Solaris_Wave

Natural encounters sounds better to me (i.e. facing wild animals during a battle with enemy soldiers). Another thing that would be interesting would be, not just facing enemy soldiers that vary in their experience, but maybe facing higher grade mercenaries, private military contractors or special forces that are employed by the enemy. Their weapons and equipment are different, as are their skills. With them, there are a variety of side missions and quests. They aren't simply like facing veteran enemy soldiers who try to retake a sector, as with JA2. Instead, they are trying to disrupt your operations, destroy supplies and so on. They are more likely to attack at night, be more stealthy and are lesser in numbers. Basically, they are experienced competition especially employed because your presence is causing the war to swing in your favour.

Forgotten Weapons is definitely on the more technical side of things as Ian goes into the history of the weapon and then usually disassembles them. I usually enjoy those but I also like weapon testing and ballistics testing, as it is interesting to me just how the gun is on a daily basis, as well as seeing that bullets behave differently depending on what they are hitting. Cartridges can be both better and worse than others in multiple ways, which is why I don't like arbitrary game balancing when there are enough factors in reality that balance things out.

I'd like to see weapon maintenance be included, above just the jams that can occur. Some weapons are more likely to jam than others, so maybe there could be a degradation factor included where certain weapons degrade faster and therefore need more frequent cleaning?

I wonder if there will be the optional sci-fi encounters in JA3, like there was in JA2? The first time I played the game, I kept those activated, because I didn't know what it was all about. It was quite a surprise when the important northern airfield I captured was attacked at night by giant bugs. I remember there was a cool moment when one of the NPC militia that I had trained to defend the airfield, killed one bug near the checkpoint gate and said, "Alright!" I was pleased for him, as well as thinking how good it was that the trained militia could hold their own. Further on in the whole sci-fi quest, you find and fight the bug Queen. Getting the royal jelly could be used to further toughen your body armour. On further plays of JA2, I disabled the sci-fi element and I am glad the developers gave you that option. On the whole of it, I prefer keeping a modern day squad based shooter as grounded as possible.

That is kind of what I am thinking, with them being an unexpected encounter for both sides. Although, wouldn't animals be scared away by all the gunfire? Now that I have said that, it does make me think how it could really make for a tense situation if your mercs were trying to be stealthy. Imagine creeping around at night, trying to close in on an enemy compound when suddenly, a leopard or crocodile decides that now would be a good time to catch some prey?

It has been 15 years since that I played Rainbow Six: Vegas 1 so I can't really remember the exact things I said. I do remember complaining about the grenades exploding on contact, how inaccurate and weak the light machine guns were (with so much recoil, despite being heavier and firing the same calibre as the assault rifles), incorrect rates of fire and damage. It made no sense why the FAMAS was so accurate and deadly, while the Steyr AUG A3 was so poor in every comparable way. I also complained about the AI enemies too. R6: Vegas 2 actually improved the LMGs and it is possible that they read my forum post. Unfortunately, the screwed up a lot of other guns, adding 'game balancing' (things like giving the L85 rifle a smaller magazine than is realistic, just to 'balance' it out). Apparently, the developers started Vegas 2 with a firearms expert with military experience, who told them how to set the guns' statistics. Later on, they scrapped all of his suggestions and made the guns how people see and expect them to be from watching Hollywood movies. They apparently made that comment as such. Oh and the AI was worse and cheated even more so. That is not to say that I didn't enjoy those two games. I played them for a long time and achieved Elite rank in both. It is a recurring trend for me where I will complain about the games that are supposedly 'so realistic'. It isn't me trying to be edgy or different. It is simply that I find problems within a short space of time that take me out of the game. This is often either down to silly gun design or AI behaviour. If the developers balance a gun's stats just so it fits in with all the others in game, ignoring realistic balancing (and I always say "realism balances itself") then it irritates me. If the AI behaves implausibly and super-shoots you with a one hit kill from the hip and about 400 metres away, it also irritates me. Arbitrary gun balancing has happened in Call Of Duty, Counterstrike and many of the Rainbow Six and Ghost Recon games that started with the XBox and Playstation. Implausible, god-like AI affected the earlier Rainbow Six games (plus the later ones in multiplayer), the multiplayer segment of Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter 2 and Operation Flashpoint. I could tell you the exact reasons why for each of the games I mentioned but I would probably bore you. It then ends with me arguing with others who fawn over such games as if they are the Holy Grail. As I said, it isn't because I am trying to be edgy and different. I can deal with it more if I see the game as a 'realism-themed arcade game' instead of a 'realistic' one. It isn't always a good thing having enough knowledge so that it stops you enjoying a game. Thankfully, there are games out there that really do try to go for as much realism as possible. Others can sometimes be modded. As for FPSRussia, there is a video on YouTube where he is interviewed and explains his disappearance. If you search for FPSRussia and the author, PKA Highlights, you will find a few videos on him.

Hopefully, the animals won't discriminate against who they attack and will also attack enemy soldiers.

This is a tricky one for me to answer and I was going to leave it but it is nice to see so many fellow "gun nut" guys. I once got kicked out of a Rainbow Six: Vegas game because I was complaining about the weapons. I'd also annoy Call Of Duty and Counter-Strike fans back in the day. Those YouTube channels are regular visits for me as well. I like Forgotten Weapons, InRangeTV, Paul Harrell, Garand Thumb, TFB TV, Honest Outlaw, Administrative Results, Bloke On The Range, Royal Armouries, Vickers Tactical, IraqVeteran8888, Lucky Gunner Ammo, Military Arms Channel and Hickok45. I personally never thought much of FPSRussia but that is just my view. He recently appeared in an interview, talking in his natural American voice, as to why he disappeared. Due to the setting and timeline, like others have said, there should be older weapons that are common. WWII, 1950s and '60s battle rifles will be readily available. There should be plenty of FN FAL, H&K G3 rifles in 7.62x51mm around, to match all the Soviet-era assault rifles and machine guns. My own personal favourites are the hardest to pick. How can you choose only 3 when you are considering handguns, shotguns, SMGs, assault rifles, battle rifles, sniper rifles and machine guns? If JA3 takes place in 2001, I would have to go with the following: Pistols: Heckler & Koch USP .45 or 9mm, Beretta 92FS, M1911 (so many varieties and manufacturers for that one). SMG: Heckler & Koch MP5A5, MP5SD6, UMP .45; Ingram MAC-10 .45 with suppressor, Steyr AUG Para. Assault Rifle: Colt M4A1, SIG 551 and 552 Commando, Heckler & Koch G36K, G36C and HK33. The thing is, I could pick many more but I would have to ultimately choose my firearms depending on what ammo would be readily available in the country. Also, if your gunfire sounds the same as the enemy's because you are using similar weapons, that can give you a slight advantage. They are less likely to pick you out as a foreign intrusion if they hear your gunfire going off in the distance.

Those are some great ideas that have been mentioned. There was plenty of variety in JA2, giving you access to more money, better equipment, air mobility and so on. Some of the mission types mentioned, such as sneaking in and killing a high value target or stealing something, I would like to see but they didn't present themselves in JA2 (at least for me). I only really used stealth at the beginning of a battle to get into position and set up optimal fire zones. Battles always ended up with the elimination of the enemies in that sector so you could move around freely. There was never a situation where the enemies were more numerous than you could handle, and would largely remain intact and in control of a sector after you completed your mission. Implementing the scenario where asymmetrical, guerilla hit-and-run combat takes place would be an interesting change to the more standard elimination of enemy presence and taking control of the sector. I too, am not a fan of time limits in games (why do developers love them so much?) as they often get used in the most annoying ways possible. A particular favourite of game design is having to escape a facility that is going to blow up, because of your mission objective, and then having to remember which route to take to get back out, all the while enemies seem intent on trying to kill you, instead of trying to flee themselves. They come across as mindless drones with no thought of survival. There have been games with fake time limits, where an alarm is going off and you are supposed to escape, adding to the tension, but the countdown to obliteration (and having to reload a save point if you fail) only starts towards the end when the exit is in sight. Max Payne 1 and Far Cry 3: Blood Dragon did this (with the latter having a parody of the finale in Aliens). I haven't played the recent X-COM 2 yet but I bought it in a sale, intending to only play it modded, as I was aware of complaints of time limits and I didn't like the X-COM reboot. It seems that for many gamers, time limits are unwelcome and instead of creating tension, it just creates frustration. Maybe if there are some timed missions in JA3, it would be intercepting a convoy that is driving through a sector. The convoy of vehicles don't appear straight away, giving you time to set up an ambush, deploy land mines and explosives. Once they appear on the road, they are going to try to keep going, intending to protect whatever cargo they have and get to their destination.

I agree that aiming at specific body parts is a separate issue to showing the hit percentage, I was commenting on it again due to it being a suggestion to change, in my original post of this thread, and also thinking that it would combine with not showing hit percentage to change the flow of play from all the other turn-based squad shooters. I am envisioning gameplay where you see a target but don't know how well a shot has a chance of hitting and also, not choosing specific body parts (invariably the head anyway) at the same time. You are merely trying to hit the enemy in general. That does not mean those factors are no longer there and dumbing down the game, it is more that they are hidden from the player and if the bullet hits, that is obviously a good thing for you, and if the bullet hits somewhere for a faster neutralisation, even better.

The Jagged Alliance series, along with Silent Storm, are notable of this genre where each soldier under your control has a personality. It stands to reason that they should look unique on the battlefield and if they were all wearing the same armour and camouflage, they would end up looking too similar (kind of like in JA2 anyway when they all had camo on their skin). Having unique 3D models for every merc, which then have further versions depending on every type of clothing available in the game, would create a lot of work as well. Different height, build, gender, skin colour and every type of clothing is a lot of 3D models. I would be happy with just seeing the equipped gun model change, depending on what they are armed with. It differs to games like the original X-COM trilogy, where they all looked generic male or female and only really looked different if their suit or armour changed. X-COM: Apocalypse gave them a portrait picture too but other than that, they all looked alike and had no in-game personality, except for what names you decided to give them (I always named them after the Colonial Marines in Aliens).

I am not sure if the game is being dumbed down by hiding the chance to hit percentage. It is simply hiding it while the mechanics of different hit locations to the body and the chances to hit still remain. I am used to seeing that percentage to hit since the earliest turn-based squad shooters but having that displayed always gave some artificial aspect to it. If you are trying to hit a target in real life, do you think you have a 95% chance to hit or a 65% chance to hit? You are more likely to think that you have a 'good', 'average' or 'poor' chance to hit. Maybe that is an idea: to have something like that be displayed. You still have an idea of your chance to hit but it is more generalised. It also does away with those moments when you see a 85%-95% chance to hit and find it misses, then misses twice more with that same percentage to hit. I remember playing MechForce on the Commodore Amiga and being exasperated at seeing a 95% chance to hit actually miss. Sure, there is a 5% chance of just that happening but it seemed like the computer calculations weren't quite right when it happened more often than expected. That occurs in many games like that, where you are convinced that the computer calculations are deliberately choosing the small probability to miss. It can also create mass frustration when your character(s) misses, an AI enemy hits and kills you outright. My experience with Fallout 1 & 2 consisted of needing to keep your fingers near the Quick Save and Quick Load keys, usually when facing multiple Super Mutants with miniguns or giving a certain one of your party members a Combat Shotgun (shot in the back again with burst mode…thanks, Vic). Laser Squad, the first game of its type that I ever played, didn't even have a means to load an earlier turn. The amount of times you would aim at an enemy with a rocket launcher or auto-cannon and instead of doing just that, your marine thought it would be a nice idea to fire at a 45 degree angle, into the nearest wall and blow himself to smithereens. Your finely crafted ambush goes up in smoke, just like your marine did a few seconds before, while the AI enemies then rub salt and vinegar into the wound by choosing which eyelash to hit on your next marine. Without being able to play JA3 yet, it is hard to say how well the game will play without showing the hit percentage. Like I posted earlier, it should provide a tense experience as you will never know if you should take the shot. It might lead to increased frustration though, so some feedback could be useful; either the Good, Average, Poor display or the merc saying, "I'll never make that shot!" As much as I loved JA2 and regard it as one of the best turn-based squad shooters, alongside the original X-COM/U.F.O.: Enemy Unknown (I didn't like the Firaxis reboot) and Silent Storm, there was the issue that I found where snipers were too overpowered. This was due to semi-automatic aimed shots to the head being too easy. It surpassed all other methods of fire. It was the quickest way to kill an enemy soldier instead of full-auto fire (unless at point blank range) and aiming for any other part of the body just delayed neutralisation. That problem became even greater, later into the game, when you fought experienced enemies with body armour that absorbed so much damage, and who were eventually equipped with Rocket Rifles. Even if the developers reverse the decision to show hit percentage (or alter it), hopefully there won't be the ability to aim at specific locations of the body anymore…maybe except for guns that have telescopic sights and the merc is skilled enough. This was one of the main reasons I created my initial post: to see full automatic fire remain as effective as semi-auto/single shot fire, depending on the circumstances.

The announcement that JA3 wouldn't show hit probability is a great idea and an interesting one, considered that practically every other game of this genre has shown the percentage chance of a shot. If it is low enough, you make the decision not to shoot, even when there is still always the probability of a hit. That, combined with my suggestions above, about not showing the precise number of cartridges in a magazine, should make for a tense fight. It has made me wonder however, if it creates the problem where, if there is no probability shown on screen, you are unable to tell what is really a bad shot and what, despite the terrain and obstacles in the way, the merc has a clear shot at. This is all down to perspective. You are looking at the battlefield from overhead. What about what the merc sees from their own eyes? It will look different. In contrast, the enemy soldiers might appear more clearly to the player because of the overhead view, whereas the merc would never be able to hit. One can assume that, as long as an enemy has been spotted by a merc, a bullet can potentially hit them, regardless of any terrain and how far away they are. What happens when the player switches to another merc? Will that enemy disappear from the player's view if that particular merc cannot see that enemy? The location of enemies can be radioed in between mercs (or called out if stealth has been disregarded) but if an enemy is behind a rock and only one merc can see that enemy and their position is revealed to the player, how does the player know that the other merc cannot see that enemy from their perspective? How much of the enemy can be seen by the merc? The player might see the enemy character appear, crouching behind a rock, and see a fully displayed character model of them. What does the merc see? Maybe a bit of the head and one shoulder of the enemy. Again, how does the player know what the merc can see? Will the enemy soldiers have some kind of outline, shadowing or highlighting to give a relative idea of what a particular merc can see and how clearly they see them? Would the player also need to switch between every merc to see what they can see for enemies to appear on the battlefield? While those questions are, for now, unanswered, I was wondering if the merc, due to having a personality, could comment on taking a shot at the enemy and the likelihood of it hitting? If they don't think they could hit that enemy because the chance to hit is really poor (which the player doesn't know about), the merc could comment on that and say they won't shoot. There then could be the additional implementation of them taking the shot if you click on the enemy again, which might actually hit after all.

Constant, large muzzle flashes are definitely more of a Hollywood thing. Otherwise, it isn't something you constantly see being emitted. In the game, missions that take place at night would benefit more from the muzzle flashes. They would give away the position of the shooter. As I pointed out in my initial post, a suppressor would be a good way of reducing that (and suppressors have their own pros and cons). Short barreled rifles often have a bigger muzzle flash than a standard length rifle. You need a good flash hider attached to the barrel to help reduce this but even then it can be still significant. You are trading the benefit of having a shorter barrel (easier to manoeuvre and lighter) with greater muzzle flash, greater recoil, and lastly, lower range and power due to reduced velocity. This is one of the things about 5.56mm: if the velocity isn't fast enough, the bullet doesn't fragment as much as it should, reducing its lethality. For rounds that don't fragment, their velocity loss still reduces their damage, something that will be noticeable the longer the range. To refer back to my original post, a carbine or compact carbine should have their damage per bullet lowered, their range reduced and their ranged accuracy reduced as disadvantages. For their advantages, they are lighter in weight and have a reduced action point cost to fire. They would, in addition, get a very slightly reduced reload cost. Carbines would give you that middle ground between an SMG and an assault rifle: more range than an SMG, more damage per bullet than an SMG, more body armour penetration than an SMG (except for specific armour-piercing rounds like 5.7mm and 4.6mm), more recoil than an SMG (affecting full-auto accuracy), more action points to shoot in any mode than an SMG and more action points to reload than an SMG. As for sound effects, I agree in how important they should be. A rifle will sound louder than an SMG. There should be a variety of different gunshots as they don't all sound the same but you don't have to have a different sound for every gun. For instance, if one gun is the same as another but with a shorter barrel, you can increase the volume for the shorter barreled one (eg. an AK-74 vs. an AKS-74U or a HK33 vs. a HK53). Large calibre pistols and revolvers will be loud. They too, vary in that volume. If you have multiple varieties of the Desert Eagle, a .357 Magnum will be louder than your standard handgun calibres, but .44 Magnum will be louder and .50 Action Express louder still. If you want to modify one existing gunshot sound effect, you can slightly raise the volume for each one and slightly increase the bass. Sound suppressors lower the noise but not to Hollywood levels (although thankfully they have moved away from using that electronic sounding 'BEOOOP' noise). Lighter calibres and subsonic calibres are quieter suppressed than heavier. Therefore, if you are using a suppressed weapon and enemies are closer, the ones still standing are less likely to react to their comrade's demise if you are using a pistol or sub-machine gun. Reload sounds are different depending on magazine size and how they are inserted. Reloading a pistol mag will sound different to reloading an SMG because of its size and it being inserted inside the grip. A rifle mag going into a magazine well (eg. AR-15) will sound different to one that is initially clipped in and then tilted/rocked back to lock it in place (eg. AK rifles). Tactical reload sound effects will be separate to a full reload sound. You are just changing magazines. A full reload will sound the same but the addition of chambering the first round is needed. For pistols, you release the slide (either manually pulling back to cause the slide stop to drop or thumbing the slide stop). For rifles and SMGs with a bolt release catch, you have that little extra sound. For those without the bolt catch, you've got to pull back the charging handle and then release. If you want to include the famous Heckler & Koch slap for their older models (eg. MP5, G3, HK33), you'd pull back the charging handle first, lock it in place, change the mags and then slap the handle down. Some other guns like the Steyr AUG can be done this way too. Open-bolt SMGs (eg. Uzi, MAC-10) will, for game purposes, just sound like tactical reloads. Unless there is a problem like a jam, you wouldn't operate the charging handle for a mag change. I'd assume the merc would have already pulled back the handle before combat starts and if there aren't any safety release sound effects, you could have just one reload sound for those. Finally, for empty casings hitting the ground, I hope falling casings hitting soft surfaces doesn't sound the same as hitting hard surfaces. Casings hitting grass and soil won't sound anything like casings hitting stone or metal. Shotgun casings sound different to brass too.

For me, Electronic Arts was known around the time you mentioned, for publishing great games with good production values, but at the same time buying up and shutting down some of the best developers around. Ubisoft had a lot of variety and plenty of great games under the Tom Clancy banner (even if Clancy had no connection to it). I enjoyed a lot of their games. Their problem was later following the same open world format. I was finding (and still find) that new games come out faster than I can play them and there is always lots to do (or lots of travelling around to do). Activision for me is the difficult one. They seemed to only end up releasing and updating the same few game franchises. I thought Call Of Duty was fun enough but definitely not God's gift to gaming and first-person shooters that everyone else pertained it to be, and that was at its peak (Modern Warfare 1 and 2). I enjoyed many of their games before that era though and have fond memories of the Battlezone reboot from the late 90s. I don't think I have bought an Activision game in the last 12 years and probably wouldn't at the moment anyway because I despise Bobby Kotick with a sincere passion. My favourite publisher was Microprose. They brought out Gunship and Gunship 2000, Silent Service, F-19 Stealth Fighter, Pirates!, Covert Action, B-17 Flying Fortress, Civilisation, X-Com/U.F.O.: Enemy Unknown, Master Of Orion 1 and 2 along with so many others. During the mid to late 80s and throughout the 90s, their games, particularly the simulators, came in big boxes (before everyone was doing it), with big manuals, maps and plenty of background data. I really felt I was getting more than just a 'game'.

I am quite broad minded myself and I can put things in context. Then again, I consider myself fortunate that I have never been oppressed by a government, never lived in a dictatorship or where you might get picked up by secret police, and in my lifetime, have never experienced my country being invaded. Had I been in any of those situations, would I be as broad minded? I can totally understand the swastika being banned in Germany. I prefer to see it in something historical but I can live with a flag in a game or film that looks similar, such as their war flag and then replacing the swastika with their balkenkreuz. It still seems weird today, seeing the swastika proudly displayed in East Asia because of Nazi history, even though for East Asians it has a completely different history. The days of the Soviet Union is looked upon fondly by many that lived through it, regardless of its bad side. There is room for romanticism and fascination of that period of Eastern Europe. Despite my great interest in military history, you can't fondly look at what the Nazis built in the same way, with the exception of the military technology that came about. As for seeing things like Ché Guevara and CCCP fashion statements in the 2000s, I remember seeing plenty of that in the early to mid 90s when I was in the later years of school and college. Ché posters and shirts always baffled me when being displayed by teenagers from the United Kingdom but Soviet stylings I could always "get".

This is another fairly big post (but nowhere near the size of my thread opener). I was thinking about splitting this into two separate posts but instead I will list them with contents, with the most important ones (at least for the developers) being after part 1. It took me a long time to think it through, trying to balance what is available in real life, with what would be great in the game without causing an excessive number of different items that the developers would have to create. Shotguns Inventory (pouches & holsters vs. backpack) Load-bearing apparel Extended magazines, ammo drums & ammo belts Shotguns One of the greatest advantages of shotguns is their versatility in ammunition options. The main ones being Buckshot and Rifled Slug, there are plenty of others as well. For law enforcement, a shotgun can be excellent and those ammo options open up further. You can use door breaching rounds which are far safer than using buckshot to blow locks and hinges. Door breaching rounds are designed to cause less penetration and fragments as they expend their energy quickly, without causing risk to anyone inside the room, be it hostages or even suspects that you don't want to just kill. There are mini CS gas shells, sabot rounds to penetrate light armoured vehicles, quadrangle buckshot to knock out vehicle engine blocks, Less Than Lethal rounds, small signal flares, incendiary and flechette rounds, to name a few. Pump action shotguns still have their uses, even when semi-auto (and full-auto) shotguns are available to law enforcement and militaries. Low pressure rounds like several listed above, won't cycle the action of a semi-auto. They need manual cycling from a pump or charging handle. Therefore, there are semi-auto shotguns that have a dual function. Tube-fed shotguns are no less useful than one with a magazine or drum. You can top up a tube-fed shotgun a lot quicker than trying it with a magazine, which is handy when you are on a mission. Plus, like GODSPEED was referring to, you can alternate your load depending on what you think will be needed in sequence. You can of course do that with a magazine as well but I would say that you'd need to pre-load that mag before any operation took place and then expect no deviation in how the whole thing played out. Mags are better if you want the same type of ammunition and are going to be using a lot of it frequently. Inventory (pouches & holsters vs. backpack) Another thing that GODSPEED said was something I had considered before, and that was the items carried by that merc and how they were carried. One thing I would also really like to see is a difference between something carried in a backpack and something carried on your load-bearing vest or webbing. It isn't hard to add to the game as it just comes down to action point usage. Something in your backpack should take up the whole turn and need your entire action points used up, no matter even if after becoming more experienced and fitter, you gain action points. You don't really need to imagine how long it takes to remove your backpack, open it and search for what you need amongst everything else. More room to carry extra items and being able to carry more (plus often the only way to store a third weapon, except for knives), but they are not readily available that turn. Meanwhile, anything carried in a pouch, pocket or holster costs the standard amount of action points before skills are factored in that lower the cost. An outline, body diagram or "paper doll" would be a good interface to have for each merc. Their load-bearing vest or other items has space for weapon magazines, shotgun or grenade launcher rounds, grenades, knives and handguns. Now, how to do this I am not exactly sure, as I don't know what the developers would want to do and how far they would go about doing it (and I really hope they are reading this thread topic throughout). Pouches can be strapped/fastened to the vest, designed for carrying magazines. A knife would have a holster/sheath, grenades would have a different kind of pouch, a handgun would have its own holster. Why not just have, say, 8 slots on your vest for whatever you want? Because a 9mm 30-round mag is thinner than a 5.56mm or 7.62x51mm mag. I am not talking about maximum weight here (where you could carry more 5.56mm mags overall, compared to 7.62x51mm), I am talking cartridge length. Pistol calibres have shorter cartridges, hence a thinner mag. That means double the amount overall when stacked. What about mercs that carry more than one handgun? Do they like to dual-wield or have a pistol with a suppressor and also a large calibre revolver? Different to a mag pouch again. I don't want to complicate the situation for the developers or encourage them to dumb the game down so these are ideas to maybe help simplify for game purposes: a) Handguns and revolvers could always be the same size and take up a holster. They must have a holster to allow them to be switched to quickly instead of reloading your main gun or clearing a jam. If they are not in a holster, switching to them is slower as if choosing any other item from your inventory (except for the backpack which takes up the whole turn). Holsters have to be bought or found separately. It doesn't matter if it is a full length Taurus Raging Bull in .454 Casull or a short barrel .38 Special. A holster is a holster, meant for that particular gun. There are enough factors in deciding what to carry, with gun weight, ammo weight and capacity, recoil and action point cost. b) All SMG mags carried can be double the amount of rifle mags carried. Weight will be a major factor as it is, so that overall dictates what the merc takes with them. Larger calibres weigh more (especially if there are anti-materiel sniper rifles in the game), plus mag capacity is lower the larger the ammunition is. 5.56mm, 5.45x39mm and 7.62x39mm mags are 30-round as standard, the more powerful 7.62x51mm (a.k.a. 7.62mm NATO) usually went into 20-round mags. Anything bigger and you are going down to 10 and 5 rounds. This will balance the game naturally as the more damage and range a cartridge (and gun) offers, the less you are carrying. As long as SMGs are weaker per bullet (but not so they end up like BB guns!) and they have a limited range, the extra mags allowed won't make them artificially dominate the game. c) Shotgun magazines, for mag-fed models, will be the same as carrying rifle mags in terms of how many mags can be carried. d) Shotgun shells, for tube-fed models could go in a specially worn bandolier or two, or an ammo bag around the waist. I have spent some time thinking about how shotgun shells could be carried, as they are bulky. How would a merc store loose shotgun shells if they didn't have a bandolier or bag? Maybe a number of shells could take up each slot at a time, with bandoliers and bags allowing more to be carried. e) Ammo drums, whether they are old fashioned 50-round Thompson SMG drums, Beta C-Mags, 75-round drum mags for light machine guns, ammo belts in a box or loose, go in an ammo bag. f) Extended box magazines such as 45-round capacity for pistols and rifles, if they are to be included, could cut the amount of mags carried by half. Being longer and more cumbersome means that unless they are carried in an ammo bag where there is no carry amount penalty described above, they are too long to carry in a pouch without reducing the overall number of mags available. This means that if a load-bearing vest could allow 6 30-round rifle mags, a 45-round mag can only be carried as a total of 3 on the vest. For pistols, they don't get the bonus double amount carry capacity for being pistol calibre magazines. They are long and so stick out of your pouches. g) Everything can fit in a backpack with the limits being overall weight allowed to be carried by the merc (governed by the strength characteristic) and some kind of max backpack capacity, which could be max weight allowance of the backpack and a large amount of slots that eventually get used up. The easiest solution I can visualise: Have a grid of squares that allow the item's icon to be placed in it. The original X-COM/U.F.O.: Enemy Unknown and Silent Storm use this method, with small items taking up one square, magazines taking up vertical squares (with extended mags being one extra square) and larger items being very 'boxy'. Maybe this grid method could be used for most areas on the merc when it comes to what is worn and where. A load-bearing vest has a grid box that counts as having all the necessary pouches already fitted. It is then up to the player to fill those grid squares with the items they want that are of various sizes whether they are medical, ammunition, grenades, knives, etc. A knife could count as a slim, vertical grid shaped item that obviously looks different to an SMG magazine but counts as the same number of squares. Knives count as special items that are assumed to come with a sheath. Drawing a knife from any location except a backpack is as fast as drawing a handgun from a holster. This is to simulate letting go of your gun and leaving it to hang from its sling, and then drawing the knife. Handy for unexpected close combat. Handguns could be a number of boxes in size with large calibre revolvers and pistols taking up a number of squares. Fitting a suppressor to specific pistols that have threaded barrels will increase the length. As mentioned before, to draw them quickly, they must be in a holster, otherwise they are counted as being in a pocket (as an example). The holster is meant for handguns only and can only take one handgun each. Pistols that have suppressors will fit just as well as a long barreled revolver. To carry another handgun at the same time requires buying and wearing another holster. Holsters can be fitted to a vest, belt or thigh grid spaces. They take up a certain number of grid squares but this doesn't depend on the size of the gun it holds. For game simplification, there is only one type of holster that covers every type of handgun (otherwise you'd have to create a huge number of different types for every kind of handgun). This simulates being fastened over the top of the vest or belt. For the thighs, the holster is both strapped to a belt and to the thigh. It doesn't take up a belt grid space though as it is just the primary strap and hangs down from there (I am just saying how it obviously attaches in reality). A thigh holster could take up all or almost all of the thigh grid spaces. The reason I have given the choice in my suggestions is because thigh holsters can have pockets for an additional pistol magazine. If a holstered gun is in a backpack, it provides no benefit in drawing faster. Load-bearing apparel There could be a few different vest types to find or buy. They differ in terms of protection and available grid square spaces to equip items. A basic vest will help protect against most handgun calibres but not much else. They don't really allow for equipment either. You can then move up to different vests which protect against rifle rounds, can have additional protection for the shoulders and have extra grid spaces. To help increase the available grid spaces or ammo capacity, I mentioned bandoliers and ammo bags. Bandoliers fit over the body, increasing the number of shotgun shells that can be carried. These can be easily found and if mercs start without any form of body armour, and in the early game is hard to find or too expensive, bandoliers will be handy in the meantime. Later on, there will be vests that have that capacity built in. There are lots of vests in reality that have dedicated shotgun shell loops. Ammo bags take up space on the belt (as they cover a part of the belt or hang over it, if hanging from a shoulder). However, once attached, they create extra space for all the ammo types. The ammo bag is important if you want to carry ammo drums and belts. They are otherwise too big in terms of grid spaces, unless you want them in your backpack. Thigh bags are specifically for medical equipment or any other tools that are in the game, where they can be quickly reached. They cannot be worn with a weapon holster on the same leg, therefore the thigh bag should take up a lot of room on the original thigh grid spaces, maybe leaving just enough room for something like a knife. Extended magazines, ammo drums & ammo belts There will be pros and cons to these with the main advantage being purely that you don't have to reload as often. The disadvantages are that they are cumbersome and reduce the quantity of what can be carried. Extended mags and drums are more likely to jam. They should also take more action points to reload, as follows: a) Extended box magazines, due to their extra length, would need to cause a very slight increase to the number of action points needed. b) Ammo drums would cause a greater increase. Some drums are easier than others, to complicate things. Beta C-Mags are easier to insert than one from a WWII-era gun. c) Ammo belts are the slowest. Having to open the top cover on a machine gun, lay the belt across, close the cover.

I am an old-school gamer as well, having started my experiences with the Atari 2600 and early handheld games in 1980, and then moving onto the Atari 800XL (while sidelining into a few Nintendo Game & Watch handhelds), the Amstrad CPC 464, the Commodore Amiga A500 and A1200, before finally going on the PC, back in 1994. I have alternated between the PC, XBox (1st Gen and 360) and the iPad but I consider myself for the most part these days, always a PC gamer. I have great memories of old games and while I still enjoy new games, I am more select in what I pick as so much these days just bores me as soon as I hear about them. It seems the more a game is pushed and talked about by every website, magazine and modern gamer, the more I want them to shut up talking about them. Elden Ring? I couldn't care less. Talk about a MOBA, Battle Royale or MMO? Personally not interested. I even thought Call Of Duty was overrated when it reached the height of its popularity and any criticism I made about its multiplayer, you'd think I was hitting a kitten with a sledgehammer. I've pretty much stuck to single player gaming in the last 10 years as well, only really missing co-op gaming. All the trends that the big games publishers insist upon such as season passes, pre-order bonuses, live services, microtransactions, etc. just seem so far away from the games of yesteryear. You don't really get to play games you want to play, instead you get to play games they want you to play. I think creativity has waned in the last 10-15 years, with none of the big publishers wanting to take risks. Instead, it lies within the hands of smaller companies and indie developers (kind of like the old days then?). They are making the games I find myself more interested in but still more could be done. I'm still waiting for someone to remake Covert Action! I loved Fallout 2 with it being one of my favourites of the franchise. I have played all of the Fallout games (including Fallout: Tactics, Brotherhood Of Steel and the "freemium" Fallout: Shelter) except for Fallout 4 and '76. I haven't felt the urge to play 4 and seeing that you encounter a Deathclaw near the start of the game without the actual threat of it just seemed wrong to me. I know people that had never played a Fallout game before start with 4 and have no idea of the mythology of Deathclaws and to fear them until strong enough. Fallout 2 had so many great locations, characters and weapons. The game was huge as well. When I once went back and played Fallout 1 again after finishing 2, it seemed so short in comparison. There are purists who don't like the 2nd game and say that there are too many pop culture references, especially for the random encounters with Star Trek and Monty Python references, to name a few, but I loved it. There is also a Mike Tyson reference in there with one of the boxers, called The Masticator because he can bite your ear off. 1 & 2 were amongst the first games that I made note of the voice actors and then looked out for them in any other game, having been familiar with them already in movies. Actors like Clancy Brown, Keith David and Ron Perlman. I enjoyed Fallout 3 and New Vegas and in certain ways, their move to 3D was better. In the earlier games you didn't really travel through the wasteland between each location and only really saw it if you experienced a random encounter, caravan or got attacked. Instead, your travels were more around each specific location. Those earlier games handled the depiction of Super Mutants better though as they were always heavily armed. In 3, their basic weapon was a rifle. In 1 & 2 their basic weapon was a minigun (which also meant you needed to keep your finger near the Quick Load key on your keyboard). The Vaults were better depicted as well. Shiny looking and high tech when in use, creepy when abandoned. Encountering a Vault in 3 and New Vegas never felt as thrilling as the earlier games in my view, simply because they never looked expensive enough. Spending so much time in the wasteland with rusted out wrecks, damaged buildings and scrapyard metal walls in 1 and 2, and then finding a place like The Glow or the Sierra Army Depot was really stepping into the unknown, especially when there was only backup power on and robots were all around, silently waiting on standby for something to activate them.

Raid On Entebbe (1976) Act Of Valour (2012) Who Dares Wins (a.k.a. The Final Option) (1982) I thought Proof Of Life (2000) had a good rescue mission for the film's finale. Also, surprisingly for the kind of film it was, Bad Boys 2 had a finale that contained some Close Quarters Battle-styled manoeuvres in there. However, other than the above films I mentioned, the other classics have already been described in earlier posts (Heat and Way Of The Gun). The old-school WWII movies such as Where Eagles Dare and Kelly's Heroes are favourites of mine as well.

What time period is JA3 actually set in? As for when JA2 came out, it wasn't too long after the end of the Soviet Union and so a former Soviet soldier turned mercenary was plausible. If the game is going for stereotypes on some level then I guess that is where Ivan has ended up with his Hammer & Sickle badge. What do you think of when someone says Russian former soldier who is now a mercenary? To some that creates the idea of a man who fought under the Soviet Union in that stereotypical culture so often shown in Hollywood movies to this day, rightly or wrongly. If JA3 is set today, Soviet-era soldier turned merc doesn't really fit so unless it is purely a stereotype identification, it is unnecessary to have the Hammer & Sickle. Then again, is it really necessary anyway, unless Ivan misses the "old ways"? Given light of what is currently happening between Ukraine and Russia, even if the game is just fiction, it would be best to remove that badge. You will still know Ivan to be who he was always meant to be without annoying people. While it might not be offensive to some, it could be to others, even when it is just artwork for a game. Lots of other things get changed (or cancelled) for less and I usually find myself sighing and tutting because it feels like everything these days is offensive. Then again, I repeat, when is JA3 set? If it is set in a historical timeline, even if only by a few decades, it should be okay as historical accuracy shouldn't be always omitted, even for a game. It is nonetheless a tricky thing to decide in this day and age. Would the character of James Bond be created today? No, absolutely not. Drinking, originally smoking, womanising and killing bad guys. His character has already been altered a little to match the times, while still keeping him Bond-like. To some that is not far enough and they will keep complaining until the next version of Bond is a gender-fluid, transsexual, gay, black, Jewish Muslim who cares about the environment so much that nothing gets blown up.

I'm glad to see Silent Storm was mentioned, I just talked about that game in my thread in General Discussion. Like I mentioned, I wasn't keen on the sci-fi additions such as the Panzerkleins (Armoured Suits) and I used a mod to remove them, which left some of the levels empty, but the game mechanics were just superb. The scenery destruction is just incredible. There was a great range of firearms and explosives to choose from so it made full use of chewing up the scenery. I also liked how every weapon type had its pros and cons. Bolt-action and semi-auto rifles were powerful but you really wanted to switch to a sub-machine gun when clearing rooms. Weaker damage per bullet but you could fire automatic, hence their real world benefits. Light machine guns were excellent and if your soldier got set up nicely, could provide effective long range support. Dedicated snipers in your squad were really effective too but never became overpowered. I saw a mention of Templar Battleforce. I enjoyed that game and would recommend it. As described, the Trese brothers are the two leads of a small team who made the game. They have also made some other enjoyable games which I would recommend. If the Warhammer 40,000 setting appeals to you, I enjoyed Warhammer 40K - Deathwatch: Tyranid Invasion by Rodeo Games. Sadly no destructible environment whatsoever but other than that, I found it very fun. I only played it on the iPad and I don't know if it is still available (although their Warhammer Quest 2 does remain) but I think it is still available on Steam. I read that the Steam version had an additional Chapter of marines to recruit from and they might have done away with the optional microtransactions. Those microtransactions allowed you to buy in-game card packs which unlocked higher ranking weapons, upgrades and marines. Without doing that, you could just play (and re-play) a mission to hopefully get something nice. Standard squad progression was good and I found myself favouring certain marines for their skills and specialities. The flame-throwers in the game were for a change, really useful as they could hit and burn multiple enemies at once with a decent range. On the other hand, I did find that the Heavy Bolter (basically a squad automatic weapon) was lacking. It was powerful enough but took too many action points to use and the standard marine bolter gave you more chance to shoot and kill multiple targets per turn. The enemies are all your Aliens-style toothy, clawing, speedy foes that attack in numbers. There are also Tyranids that have ranged attacks. They look (and sound) great. They vary in size too. Some are small and numerous, then you get some really big buggers that require dedicated work to bring down. Right now, again on the iPad, I am playing Strike Team Hydra. I think that is on Steam too. It is a low budget, turn-based, sci-fi squad game which isn't bad. No destructible scenery again and some annoying bugs (and I don't mean the type you have to shoot at either). The graphics are okay but lack lighting, meaning that the environment looks a little bland and even flat. Nothing is really well defined in terms of lighting, so you can't always see character models clearly, especially when they are standing next to lots of dead alien bodies. There are different classes of soldier with different skills. Missions can be replayed to level up. Money and items are awarded at the end of each mission. You can then buy or sell items in a shop, with the best items being really expensive and therefore, needing multiple missions to get the necessary cash.

Weapon familiarisation is an excellent idea as understandably, the more you train with and use a weapon, the easier it is for you to use. If weapon jams are in the game, familiarisation should cost less action points to clear the jam because you are going to spend less time wondering what happened and think to yourself, 'Okay, it has done that again, I need to do this…' How much of a bonus weapon familiarisation gives would need testing, as a merc gaining skills to overall accuracy with weapons (and I hope there will be different ones depending on the weapon type) is already present. It is a very good idea to implement however. The game Silent Storm had weapon familiarisation, if I remember correctly. It took some time for that skill to build up and I think it also fell if you stopped using a weapon, but I could be wrong on that as it has been a long time since I played that game. I'm not so sure whether the skill should really fall, or at least not too quickly as you don't truly forget a weapon's mechanics and quirks unless you have left it alone for a long time. Weapon familiarisation could give an accuracy bonus to both semi-auto and full-auto fire (the merc knows how to control that gun better), slight range bonus, shorter overall reload time (both tactical and full reload (i.e. operating the charging handle)), and finally, the aforementioned less action points to clear a jam. Those bonuses would make it worthwhile to continue using a particular weapon, even if technically better ones might come along. Talking about Silent Storm, that really was a superb game (apart from the sci-fi additions) and probably the benchmark for destructible scenery in a turn-based squad game such as this. You could blow holes through walls, ceilings and floors but not just so that the whole section was removed as soon as it was hit. The material would get holes in it and progressively so until it was completely blown away. Buildings would partially or entirely collapse if they took enough damage. You could demolish stairs to section off areas as well. There were battles in that game where upon hearing an enemy soldier in the adjacent room or on the upstairs or downstairs floor, you could aim and shoot through the wood and plaster and hit them. If above you and you damaged that part of the ceiling enough, they could even fall through it.

This is a long post but one that provides what I hope to be useful information, rather than useless rambling. I am basing it off real life details and research, as well as personal game experience. I have included references to Jagged Alliance 2 on several occasions because that was the last JA game I played, back when it was released. Now, somebody might come along and rubbish everything I say, pointing out that I know nothing and then insist that they fought in Vietnam for 70 years and is a member of SEAL Team 6 (plus Teams 7 and 8 on the weekends) but hopefully all of this will prove useful enough to be included in the game. I have only included things that I believe can be added to a game such as this. Again, it is a long post and it took me a long time to write but I have broken it down into the numbered sections: Weapon Weight & Size. Weapon Reloading. Secondary Weapon/Sidearm. Ammo Counter. Weapon Attachments. Red Dot & Reflex Sights. Long Range Telescopic Sights. Iron Sights. Endurance. Aiming. Cartridge Lethality vs. Body Parts. Cartridge Effectiveness vs. Body Armour. Over-penetration Of The Human Body. Wall & Material Penetration. Rate Of Fire. The Benefit Of Fully Automatic Fire. Full Auto Targeting. Sound Suppressors. Smoke From Building Destruction & Damage. Damage From Debris. Training. Long Term Battle Fatigue. Weapon Weight & Size: Smaller guns should use less action points to simulate their overall length and weight. This will also mean that are they are better to use in close quarters. This replicates the scenario of moving and aiming quickly with a lighter weapon, such as a pistol, revolver or sub-machine gun. In contrast, they will fire weaker calibres causing less damage to a human, less penetration to body armour (except for where I mention further on) and less range. On the other end of the scale, longer guns will be more powerful and have longer range but are more difficult to manoeuvre around corners. Being heavier and longer should increase the action points needed to fire it and reload it. Like in real life, the sweet spot could be a rifle carbine. This would give you more lethality than a sub-machine gun but with almost the range of an assault rifle. It still won't be as manoevrable as an SMG, being longer and it will have more recoil, affecting accuracy in full auto. Also, having a shorter barrel than an assault rifle means it causes less damage per bullet compared to the longer barreled rifle, as overall velocity is reduced. You could either implement this in the game by reducing overall damage of any gun designated as a carbine or by having some kind of damage drop-off vs. range. This would indicate the lower velocity of the bullet not being noticeable at short ranges (i.e. inside buildings). Weapon Reloading: If there is already a cartridge chambered and ready to fire, when you choose a reload action, it should cost less action points. A full reload where you have to swap magazines and then operate the charging handle to chamber a round will take the longest. Some guns are slower than others to perform a full reload. A bolt hold open device such as on an AR-15 type rifle will be quicker to reload than one without. Having the charging handle on the right side of the gun is also slower for right handed shooters, so a weapon like the AK series of rifles will be slower to reload. Secondary Weapon/Sidearm: Having a pistol as a secondary weapon and switching to it, should be faster than reloading your primary weapon. It is also quicker than clearing a jam. Reloading a primary weapon can be slightly quicker if the weapon has magazines that can be clipped together. Some rifles use such magazines that have a clip interface moulded into the plastic (such as the H&K G36 series and SIG 550 series). Others might use a clamp to attach two mags together (such as the H&K MP5). Ammo Counter: Don't have an individual ammo count for your guns. This way you don't know exactly when to reload and have to estimate. You can perform an action to check the loaded magazine but this takes time as you would be removing it from the weapon, checking the weight or the counters/holes before replacing it. Certain weapons or better magazines will be transparent or have a visible line, showing remaining cartridges. After the battle is over (or in between battles), the exact number of cartridges in all of your equipped magazines is visible. This is because you would now have time to check all of your magazines and replace spent ammunition by "combining" two or more mags together, or refilling them from your overall inventory. While this might sound like it could get too cumbersome when managing multiple mercs, having a constantly updated ammo count in battle meant that single shot and semi-auto fire was usually superior than fully automatic (especially when also being allowed to aim for the head). Weapon Attachments: Weight should also factor with the more attachments you have installed on the gun. Having a bipod, foregrip, light, dual mag clamp, laser and optics will cause the gun to weigh more and add more action points to moving around, firing, aiming, etc. It won't add a great amount of increased action point usage but it will be noticeable over the course of a battle. All those extras on a gun help in some ways but hinder in others. Red Dot & Reflex Sights: Having one of these should increase accuracy for short and medium ranges. As it would be quicker to see the dot on the target, I was thinking that it should also cause a slight decrease to the amount of action points it takes to fire a shot. However, having an optic fitted adds a little weight and overall size to the gun (and some, especially older red dots, are large optics) so for game purposes, this would be cancelled out as a heavier gun would increase action point usage due to moving it around. Long Range Telescopic Sights: Inefficient for short range, even with a basic iron sight on the top of the scope, this increases overall action points needed to use the weapon. You can still get a kill at short range but you are much better switching to a pistol. Iron sights: No bonuses here as most firearms have them. If a battle is taking place at night however, there is an aiming penalty as the shooter will not be able to see through the sights as well as a red dot. This can be altered by having a gun with tritium or fibre optic enhanced sights. These can be installed as standard on the better quality guns or added as an upgrade. Endurance: If implemented in a game, endurance means your mercenary has reduced action points if they keep performing actions non-stop each turn. They might need to spend a couple of turns regaining their stamina. Overall weight carried will cause this endurance to fall faster. This can be offset by having a mercenary be stronger or gain fitness throughout the game, either by training when not in combat or through progression in the game. This means that you give your heavier weapons to your stronger mercs. Aiming: Don't have specific aiming for body parts. That made single shots too powerful when compared to automatic fire in JA2 because you would just aim for the head every time. There should only be an option to aim for a body location if the merc has a long range optic and has a high enough skill (maybe an unlockable perk for your intended snipers). While not being able to aim specifically at body zones as standard, they need to be in the game. Head, neck (possibly), chest, abdomen, pelvis, arms and legs. Having a wound to one of these locations could affect movement, ability to stand, ability to hold an item, could cause enhanced bleeding, concussion, unconsciousness or incapacitation. Cartridge Lethality vs. Body Parts: The more powerful a bullet, the more damage it does to flesh, muscle, organs and bones. If it could be implemented into the game, there should also be a random chance of causing incapacitation (putting the target down but not dead) or death. The more powerful a bullet, the higher this chance of causing an instant knockout or death. This means that even a lighter bullet has a chance of stopping an enemy or merc in one hit, instead of waiting for all of their hit points to disappear. This is to simulate hitting a vital organ. It also means that more powerful cartridges can possibly incapacitate a target even if they don't kill straight away. This should also lower those moments in JA2 where single enemies could withstand multiple 40mm grenade hits until they collapsed or died. As an aside, even a headshot doesn't mean an instant kill, even if not wearing a helmet, face plate, etc. You are not always going to hit the brain. Certain cartridges would have a bonus to incapacitation or overall wounding. A 5.56mm bullet is small but its velocity and designed fragmentation means that it causes a lot more damage than its size would suggest. 5.45x39mm doesn't fragment but causes serious wounds as it is unstable when it enters the body (much more so than 7.62x39mm). Cartridge Effectiveness vs. Body Armour: Certain ammunition will be naturally better at penetrating body armour. In the the past, you had Hollow Points and Full Metal Jacket. Rifle rounds will be better at penetrating armour than pistol calibres. Certain cartridges are also designed specifically for armour penetration, such as 5.7mm and 4.6mm. This does not mean that they are also better in overall damage to the body. 5.7mm is good at penetrating armour but otherwise is still a pistol calibre and will behave as such. Think of 5.7mm as being a 9mm but with great penetration again body armour. For shotguns, Buckshot is great against the human body but is very poor against body armour. Rifled slugs are much better in this case. Over-penetration Of The Human Body: If this is implemented in the game at all, bullets can go through bodies and hit whatever is behind it. This does not necessary correspond with how powerful the bullet or shot is. Buckshot is hard hitting but low penetration, even against the human body. Fragmenting ammunition, like 5.56mm is high velocity but providing it is fast enough when it hits, will break up soon after it enters the body. This means over-penetration will be less likely. Wall & Material Penetration: Certain bullets and shot will go through material better than others. Buckshot is again low penetration and won't go through lots of material but internal walls might not even stop hollow points from a pistol if the walls are thin enough. This is because the cavity of a hollow point can fill with the debris from a wall, stopping the bullet from expanding. As mentioned above, 5.56mm is designed to fragment if it hits fast enough, so despite being a fast velocity rifle round, it won't go through wall after wall. On the other hand, it does have a steel penetrator so despite steel being harder than brick or wood, will be more effective hitting metal. Rate Of Fire: A higher rate of fire for the gun obviously means more bullets per firing action. Some automatic weapons are slow, such as the AKM/AK-47, standard Uzi, Steyr AUG or H&K UMP .45 . Some are on the opposite end of the scale, such as the Micro-Uzi, MAC-10 or FAMAS. A higher rate of fire should affect full auto accuracy and mean it is possible that those bullets miss. It also means having to reload is more frequent. It is down to the person playing the game to decide on what to do and what gun to equip the merc with. Most automatic weapons will have selectable modes (even some light machine guns). Semi-automatic fire isn't necessarily slow and even pistols can be fired quickly unless they are large calibre, so a lighter calibre will mean faster semi-auto fire and less action points used. Some firearms also have a 2 or 3 round burst (eg. MP5A5, UMP and FAMAS). To simulate this in game, accuracy of the shot would be very good and in between semi and full auto fire, with action point cost also being in between. The Benefit Of Fully Automatic Fire: In JA2, full auto fire was never really useful unless your merc was standing near to an enemy soldier and wanted to kill him as fast as possible so there wouldn't be any return fire. It was never useful for shooting at multiple targets. This was because of how easy it was to make an aimed headshot and also much armour protected the enemy soldier, especially in the late game. The idea of removing the indicated percentage of how accurate the shot will be is a great idea but I think it could be expanded further. Each bullet needs to do more damage than what they did before in previous JA games. This will create more tension and the desire to keep your mercs in cover when necessary and move in groups, rather than having any lone wolf bullet sponges. Full auto will be the least accurate of all the fire modes but will possibly give the greatest chance of hitting the target. You must weigh this with how much ammunition your merc is carrying Full Auto Targeting: It could be a good idea to select an initial point of aim and then an end point, to create a specified arc so you can decide how you want to spread your fire. If you don't to aim at multiple enemies, keep the start and end points cloe together. You then can choose roughly how many bullets you want to fire by increasing the action point usage (but you don't know precisely how many bullets are used because of the suggestion I made about hiding an individual bullet counter). This could be named Short, Medium or Long Burst. Guns with a higher rate of fire will shoot more in a shorter burst, allowing for more remaining action points left in that turn (because you only needed to choose Short or Medium Burst). Initial (hidden from the player) accuracy percentage of the first shot fired in full auto is the same as a semi-auto/single shot. The more bullets fired, the increased inaccuracy (which can be compensated for by the merc's specific skill with automatic weapons (and maybe have a separate skill for SMGs, assault rifles and machine guns)). Why not just always choose Short Burst and see if you need to fire again so as not to waste ammo? You might be using Opportunity Fire in the enemy turn and you only get one action (instead of action points like in your own turn) or you might stop shooting too soon and allow the enemy soldiers to themselves perform Opportunity Fire. Because each bullet is just as potentially lethal as the last, full auto isn't seen as simply wasting ammo. If not in the game, how about having Suppression? If a merc or enemy is pinned down and bullets keep hitting around them, chewing up the cover, it affects their morale and their ability to respond to orders/carry out actions. They are more likely to stay where they are. Full auto increases that suppression simply because more bullets are being fired in that soldier's direction. Lastly, regarding full auto benefits, if a merc or soldier is sprinting (by actually choosing a sprint action instead of just "moving"), there is a penalty to hit with a single shot. This doesn't affect buckshot rounds from a shotgun or a single shot area effect (eg. grenade launcher). With all those factors added in, it means there is a benefit to giving at least one merc in the squad a light machine gun. It will have a high enough rate of fire, enough ammo per belt, enough damage per bullet, as well as the range, to make it effective in engaging and/or suppressing multiple enemies. It will, of course be heavier than a standard infantry weapon so not every merc could carry one without being encumbered. They are not tremendously accurate either, unless laying prone or mounted on a wall or window. Again, the player must weigh up the pros and cons of equipping the merc with such a weapon. Sound Suppressors: Having a gun with a suppressor reduces the distance that it can be heard by the enemy (but not as much as movies would have you believe). The more powerful the cartridge, the less effective it is at reducing the noise. This means that specialised weapons with suppressors, be it ones with integral suppressors or light calibres, will be the most effective in limiting noise. Pistol calibres are better at reducing noise and so are the most suitable for those stealthy missions. Cartridges that are small enough or subsonic will be the optimal choice (and due to velocity, a more powerful .45 ACP round would be better here than a 9mm). Missions at night will mean that muzzle flashes can possibly give away a position of the shooter (even when you have a standard flash hider). A sound suppressor would reduce that chance. Why not have a suppressor fitted all the time? It reduces velocity and for game purposes, it is thereby lowering damage per bullet and maximum range. Also, suppressors quickly get hot. To simulate this in game, any gun that fires full auto with a mounted suppressor, has a loss of accuracy. This will encourage single shots or if available, 2 or 3 round burst fire unless you are up close to the enemy. Smoke From Building Destruction & Damage: Not just something caused deliberately by Smoke grenades, smoke caused from fires or partial and total collapse of a building should cause smoke. This should affect line of sight but also, if a merc or soldier is within that smoke, it should cause an effect like smoke inhalation. Unless actually included in the game (I don't know if you are planning gas masks as available kit), it could simply cause increased fatigue until they are able to leave the smoke and the fatigue level starts to lower. Damage From Debris: Falling debris could potentially cause harm to anyone below, not just them falling because the floor got destroyed. Also, possibly add the chance of light injury/health loss from being near to something as it gets shot up. Splinters from wood, chunks of concrete, etc. This might be too much to program in, however. Training: As often happens in turn-based squad games, you always have your preferred team and due to squad limit, leave the others back at base. This means that the unused soldiers don't get any combat experience and as you are progressing through the game, even less likely to use them. JA2 had contracts for those mercs and you could have more than one squad around the map but in the situation where there is a limit, any soldier that isn't going into battle goes through training while not in use. They don't level up as well and so are behind (to simulate lack of combat experience) but they are not truly "Green" if you have to take them into battle. Long Term Battle Fatigue: This is a factor that affects a merc if they are constantly in one battle after the next. While their experience grows and their skills and fitness increase, battle fatigue starts to rise after so many missions. When it reaches a certain level, it negatively affects their skills and health. The more battle fatigue, the more those attributes are temporarily lowered. The only way for the battle fatigue to be lowered is for them to rest and recuperate. This is done by leaving them out of battle for a time. You either cease fighting until their fatigue has gone below that level or you swap them out with another merc who is back at the base. It is here where the aforementioned training characteristic comes in handy. You swap out the fatigued merc with a fresher one, who hasn't got combat experience but isn't so far behind on their skills due to being able to train while not in use. Meanwhile, the fatigued merc doesn't train while resting until that fatigue level drops enough to where they are combat ready again. This is useful if you want to continue using the new merc. Long term battle fatigue is not to be confused with fatigue caused by one particular battle (from running too much, carrying too much, smoke or CS gas inhalation or wounds, etc.). It also shouldn't be confused with morale. You can be worn out but still believe that you are going to win the war. I hope this post has been useful. Regards.