Solaris_Wave

One thing I am curious about is the use of boats. I wonder how they will be used in the game? I first thought about there being boats in JA3 when I saw the cover/title artwork.

I am guessing that the lower picture is an enemy soldier, if only because the developers might stick to JA2's depiction of enemies and their experience level (yellow for lowest, red for standard and black for veterans).

That was something I pointed out in my thread on Weapon Characteristics and was one of the major changes I hope to see in JA3. Semi-auto and single shot fire pretty much dominated JA2, especially from mid to end game progress. Your mercs' skills and accuracy was high enough at this point to nail those shots, especially when using up the action points. The enemy soldiers were so well armoured at this point also. The amount of damage they could absorb was very high, so aimed shots to the head were the best way to bring them down. In fact, full auto fire wasn't that necessary or even useful, unless the enemy was up close and you could make sure that all the bullets would hit them at once. If so, it could kill in one turn and the enemy soldier would go flying back (or off a roof, if positioned near to the edge). There wasn't really a penalty for hitting a distant target, or more importantly, a moving target. Again, as I pointed out in my thread, there needs to be a greater use and need for full auto fire and I think there should be a calculation for whether the target is standing still or running. Also, bullets should do more damage, or body armour should be weaker to stop making headshots the simple 'go to' preference. Either that or, another suggestion I made, getting rid of aiming at specific body parts unless the enemy is within a short distance (so something like the old Mozambique Drill could be employed), or if at longer ranges, the weapon used is equipped with a telescopic sight and the merc has some kind of sniper perk they have gained. Anything else and body part aiming is disabled. You only get to shoot at a general target. Different body hit zones still exist, you just don't get to choose unless up close or an if farther out, a dedicated sniper. I am hoping that the developers will make distances count in several ways, with guns not just having a maximum range but certain types of cartridge losing lethality the greater the distance, as they slow down. That will stop making handguns and sub-machine guns obsolete as the game progresses as their bullets are short ranged. In contrast, they are the quickest to aim. They are also the lightest to shoot recoil-wise, when comparing to rifles (with the exception of powerful handgun cartridges such as .357 Magnum and above). Rifle carbines will then be the middle ground between speed of aiming (action point cost) and damage per bullet, as their reduced range will affect accuracy and velocity when compared to a longer barrelled rifle. Recoil will be higher than the equivalent longer barrel rifle though, if firing the same cartridge. I am also hoping that if there are multiple optics that can be attached, that red dots will only enhance accuracy and speed at shorter ranges, while magnified optics, especially high powered scopes will causes penalties to close range shots. ACOG sights and other similar sights will be middle ground. Rocket launchers should be cumbersome to carry and slow to aim and fire. Again, by not having the enemies wearing overly resistant body armour, there is less of a temptation to load up on anti-tank weapons, take the weight penalty and just use them to blow away the first lot of armoured soldiers you encounter. I remember one moment in JA2 where I breached a wall with explosives, which stunned several enemies but I then had to hit them several times with 40mm grenades before they died. You would think they were wearing powered armour for me to stop them! Sabre Team was an early '90s game that I played on the Commodore Amiga. I remember it being quite boring to play due to how slow it all felt. It was due to the way it was all animated, its pace of movement and the large distances. Having only a small team didn't help because there would be so many rooms or areas to clear (tempting you to split them up to cover ground quicker). Laser Squad before it and X-COM after it proved that turn-based gameplay could always be paced well enough. Sabre Team was designed by different people though and probably the only thing I clearly remember was that there was a terrorist in the game called 'C. Boddiker'. The developers were obviously fans of Robocop. Then again, X-COM: Apocalypse also had the name of someone from their favourite football team.

Character build-driven games make more sense to me when it comes to a sci-fi or fantasy setting but not so much modern day. They will also reduce the number of soldiers/heroes you go into battle with. However, Silent Storm and to a lesser extent, JA2 (due to not having character classes as such), managed both character builds and squad based tactics. They never felt like they were too big and cumbersome to handle. In original X-COM, along with its two sequels, it made sense to have a squad of 10-15 soldiers, which you would use for most operations. The only real reason to recruit more was to defend additional bases and to get the rank promotions. The soldier's rank added to their attributes. Other than that, they were superfluous and a nuisance to train. In contrast, the XCOM reboot had too few soldiers, in my view, even if they were more like specialised individuals. I didn't play it long enough to see if they were meant to be like superheroes. While I didn't lose more than soldier before I quit playing, I never felt like their numbers being small would correspond with their notion of soldiers above and beyond all others. They weren't exactly SPARTANs from Halo or Adeptus Astartes from Warhammer 40K. To me, JA2 and possibly Silent Storm had the sweet spot in terms of available numbers, although Silent Storm's squad limit wasn't much more than new XCOM's default size. For JA2, I never felt like I didn't have enough soldiers (or a convincing number theme-wise). I never had too many either and only hired the numbers I needed, with additional mercs used to train militia. The game always felt manageable and I wonder why some in the game industry might feel it is too much in today's entertainment. It seems everyone just follows trends, with one idea being great and everyone else jumping on the bandwagon. In the 90s you had adventure games, RPGs, simulators, beat 'em-ups and platformers. First-person shooters were largely fantastical until Rainbow Six and SWAT 3 appeared. By 2000, turn-based strategy dwindled (except for Civilisation) as real-time strategy continued in popularity. 10-15 years ago every FPS wanted to be like Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare with bombastic themes, perks and level ups. At the moment, it is card-battlers, MOBAs and Battle Royales that have influence. I might have missed out other genres here but the days of games with big fat manuals, in-depth gameplay that maybe takes time to get into and has lots of statistics aren't really around as much now, except for a few less mainstream titles. In the early 2000s consoles really took off and it altered what the publishers and developers wanted to make. Finally, for map size, JA2 had it right again. There was plenty of detail in each sector and the use of real-time movement when there were no threats was an excellent way to make travelling through the map less of a nuisance. Even turn-based action didn't play out too slowly. This contrasts with a lesser known turn-based squad game from the early '90s called Sabre Team. That wasn't very good because maps were large and empty, buildings had very little inside them, all movement was turn-based and animated movement was slow. As you correctly pointed out, it can be easy to get the balance wrong. It will be interesting to see what scale JA3 has and how each character, friend or foe, interacts with it.

I had so many memorable experiences with the original X-COM game (a.k.a. U.F.O.: Enemy Unknown). Deploying for the first time, hunting Sectoids in some wheat field and then slowly seeing the fog of war revealing the crashed U.F.O., its silver hull standing out against everything else. Then there were the Terror Site missions where the alien forces deployed their larger units. I remember the Cyberdiscs having a nasty plasma cannon but an even nastier surprise when you destroyed them. They would blow up and take out the side of a building, leave a crater and destroy anything/anyone else in the vicinity. I remember those damn Chryssalids in their original guise. Fast moving, black chitinous, bipedal monsters that would infect your soldiers or civilians, turning them into zombies…which would then spawn another Chryssalid out of the zombie once you were forced to kill what was left of the person. I also fondly remember the Blaster Launcher, still one of the best weapons ever in a video game. It was great how you could set waypoints to steer the missile around the map. Then it would finally explode with a massive radius, covering everything in smoke and fire (which I first experienced during a night-time Terror Site mission). In fact, when I first played Enemy Unknown in the early to mid '90s, I didn't have a lot if experience with turn-based squad games, having only played Laser Squad, Sabre Team and RoboSport. Therefore, I wasn't experienced enough in knowing how to deal with Chryssalids beyond reloading a game save if things went sour. If I knew one was creeping around in the dark or a building, I would use Blaster Launchers as soon as they were researched, and level a whole building just to kill the damn thing. That was before I learnt tactics such as to not separate my soldiers, to not use up all the action points, use covering fire, ranked fire, overwatch, sniper support and so on. All simple things now, it seems. Thanks for pointing out Earl 'Magic' Walker. He was always one of my first mercs to hire, due to being affordable and dependable. I think the dev diary is due in the very near future.

Adoption of calibres has always been an odd thing, with most post-WWII situations going for standardisation. Even though Sweden isn't a NATO member (at the time of writing this), I guess it makes sense to have commonality with the rifle calibres. Things tend to be East vs. West and countries pick a side on whether they want North American and Western Europe influence in their choice of hardware, or Russian/Soviet and Chinese. Sure, many countries use different firearms, often unique to that country or region, but choice of cartridges usually fall on one side or the other. Again, with the adoption of calibres, that always changes. You get debates and popularity shifts between 9mm Parabellum and .45 ACP, which never seems to end. You have the rise and fall in popularity with .40 S&W, with 9mm seeing improvements, as well as rarer but devoted users of 10mm and .357 SIG. While that is more for law enforcement and civilian use, the militaries of the Western world see just as much. The U.S. was adamant about having 7.62x51mm for infantry rifles and LMGs, even rejecting the British .280 and shutting down the future of the EM-2 rifle. After plenty of faffing about, broken promises and contracts, they went in a different direction anyway, having two calibres (the other being 5.56mm) that now remains a NATO standard. 5.56mm performance varies on who you talk to, what environment it is used in, what gun it is fired out of and what day of the week it is. As you stated in your post, the U.S. then started looking at 6mm calibres to bridge the gap between 5.56mm and 7.62mm NATO. I guess they are thinking that Sweden had the right idea after all. After re-chambering from 6.5mm to 7.62mm, I wouldn't be surprised if the Swedish military top brass are sighing and telling the U.S. to make their minds up, now looking at the prospect of re-chambering the FN MAGs back to something similar to what they started with!

Why are modern turn-based squad games going for smaller battlefields instead of the larger maps common to the genre 20-30 years ago? Is it the assumption of lack of patience, wanting larger than life character models or something else? I am hoping for maps with JA2's scale: one or more buildings with plenty of natural terrain surrounding them, looking like small settlements and towns, or a convincing looking military facility, etc. There were plenty of approaches and various ways to attack. Not only that but after the combat was over, you could look at the carnage and see just how it affected the whole map and where key firefights took place. One of the reasons I quickly abandoned playing the XCOM reboot was that the maps were so small and narrow. And yet, every developer and publisher now seems to think that this is the way forward. I just want the scale of original X-COM (with the hyphen), JA2 and Silent Storm. PCs are more powerful than they used to be so they shouldn't have to make smaller scale environments.

The personalities of the mercs was always one if the signature elements of the Jagged Alliance series. You weren't just recruiting and training rookies that weren't a lot different from one another (but who you might personally and unofficially attach a personality to as they progressed through the game (eg. original X-COM)). They had personalities right from the very beginning and it would be immediately apparent as you decided on who to hire. While I always enjoyed creating my own personalities for the original X-COM games (or just naming them after all the Colonial Marines from the movie, Aliens), I always really liked how distinct each merc was in Jagged Alliance. You would quickly develop your favourites. It has been a long time since I played JA2 (or any JA game for that matter), so I don't remember too many of the mercs except for few. I always remember Shadow for his cool professionalism (and high cost and being in high demand). I can still remember some of the speech, from Shadow's calm warning of unfriendlies being spotted, to Ivan cursing in Russian. I also remember one of the mercs saying, "Snapperheads!" Was that Gus? Plus, Deidranna constantly telling her lieutenant, Elliot how much of an idiot he was. I also really liked how you could create your own merc, using the personality creator. They would integrate seamlessly in with the other mercs you could hire. My one became very proficient in stealth and close quarters battle. She would frequently use the Heckler & Koch MP5SD for covert missions. Has JA3's development team gone into specifics about how the Unfriendly trait works? I can imagine it affecting morale of those that don't like one another, as well as refusing to be hired or being in the same squad on a mission. Does it go further than that? How unfriendly is unfriendly? Is jt just refusal to work or will one of them decide on their own to run over to the other one and punch them in the face? Will they argue and waste a turn as one tells the other that they could have shot better than that, or bicker on what plan of attack would work best? Will it get even worse? Instead of just cancelling their contract and quitting, they instead draw a knife and attack them, decide to shoot them when they think nobody else is looking, or throw a frag grenade their way?

The more realistic setting of JA2 was one of the main factors in drawing me to the game. In fact, it was one of those games that I decided I instantly wanted to buy, even though I don't remember it having too much publicity at the time, possibly because JA1 was mostly under the radar. I really liked how there was an emphasis on teamwork and there was no super soldier that could perform every role. It really was a true squad based game. There was always the vulnerability of your mercs, no matter how good they were or would become. Use of cover and teamwork were paramount. Speaking of your time in the army, I don't know how large a person you are (or were) but carrying a GPMG and also an assault rifle must have been misery, not to mention cumbersome. I would have thought that a pistol or SMG as your secondary would have been preferable. It isn't just two weighty guns you were carrying (especially the FN MAG/KSP58) but also the ammo for both. Granted, the AK5 will give you more firepower than a pistol or SMG, but in my view, if you are already in a situation where you are using the AK5, you are probably in a situation where your squad wants you to use the FN MAG anyway. Then again, I don't know Swedish military doctrine. That is one thing that often featured in '80s action movies: the sequence where the hero tools up with rocket launchers, light machine gun, a shotgun, SMG, pistol, grenades, claymores, C4 and multiple knives. There was no consideration about the weight of all those guns, let alone the ammo that miraculously appeared from nowhere. In fact, those movie sequences were even brilliantly parodied in the movie spoof, Loaded Weapon with Emilio Estevez and Samuel L. Jackson. Weird Al Yankovic's movie, UHF also had a brilliant parody of Rambo II, not to mention Hotshots: Part Deux sending up the whole Rambo trilogy (at the time).

One of the things that drew me to the original Jagged Alliance games was not just the fact that I love turn-based squad games, but the modern day setting. I also liked the freedom of choice in how you preferred to play the campaign. It wasn't just 'do this mission', 'now do the next mission'. You still had objectives but it was up to you how you approached them. I have been playing video games for 40 years. In the last 10-15 years I have still played some very enjoyable games. However, I have also noticed that my interest and excitement for games isn't what it was. I don't think it is because I am older and that my tastes have changed (I am nearly 47 at the time of writing this). While it can be partially attributed to the fact that I have seen most games before and today's games are the same, just with newer graphics, I think it is that so many games publishers today just don't have a clue anymore on how to make a game that isn't either bloated (you can advertise hours and hours of gameplay but it is often just grinding and constant travelling around an open world), a game that practically plays itself with on-rails gameplay, has no originality (lots of remasters and yearly sequels) or is yet another game loaded with micro-transactions, loot boxes, season passes, live services, daily goals and so on. I miss the days where you bought a game and got the whole package. Then, if there was something really worthwhile, a game would get an expansion that you could buy if you wanted to (rather than feel compelled to buy because the base game feels like it is missing content). Lots of games these days still have excellent DLC but often the DLC is planned to be released alongside the base game to make a little extra money, or is deliberately omitted from the base game to gain extra profit. I don't enjoy big budget AAA games anywhere near as much as I do the 'lesser' profile games (and years ago you just had 'games' with some having a bigger profile than others. Nothing was classed as 'AAA'). I personally find that with AAA games and many titles that are released today, you are playing the games that the publishers want you to play, as opposed to the games you want to play. I feel that JA3 will be one of the worthwhile games that will try to capture that 'old school' mentality. I hope that it won't be too influenced by modern games that have to cater for a 'modern audience'. I don't even think it should be conditioned for release on consoles, and I say this as someone who also plays on XBox. I think consoles have had both a positive and negative influence on gaming, because playing on a console is different to playing on a PC. The control interface is different due to lack of keyboard and mouse, the user interface has to be less complex because you are sitting farther away, looking at a TV. Having a game released on both computer and console platforms means the game has to be more accessible and simplified. That can hurt an in-depth game, especially one that might have smaller graphics and more fiddly gameplay (which, with a mouse and keyboard is not immediately a bad thing). I firmly hope that JA3 will be for those that enjoyed the earlier Jagged Alliance games and doesn't try to reach out to too many new people by adjusting to a modern gameplay mindset. I don't mean that games should never have a refined interface that has been learned through experience in games design, I just don't want things dumbed down. Otherwise, it is like when a movie sequel comes out many years since the previous film: its profile is known to the original fans who fell in love with something for what it was, while newer audiences are into modern things and aren't really aware of it. The new film gets changed in some way, whether it is the lore or the characters/creatures, to appeal to a new audience. The result is that it annoys the original fans because they didn't want the changes, its appeal is lost on new audiences because they didn't have any emotional investment in the first place, the movie bombs and the creators wonder why, plus think that the original fans are ungrateful and that that franchise's time has passed.

I wonder if there will an '80s style action hero for a new merc? An impossible blend of John Matrix, John Rambo, Dutch, Snake Plissken, every Chuck Norris character and Nikolai Rachenko (Red Scorpion), who's stats are fully maxed out. You know the type. Their backup sidearm is an M60 light machine gun, the handle of their huge combat knife has a hidden compartment which contains another knife, their bandanna signifies their rank, any six-shot revolver they have fires ten bullets without reloading, their frag grenades create massive fireballs, they fire in slow-motion while their personal theme music starts up, their kill count numbers that of a small town, they snap necks to the sound of breaking celery and their roundhouse kick sends bad guys through concrete walls before they crash into randomly placed explosive barrels…all the while delivering snappy one-liners everytime a villain gets killed.

I am guessing that, although progress is being steadily made, there are probably things that are being added all the time, which might put back the release date every so often. The developers are possibly coming up with new ideas all the time, that will add to or alter the gameplay. It is possible that contributions from us forum posters also add to that situation.

Reading that bio makes Reaper sound like a cross between Sam Fisher from Splinter Cell and Bennett from the movie, Commando!

Instead of having flame-throwers, you could have rocket launchers with incendiary warheads. Longer range and safer for the user because they are not going to be wearing a flammable canister on their back. From a game design perspective, it would be easier too, as you would be setting a fixed area on fire with a single shot, instead of a continuous stream hitting an area that increases in size the more you spread it. You can still set an area ablaze and the fire could spread to a lesser degree, but it would be easier for the game engine to process because you are not trying to burn everything. For such weapons, check out the American M202A1 FLASH and the Russian RPO-A Shmel.

There is always one problem with implementing flame-throwers in a game and that is the fact that they need to be able to set alight almost everything. That means terrain and most objects have to burn, be blackened and maybe reduced to ashes. The fire has to spread too. That is a lot of work for the developers unfortunately. Many flame-throwers in games just burn enemies and leave the environment untouched but I personally always feel that it doesn't then feel like a true flame-thrower and a different weapon would have been a better addition. Weapons that create fire isn't out of the question, so that isn't what I am talking about. Lots of games do it successfully. I also suggested incendiary grenades for JA3. However, with flame-throwers you aren't just hitting one area, causing the area to burn, spreading flame until it burns out. You are instead, constantly lighting everything up as you sweep it around. For the developers that means making everything in the game potentially flammable. After continued use of a flame-thrower, that means that much of the battlefield will be on fire as the fire burns and spreads on its own, setting nearby things and terrain alight, all the while the operator is continuing to set more things on fire with the flame-thrower itself. That could slow down the game as everything is on fire (and being animated as such). I'm not saying it isn't possible to have such a weapon in JA3 and other games have managed to include flame weapons successfully where the terrain is affected. If it can be done in JA3 then it would be a very interesting and effective weapon (and hopefully not overpowered).

We can all wish for the game to be completed as quick as possible but like I said in another forum post, I am happy to wait as long as necessary for the game to be finished. Regarding what Wigen said, while I have never been a games developer (although my friend has), I did used to be a modder for a game that came out over 20 years ago and one thing I learnt about working on that, is that there always seems a bit more to do…and then a bit more. You can give yourself a Things To Do list and find that you are adding things to the bottom of the list quicker than you are completing things. Therefore, it is difficult to truly say how much work there is left to do.

*Also clears throat* No, really. I digitally inserted myself into the game, just like in the movie, TRON, fought all the bad guys, won the campaign and then brought myself back out of the game, just in time for dinner and light dancing.

The developers certainly have a wide range of hand grenades, rifle grenades and support weapons to choose from. I don't know what weapons they have planned for JA3 (I'd love to know) but for each of those categories, there are varieties within each nation's arsenal, let alone the entire world. That doesn't even include earlier varieties. With the game being set in Africa, it would be quite easy to expect grenades (and guns) from WWII and all the way up to 2001, when the game is set. For man-portable rockets and projectiles, you've got the famous and widely available Soviet Union-era RPG-7, the American M72 LAW and SMAW, British LAW-80 and Swedish AT4 and M3 Carl Gustav. Some of those are 2-man crew weapons though, so I don't know if the developers would include those ones and just simplify things by having the merc carrying both the launcher and spare rounds, then loading it themselves, with other mercs carrying extra rounds. They had a mortar in JA2 so it is feasible. For rifles that use grenades loaded by the muzzle or an under-barrel launcher, it gets more complicated. The reason being that not every rifle can have a launcher mounted underneath as standard. For NATO rifles, there are a few different launchers. While the M203 grenade launcher is common, not every rifle could support it or used that model. Earlier Heckler & Koch rifles such as the G3 and HK33 used the HK79 launcher. That one is quite long and would only fit standard barrel length rifles (so their carbines would not be able to use them). Later on, H&K developed the AG36 launcher, designed to be used with the G36 and G36K rifles. That one was later fitted to other guns but after JA3's 2001 setting. The British L85A2 rifle used muzzle-loaded grenades and only got a launcher into production after 2001. Muzzle-loaded grenades remain in common use, even if they are more cumbersome to use (some needing a gun with an extended and specialised muzzle, some needing a blank round to be loaded first, having exceptional recoil, etc.) and many rifles that could appear in JA3 would need to use those instead of a launcher. The FN FAL and FNC use muzzle-loaded, although the FAL could be fitted with a launcher and the Swedish AK 5 (based on the FNC) does accept a launcher as standard. The FAMAS was especially designed to use muzzle-loaders and for bullpup rifles in general, a grenade launcher can be awkward until after JA3's timeline. The M320 GL didn't come out until after then, which improved things a lot. That said, it wasn't impossible for bullpup rifles to have the M203 fitted. The Steyr AUG could accept one (if the longer barrels were fitted), the Tavor TAR-21 needed a different muzzle to fit it but other than looking ugly, would take it. Even the FAMAS could but I don't know much about that. There are photos online showing an M203 fitted but I don't think it was done without some drilling through the handguard. I could be wrong, however. If the developers want to include the FN F2000 rifle, which possibly went into development in time for the setting (being 2001), it had its own unique launcher. Regarding the M203, there is the standard version and the M203A1. The standard model has its own handguard and would replace that on the M16 rifles. The A1 was designed to fit on the M4, with a bracket fitting over the M4's barrel. The thicker M4 barrels have a notch so the bracket will mount over it successfully. There is also the M203PI (Product Improved). I didn't know much about this version and only recently just learned about it when I was doing a brush up on my knowledge. I was surprised to read it has been around since the late 1980s. This changes things again as it allows fitting to rifles that originally wouldn't be able to mount the M203. The FN FAL can be fitted with this model. The Steyr AUG will accept this also but doesn't specifically need it. Where this version further complicates things is that it will also fit the H&K MP5 sub-machine gun (so it isn't just rifles after all). There doesn't seem to be a lot of info on this, so I can only go by what little details I have seen. To me, if it fits an MP5 (replacing the hand guard and fitting over the barrel), then for the purposes of a computer game, if the merc had access to the right tools, then something could be modified for rifle carbines, such as the HK53. In JA2, a merc could modify their gun if they found springs, duct tape and tubing, so why couldn't they cut and weld a grenade launcher onto their own personal gun, if it is one they intend to keep using? Lastly, there are stand-alone grenade launchers. You've got the single loading M79, HK69, M203 (with fitted sights and pistol grip) and AG36 (also with fitted extras). Then, you've got the revolving cylinder grenade launchers like the MM-1 and Milkor MGL. All of those are 40mm calibre models. The developers might want to add 37mm models but those are designed to load Less-Than-Lethal grenades only, as they are for police, whereas 40mm can fire all types. I don't think the developers would want to create too many weapons as they are just adding unnecessary work for themselves. At the end of the day, it is down to the developers to decide what weapons they are including in the game and what varieties they want to model in 3D. The M203 and M203A1 need different models due to their fitting, for instance. The under-barrel launchers all look different but generally have the same characteristics when it comes to game statistics (range, accuracy and action point cost) and largely accept the same types of ammo (except that the M203 struggles with longer grenades because it doesn't open to the side or hinge down, to allow for clearance). It is what they want to model in 3D and what they want to create new stats for. I'm all for having as many weapons as available and some of those weapons could just have separate models and then copied stats, with a little change here and there. In real life, many weapons behave the same or give similar performance but they are designed to work with other weapons in their inventory, or they have characteristics to fit the environment or size of the soldier common to that nation.

One aspect of the game that I have only touched briefly upon is knives and melee weapons. I am not very knowledgeable on the subject of such things, at the time of writing this, as I have never had a desire to own, or even need, a combat knife or other similar blade. I did however, want to mention it as a suggestion and that is, hopefully that there will be melee weapons in the game. I would like to see more than one type of knife in the game, with different damage, weight and action point cost. The mercs of Jagged Alliance come from different countries and there are various knives unique to certain nations and special forces. Also, I should imagine that machetes would be a popular and common sight in Africa, being in use by the various armies and civilians on the continent. The same can be applied to grenades. There are several varieties of anti-personnel fragmentation grenades, dependent on various nations (or at least, NATO models and Soviet Union models). This will also apply to other types of grenade, such as incendiary, smoke and flashbang. While some of the effects won't really differ, some lethal grenades are certainly more powerful than others. Some rifles are capable of mounting grenade launchers (again, there are various models) or using muzzle-loaded rifle grenades.

While on the subject of types of ammunition, I can only assume that there will be several varieties available in JA3. I was thinking, what about including corrosive ammo? For any guns in the game that were issued in WWII and beforehand, plus for modern day Russian and Soviet firearms, corrosive ammo could be widely available. When buying ammo, it is the cheapest to buy (and in bulk) and invariably found being used by most enemies, except for the more skilled and better equipped. Its downsides are that it wears out the guns faster, meaning that maintenance is needed to be carried out more frequently. Damage and performance wise, corrosive ammo is the same. It could be an interesting addition to JA3, where if you need to find ammo, especially if you are using Soviet type rifles, that kind will be the easiest to find or buy in the earlier parts of the game, when your funds are low.

If it is 2023 as stated, it could possibly be at the end of next year. I'd be fine with that, personally. That means that from the time of writing this post, it could potentially be more than a year away from now, in terms of months. There is always that feeling where you want a developer to "hurry up and finish it, already" so you can play it, but once a game is out, it's out. Sure, a game can receive patches in this day and age but if a game is not ready/is buggy/isn't fun upon release, you've got a developer and publisher handling damage control. I am happy to wait for a game for as long as possible (except for games like Star Citizen, which by the time it actually gets released, humans will have already colonised outer space for real) because there have been so many games that get released prematurely, invariably by the publisher saying that it is good enough as it is. It then becomes another wasted opportunity, affects the reputation of a game (and/or game series), the developers and the publisher. You then are left with the modding community trying to fix it, if possible, while then looking ahead for a sequel to be released that will hopefully get it right the next time around. I am not saying JA3 will meet that fate and I don't think anybody here is impatient for its release but the last Jagged Alliance I played was 2. I never tried the others in the series that came out afterwards because they got such poor reviews. They were just pale comparisons to JA2, which I think is one of the best games of all time. I am just hoping that JA3 will match the complexity of JA2, with its diverse gameplay and content. I hope that it will take more from JA2, old X-COM and Silent Storm than new XCOM. Regardless of whether Firaxis' XCOM was seen as the saviour of turn-based squad games and gave it a revival, I didn't like it at all. It was too simplistic and felt like the wrong way to revive the genre. I don't know why the genre apparently died out anyway, unless it was because of the console generation taking over PC gaming and every game having to be made 'more accessible', more simple and having big budget flashy presentation. In short, I want JA3 to be like those older games and not be 'inspired' by the XCOM reboot. If a longer development time creates that opportunity, then I can wait even into 2024.

I deliberately didn't include any other type of ammo other than FMJ because I was thinking about what armies would be issued with, as opposed to civilians. Also, for game purposes, FMJ is that average specification round, with hollow points and soft points on one side, and armour piercing rounds on the other side (if such types are available for that calibre). The nature and behaviour of bullets is erratic and overall, it can be hard to give a generalised view of what is more powerful than another. You can have one account where a bullet will go straight through something, and then you hear/read/experience another account of that same calibre and bullet type failing to even wound, because it bounced off or was absorbed by thick clothing.

I am going to cover the four standard rifle cartridges that have been in service post-WWII. For this post, I have tried to generalise things as much as possible, so they can be turned into numbers and statistics for gameplay. I am also generalising when it comes to ammunition type so I am picking standard military issue Full Metal Jacket (and only one version of each, so no old vs. new ammo). Also, bear in mind that bullets can be inconsistent, so even when generalising and putting one calibre before another, sometimes their effects swap their abilities around. If anybody has their own perspective or thinks I have it wrong, please feel free to say. 7.62x51mm (a.k.a. 7.62mm NATO): This cartridge is the most powerful of all of the standard rifle calibres. It has the best range and damage out of the four rifle calibres, plus excellent accuracy. If you want to kill a larger animal with as few bullets as possible, this is the one to use (again, out of those four calibres). It is also the best at destroying or shooting through cover, to get to the enemy standing behind it. That means bushes and light trees, bricks, concrete and relatively thin steel. The closer you are to that cover, the easier it will go through due to the power. Against body armour, please see farther down in this post. Its downsides are that it has high over-penetration of human targets and will carry on going into whatever/whoever is behind them. Full automatic fire from a battle rifle such as the FN FAL, M14 or H&K G3 is hard to control, due to the recoil and is therefore inaccurate. A heavier gun like a light machine gun is much better in this role. Finally, this calibre is the heaviest of those four. This means each merc will carry less overall ammunition of this type, compared to the other four types, regardless of strength. 5.56x45mm (a.k.a. 5.56mm NATO or just 5.56mm): This calibre is much lighter than 7.62mm NATO. It is easier to shoot due to less recoil and much more controllable in full automatic fire. More overall ammunition can be carried and each standard rifle magazine is capable of carrying 20-30 rounds (depending on the gun), when compared to the standard 20-round mags for the 7.62mm NATO rifles. It has very good range and is as accurate as 7.62mm NATO up to a certain distance, when the lighter weight of the bullet becomes affected (despite travelling faster). The standard Full Metal Jacket round depends on velocity to do its damage. The rifle's barrel length is important for this as the longer the barrel, the greater the velocity. It maximises its lethality by fragmenting inside the body. The faster it hits, the more it will break up. The slower the bullet when it hits, the less chance it has of fragmenting and it instead produces a deeper but thin wound, reducing its damage. Newer 5.56mm ammunition improves the fragmentation at slower speeds but barrel length is still a general rule. This is why rifle carbines are in between SMGs and assault rifles when working out most characteristics. They are shorter and more manoeuvrable than an assault rifle (think M4 vs. M16), have more damage output per bullet versus an SMG, have greater range than an SMG and are better at defeating body armour (with the exception of dedicated armour-piercing pistol rounds like 5.7mm, of which they are equal). A carbine chambered for 5.56mm hitting a human at close/closer ranges will still see its bullet fragment. As the range increases and the bullet slows down, that ability drops, affecting damage. There are some 5.56mm carbines with barrels that are quite short and for the AR-15 series of rifles, there are models with various barrel lengths that exist (and have existed before 2001, when JA3 is set). Those carbines with even shorter barrels will be lighter, even more manoeuvrable (so they should have even less of a cost in action points to fire in any mode) but their ranged effectiveness will be even lower. They produce a larger muzzle flash. They also put more wear on some of the components. If weapon degradation is in the game, these should degrade quicker. Attach a suppressor to the gun and that increases even more. Regarding 5.56mm rounds penetrating natural terrain, they vary, again with velocity being a factor. Through wood, the bullet can hit it and exit sideways. Additionally, it will create lots of splinters and shrapnel. It is difficult to exactly say how it performs because it depends on the thickness of the wood. Due to its fragmentation and light weight, its overall penetration through objects is actually quite low. This actually makes it more handy for law enforcement use as over-penetration is less of a risk. Against metal, 5.56mm is capable of going through thin steel plate. This is helped by the bullet having a steel penetrator. Thicker steel will stop it but being behind a car door won't protect you, even with the additional materials in the door. It might sound obvious to say but eventually that terrain object will disintegrate as more bullets hit it. Terrain being hit by 5.56mm is no exception here. For penetrating body armour, 5.56mm is effective enough to shoot through all but the newest and/or highest levels of armour. Armour is usually rated for handgun calibres only (and also stopping shrapnel if they are Vietnam-era flak vests) or up to and including standard rifle calibres (and stopping shrapnel). 7.62x39mm (a.k.a. 7.62mm Soviet or 7.62mm Warsaw Pact): This is the calibre used in the earlier series of AK rifles, such as the AK-47 and AKM. It is also used in the SKS. Newer models of the AK have been chambered for this calibre as well, alongside 5.45x39mm. Ammunition is widely available and cheap to buy. It is not to be confused with 7.62x51mm, despite being almost identical in calibre. It has lower velocity, lower range and lower penetration compared to that cartridge. Of the four standard rifle calibres, it is the second to last in accuracy when firing fully automatic (7.62mm NATO being at the bottom, due to power). It causes quite a lot of recoil and the AK isn't that great at controlling it either. It is quite heavy to carry in bulk, being nearly as heavy as 7.62mm NATO. That said, standard issue rifle magazines in this calibre can hold 30 rounds. Against a human target, it is actually the lowest of the four calibres. It can often shoot straight through before it has had enough time to tumble and create a wide enough cavity to surrounding body tissue. Now, this can vary depending on how big a person is, the angle it hits and what it hits (much like all of the calibres) but I am trying to simplify things so they can be implemented into the game, in terms of numbered statistics. It also has the added problem in that it will over-penetrate. Against a larger animal, it is the second best, behind 7.62mm NATO. Against materials, it is also second best (behind 7.62mm NATO). It is very good at shooting through and/or destroying cover. Against body armour, please see what I have written farther down in this post. Regarding barrel length, it is as with other guns. There are shorter barrelled AKs in this calibre, such as the AK-104 carbine, and really short-barrel AKs such as the unofficial AKMSU. While they will lower velocity, you also have the long-barrelled RPK, which is a Light Support Weapon. This has increased velocity. That means increased range and damage. 5.45x39mm (a.k.a. 5.45mm Soviet or 5.45mm Warsaw Pact): This was the Soviet Union's answer to the 5.56mm cartridge and is the current calibre for many nations that issue modern (or more recent) AK rifles. It has a lot less recoil compared to 7.62x39mm, is more accurate and controllable for all rates of fire, and has better range. Being lighter in weight, more ammunition can be carried. The switch from steel magazines to polymer also helps with this. Recoil is very mild out of the four calibres. In fact, it is the lightest of the four. Against the human body, it can be quite unpredictable as it becomes erratic in its direction of travel. It tumbles easily, increasing it damage and can enter one part of the body and exit somewhere else. It can fragment slightly but isn't really designed for that and its capability to cause damage is mainly due to its travel. While 5.56mm does most of its damage soon after entering, 5.45mm penetrates farther. Both are nasty, they just do it differently. 5.45mm is superior to 5.56mm in that it doesn't rely on velocity and barrel length to do its damage. Sure, a shorter barrel will make it slower but the bullet will still tumble and veer off in a different direction. A lower velocity would probably make the bullet remain inside the body, whereas at normal and higher velocities, it might exit one person and enter someone else. Against larger animals, it is not really ideal but I would say it is the third best of the four calibres. Against natural cover, it is more likely to be deflected. Like when it enters a human target, this bullet can hit terrain and veer off at an angle. That said, it can also sometimes penetrate better than 7.62x39mm through certain materials, due to it being thinner. 5.45x39mm is a lot less consistent in its overall behaviour. Against body armour, please see farther down in this post. Regarding barrel length, it is like the AKM. There are shorter barrelled AKs in this calibre, such as the AK-105 carbine. There is also the compact, short-barrelled AKS-74U, issued to vehicle crews and special forces. The AKS-74U is very manoeuvrable (equalling less action point cost), with a higher rate of fire than the standard AK-74. It does however, have less range and in full-auto, a lot of recoil. Weapon degradation increases too. The barrel is so short, it gets hot very quick, so it isn't really meant for prolonged automatic fire. There is also have the long-barrelled RPK-74, which is a Light Support Weapon and is basically the RPK chambered for 5.45x39mm. This also has increased velocity, meaning increased range and damage. To generalise the already generalised information, I have put them in rough order: RANGE: 7.62x51mm > 5.56mm > 5.45x39mm > 7.62x39mm. BULLET ACCURACY: 7.62x51mm > 5.56mm > 5.45x39mm > 7.62x39mm. FULL-AUTO ACCURACY (Due to recoil): 5.45x39mm > 5.56mm > 7.62x39mm > 7.62x51mm. DAMAGE VS. HUMANS: 7.62x51mm > 5.56mm (from a longer barrelled rifle) > 5.45x39mm > 5.56mm (from a shorter barrel) = 7.62x39mm > 5.56mm (from the shortest barrel). DAMAGE VS. ANIMALS: 7.62x51mm > 7.62x39mm > 5.45x39mm > 5.56mm. DAMAGE VS. WALLS: 7.62x51mm > 7.62x39mm > 5.45x39mm > 5.56mm. DAMAGE VS. STEEL: 7.62x51mm > 7.62x39mm > 5.56mm (longer barrel) > 5.45x39mm > 5.56mm (shorter barrel). DAMAGE VS. BODY ARMOUR: 7.62x51mm, 7.62x39mm, 5.56mm = 5.45x39mm. (This is the hardest one to get clear information on as I have read different results, so the order varies. Body armour that is designed to protect against the common rifle calibres, is designed to protect against all four just as well). So how is all of this information useful for implementing into a computer game? Hopefully, by seeing this information, the developers can translate it into numbers, with each calibre doing so many points of damage against this sort of cover, that sort of body armour, that particular target and so on. It is important to feature less damage, the farther away the target is, rather than it simply having a fixed amount of damage up to a certain range and after that, the bullet (and gun) being no good. Modelling distance in the game is essential because it creates a reason for heavier guns and calibres to exist. It also means that carbines and SMGs will excel at close range, where their weaker damage per bullet isn't noticeable and their more controllable size and weight mean they cost less action points to fire. In JA2, there was unrealistic weapon appearance and progression, with handguns appearing first, then SMGs and then rifles. There was no advantage to using smaller weapons once the rifles appeared and no penalty to rifles in close quarters (hence my very first post and one of the main reasons for creating this thread).

I was also thinking about there being a lone enemy sniper who has been hired. A signature character to fear. How to actually implement this, I am not entirely certain (which is why I wasn't at first sure about suggesting such an enemy). After all, you would only fear him or her, if they were able to hunt and kill your mercs and trained militia, building up a tally and a reputation. If they were found and killed easily, or refused to leave the battlefield until either your mercs or they were killed, it wouldn't amount to anything. They could however, be somewhere on the battlefield, as part of a larger enemy force but leave the combat zone without you knowing exactly when. Their skill with a sniper rifle would be enough to kill off several allied militia quickly, while hitting, injuring or possibly killing one of your mercs. They then harass you throughout the course of the game. There could be something really fearful about knowing there is a lone sniper out there, doing their own thing and hired to cause havoc. I am picturing movies like Enemy At The Gates and Behind Enemy Lines. It also reminds me of one of my favourite series of books as a teenager. It was the Freeway Warrior series and they were 'choose your own adventure' style game books. In Book 3, you are travelling closely with three other characters (while the rest of the survivors throughout the previous books travel in a convoy). It is only towards the end of Book 3, that this sniper appears and starts hunting your little group down, picking you off slowly one-by-one, while keeping track of you. When it is just you left, after him tracking you when you tried to flee, you are forced to confront him in an abandoned town, with your skills versus his. If you manage to kill him, you find out that he was a well known assassin that was hired by the terrorist group, that eventually caused the nuclear holocaust that creates the setting for the books.

As well as the H&K PSG1, there are other semi-auto sniper rifles in their range, that came out before 2001. You've got the MSG90 and the G3SG/1 as cheaper alternatives.