could be a serious threat, as their reputation as a sniper is well known (and they might have a bounty on them if captured or killed). I can picture a situation where your mercs have to make full use of cover, staying low when possible, sprinting from cover to cover to lower the chances of being shot (if sprinting gives a to-hit penalty). You might need a counter-sniper or to try suppressing their position with a machine gun or mortar as your other mercs close in, using smoke grenades until they can assault the sniper's location with an assault rifle, SMG, shotgun or handgun. Not only that but the sniper might have soldiers defending him or her, plus mines and claymores covering the approaches.

I agree that there are other, more important things that the developers need to get right. It is disappointing that there won't be any changes to clothing but it is something I expected. They would have their individual look to focus on their personality and for immediate identification. The mercs' individuality has always been a key part of the Jagged Alliance series and if they were all wearing the same clothing and armour, that would get lost somewhat. Not to mention, if there are a lot of different types of clothing, webbing and body armour to wear, that would mean a lot of 3D model variations. If the mercs were like generic soldiers with only different faces, that wouldn't be unrealistic to expect the game to feature every change of clothing. I also expected (but I'm glad to read it anyway) that the shown weapons would change depending on what was being carried. That would have been annoying if the weapons were fixed and could lead to potential problems. If one of your mercs had a revolver shown in their hand and they were currently holding a bazooka, an enemy then appears from somewhere in close proximity and you think that you better shoot him with the .38 Special you think is being carried…

Post-apocalypse settings tend to make enjoyable games. That one looks interesting too. I don't think there are enough games that have a snow-based setting, so that adds to my interest for that game. While not post-apocalypse, I found the following game while I was looking up Xenonauts 2 on Steam. It is called Mars Tactics. I'm not sure what it will be like and graphically it has a lightweight look to it. It could be good, however.

Operation Flashpoint gave me a few other 'memorable' moments that made it feel like a clunky arcade game, despite having a great idea (open FPS games where you played a standard rifleman didn't exist back then). Enemy tanks behaved more like a giant bad guy than a vehicle with men inside it. They seemed to have all-around visibility and my attempt to creep behind one that was slowly moving along was met with the turret spinning round to attack me. It then managed to follow my every action. I ran for cover inside a nearby wood and then stayed prone, moving diagonally away from the tank. That turret moved around unrealistically looking for me and constantly used its 125mm gun to try to kill me, instead of any of its machine guns. It was impossible to shake off and never once gave the impression of a tank that gives its crew limited visibility. Like you said, the AI seemed to alternate between stupidity where an enemy soldier would run past you, allowing you to shoot them in the back, or pixel-perfect shooters where they can be sprinting 400m in the distance, oblivious to your presence and then instantly kill you when they turn and fire one round from the hip. That one happened when I was lying prone on a hill and tried to hit this lone soldier and missed. He hardly stopped his sprint when he got me. With RTS vs. TBS (Turn-Based Strategy) games, there have been a few occasions throughout the past where people or journalists will ask whether RTS has finally killed off TBS. Every time that question gets asked after the appearance of TBS games seems to wane, they always come back and prove that for certain things, a turn-based game will always give superior control. RTS games are more flashy, have lots of personality and are often more vibrant but it so often is hard to control everyone without accepting that battles can often feel like sending drones off to the meat grinder. It is almost as if, with RTS games, you have to detach yourself a little emotionally and reluctantly accept that your forces will take losses because you can't be everywhere and do everything at once. You have to accept that they are expendable. Some of the RTS games can be somewhat exhausting to play when the units have special abilities or individual upgrades. I personally experienced that with Company Of Heroes 1 and WH40K: Dawn Of War 1. Which units did you upgrade with what? Did I give that squad the flame-thrower or was that the squad with the rifle-grenades, etc.? Turn-based allows you more precise control in what each unit is doing and how that unit works in concert with the others. You can simply plan better and it is the best way to simulate lots of people on a battlefield, all thinking at the same time, communicating with others at the same time, as well as fighting and moving independently. Units in RTS games defend themselves but it really feels like you are the Queen ant controlling her colony.

Blatant AI cheating in games is something that needs to be removed in the majority of games. It is annoying when they don't play by the same rules that the player has to. I agree that AI is hard to program. It isn't so much that it is hard to program the intelligence but more that it is hard to program the 'stupidity'. Or at least, to mimic human flaws and limitations. I remember playing the first Operation Flashpoint on the PC. I think it received boundless praise and the declaration that it was so realistic. If you died in the game, well hey…that's war and you probably slipped up anyway. One of the many things that quickly killed that game for me was the following situation: I was playing a sniper. I had a rifle with a suppressor on it to help reduce the gunshot somewhat. I was wearing a ghillie suit. It was night time and it was a moonless night. I was crawling very carefully through woodland towards an enemy base that had lights facing inwards to illuminate the compound (meaning anyone within the base would have no natural night vision). Within that base was a ZSU-23-4 anti-aircraft tank, parked up and both the driver and a gunner were unbuttoned with their heads exposed. I stayed prone and remained deep within the woods and surrounded by bushes. I decided to shoot the gunner first. I got a clean headshot on the gunner but as soon as I did so, the driver buttoned up inside the tank. A second later the turret rotated precisely so the guns were facing me and with laser-like accuracy I was immediately killed. All those factors that would have given me cover, concealment, the element of surprise, etc. simply didn't exist. Due to making the AI simply god-like in its detection, reaction and shooting skill, all plausibility and supposed realism went up in smoke the moment I decided to take that shot. There was no way I would have been located at all, let alone that quickly. The AI simply wasn't developed with any weaknesses in that scenario. If you are trying to play a strategy game like Hired Guns: The Jagged Edge and the enemy can outshoot you, throw grenades farther than you can shoot (and always so they land next to you), never get tired and so on, then what is the point? It doesn't seem worth the challenge or the effort because your skills, tactics and knowledge are worthless in the face of an enemy that doesn't even accept the same rules and laws you do. I'm not really a fan of real-time squad based games. I don't mean a good old RTS game but anything that requires a bit more micro-management with each unit you have under your control. I tend to find that, as you describe, it can be hard to keep track of what is going on for every single person you have to control. You end up grouping your soldiers together, inching them along until an enemy appears, kill them and move a little farther. Either that or you are just keeping your units in a defensive position and waiting for them to come to you (because the AI can comfortably move multiple units independently, without having to worry about any user interface or mouse control). I remember SWAT 2 being awkward and unsatisfying to play as it was an isometric view, real-time game. X-COM: Apocalypse had both real-time and turn-based options but I only dabbled with the real-time function, preferring the precise control of turn-based more (and you could still get a kind of real-time effect in turn-based play when firing automatic weapons, as you could shoot by holding down the mouse button for as long as you had Action Points and ammo). I think the best way is how Jagged Alliance 2, Fallout 1 and 2, and Silent Storm handled it. Everything is in real-time so you can move more rapidly through the area, until contact with an enemy has been made. It then switches to turn-based and stays that way until you eliminate the enemy that triggered combat or you disengage. Another system that works and for a much larger strategy game, is the one for the Combat Mission series. You set waypoints and orders for all of your units, planning the whole lot in a turn-based phase. Your enemy is doing the same thing. You then watch the outcome of that turn in real-time, seeing your units move, attack the enemy, watch the artillery land and vehicles take damage.