Solaris_Wave

I don't think that JA3 is a cash grab by any manner of means. It isn't even exploitation of fans of the series (mainly the first two games). I see it more as an attempt to revive the series with a better quality output than all those sequels that came after JA2. The end result, from the general reading of everybody on these forums and on Steam, is that it is a lot of fun but is rough around the edges and has some odd design decisions that prevent JA3 from being a truly great game. Some of those decisions have been in since the beginning and remained throughout development, despite plenty of criticism or suggestions. Whether the game improves comes down to how much Haemimont patch the game, want to add after-sales improvements and how effective mods are. The latter could potentially take years to see a refinement of the game. Same here. I played and shortly abandoned the XCOM reboot, seeing it as a weakened, simplified and even stupefied version of the original. I honestly don't understand the acclaim. I have bought the rebooted sequel and have yet to play it, but I only bought it due to a massive sale and with the intention of playing it with the recommended mods.

Can your mercs use the mounted MG emplacements and if so, do they have a fixed arc or can they rotated towards any direction? I am thinking that if an emplacement is always facing the direction your mercs enter from, can they be commandeered and then faced towards the enemy who might possibly be somewhere behind it. Of course, none of that matters if you can't use the MG emplacements and if not, why not?

Excellent ideas! One of those I asked Haemimont in recent Developer Diaries, whether they would be in the game (the spotlights). Sadly not, but they did acknowledge them as good ideas.

With all this recent talk of AI in the real world making sudden advances, I am hoping that the next big thing in games is improvement to AI opponents. Almost always, the primary focus is on graphics. That is what sells a game because it is immediately apparent to the viewer. How many games though have you enjoyed but just accepted the AI's flaws (especially if it gains you a quick kill) or been frustrated by blatant AI cheating? I would love to see significant advances in both friendly AI and opponent AI. Something that dynamically reacts to your tactics and strategy. If you keep winning with one method, it adapts. Instead of just being rushed, Tyranid-style by enemies who are blissfully ignorant of your sniper kill box, I would like to see, after the first casualties, an immediate change where they might hide and make greater use of cover. If you rush them, they should develop a counter. There should be counter-flanking as well, instead of having a rigid enemy that just lets you flank them (some games like Brothers In Arms turned flanking into a central feature, so much so that it actually came across as being deliberately expected). Friendly AI should know when to take cover and not to jump into your line of fire, blocking your shooting with their fat, stupid head and back. Escort missions should be smarter so the stupid, arrogant and ignorant VIP doesn't insist on going for a leisurely stroll despite the oncoming squad of cyborgs with rocket launchers and swords. How about they instead actually take cover or wait for you to eliminate the bad guys? I want to see the end of rubber-banding in racing games or the removal of AI police cars that can teleport in, move in all directions without being affected by inertia or somehow overtake your Bugatti Veyron that is going max speed and with nitrous oxide activated, even though the police car is some 4x4 SUV. I want to see the end of input reading in fighting games, where the AI opponent can instantly block or dodge your attack, or can instantly carry out a combo attack while you have to memorise the precise 8-move combination. I want to see the end of those fights where despite you just giving them a round house kick to the head, they somehow ignore your attack and themselves attack at the same time, overriding your own attack. I want to see the end of AI cheating in games where they can see you while you can't see them, or their weapons can hit you regardless of what you are doing. I want to see the end of five grenades all expertly thrown at the same time and bouncing off your head. I want to see their weapons doing the same damage as yours, not getting some special bonus. I want to see the end of being spotted when you should be hidden and then being instantly killed with one bullet. Or, them having ultra fast reactions that are clearly inhuman. I don't want to see anymore enemies spawning into rooms that you have just cleared and that have no other entry points. If the room is empty, don't then just wait until you have turned round and then spawn some enemy in behind you who gets a free attack because you were quite rightly not expecting it. Finally, I want to see the end of AI that gets starting bonuses in strategy games and builds and moves faster than you can. I can name multiple games from that list that have annoyed me with their AI and spoilt what was otherwise a fun game. Therefore, like I said, I want AI to make a great leap in games, even if it sounds like I am expecting too much. Instead of it just being a risk to human jobs or civilisation itself, or to quickly create artwork which frustrates genuine artists of lesser and greater skill, let's see it create truly inventive but logical opponents that play by all the same rules you have to.

That was one thing I always enjoyed about JA2: equipping an early to mid-game rifle of some sort. Instead of having something like an M4 (I know that isn't in the game) or some other high quality weapon that would be used by US military forces, there was an appeal in using something like an SKS, H&K G3 or Mini-14. By the end of the game it made sense to be armed with C7s and Steyr AUGs but it never felt as enjoyable. Using weapons that aren't top tier but still capable of doing the job had a sense of style to it. Having said that, the first time you get your hands on an AUG and there is only one around for a good part of the game, does make it feel like some sort of trophy. Kind of like in Die Hard where most of the bad guys are using MP5 clones (modified HK94s) but only Karl has an AUG. There were a few guns in the game that were 'nice to have' but never really got to be used as much as I would have liked. Something else would come along soon after to replace it. They made more sense if you were kind of role-playing a needed weapon type (especially if you were choosing between NATO and Warsaw Pact rifles). Also, there was never a case, after the beginning of the game, where I had to switch to another weapon due to lack of ammo for the preferred firearm. There was plenty of ammo around and not often much need to fire in automatic.

That sounds like the best way to compromise. I don't know whether having to deal with an ammo shortage really makes for a better game. As I said before, I know what @GODSPEEDwas referring to and he expressed how he likes the need to conserve his resources and not have an abundance of it, but are players that have a large stock of ammo enjoying the game more than those that are forced to not use their weapons and instead use very dry, sharpened blades of grass?

There was definitely an ammo shortage with the more powerful guns at the start of JA2. However, it didn't really seem to be all that crippling, in the way that some JA3 players are experiencing. Here it sounds as if you have to make do without ammo for most of your guns for a good portion of the early game. That said, when I am able to play the game in the coming weeks, I will have my own experience with the game, instead of just reading others and trying to build a picture of what people might be experiencing themselves. Right now, it sounds like one side or the other but not really any middle ground. Either people are frustrated by the lack of ammo, and possibly having to restart, or having so much ammo that they could become Bobby Ray's successor.

I understand where you are coming from, @GODSPEED. It is a shame there can't be some sort of middle ground where weapons can be picked up off of fallen enemies, without it leading to becoming overpowered or having too much money from selling everything. That way, you are never left wanting and feeling like a guerrilla, having to pick your battles. I can just picture that happening! 😆 Your merc kind of saying to the enemy, "Let me just take that off of you…" All the while the enemy soldier just stands there, perplexed, as his weapon is carefully taken from his hands. It somehow reminds me of the Pickpocket skill in the Fallout games, where you could prime a grenade or mine and put it in someone's pocket without them knowing, then sneak away before the surprised NPC or enemy gets splattered to the four winds. How on earth they wouldn't be aware of something being placed into their pocket like that!

That was actually another suggestion that I previously had but I didn't say it again here, this time round.

Again, it is a pity there is full auto damage reduction. Without it, there would be more of a risk vs. reward. There is too much encouragement in the game to not ever want to use burst or auto fire. As for machine guns, do they all fire a minimum of 9 rounds or do some MGs have a faster cyclic ROF than others?

I am aware of that but, like I was saying, if in JA3 (not JA2) you could pick up weapons off defeated enemies but they were in poor shape, you wouldn't be able to just use them without problems. By the time better trained and better equipped enemies appear, your desire to pick up such weapons will be less needed. I know it can both challenging and fun to need to think about your fights, using less desirable equipment instead of having the luxury of modern equipment, but it still doesn't make sense why you can't use the ammo the enemy should leave behind. I read elsewhere that the enemy never runs out of ammo. Then, if you kill them all in a firefight, you can't salvage any of it.

If Bobby Ray's or another equivalent was in JA3, debates like this could have been avoided. There then wouldn't be a situation where some players are at the mercy of RNG. Either that, or just follow practical logic and have any weapons that the enemy uses leave ammo behind. They could even leave the weapons themselves. I understand that leaving weapons behind was omitted to prevent getting everything you need too early into the game but I have repeatedly suggested the idea that those guns left by the fallen enemies be in poor condition. They would require maintenance much sooner and would misfire more often. This would encourage a choice between using a weapon recently picked up in the field that can be unpredictable in its operation, compared to what a merc starts off with or what can be bought. Over time, those poor quality weapons could be improved by acquiring enough of them, breaking them down into their individual parts and building an identical weapon out of those individual components.

While Steam shows the update history, I don't know why more games don't feature an internal changelog for easy reference. Something you can visit while in the Options screen. I have seen games in the past that will patch often and you have to guess what changes were made. You might not even find a text file in the game directory.

Again, this shows that ammo either seems to be too scarce and players are running out (maybe only if firing automatic?), while others have acquired a large amount of ammo that should see them through most firefights. It is difficult to say whether the game needs adjusting at this point.

The RNG definitely needs adjusting in terms of having more common ammo available at all times. I would expect plenty of 9mm Parabellum, 7.62x51mm NATO and 7.62x39mm. Those calibres would be in use at all times. Shotgun rounds would be abundant, followed by cartridges for WWII-era rifles. .44 Magnum (or any other Magnum round) should be harder to come by, especially in Africa.

Interesting. So the game constantly gave you ammo for weapons that weren't in use. What about availability of weapons that did use those calibres?

Are the modding tools not released with the game?

The thing is, why force the player to be short of ammo and need to craft it, when the enemy has an abundance of it? The only reason appears to be so the game can force the crafting mechanic onto you. There doesn't seem to be any other reason and it still boggles the mind why you can't use the ammo that was carried by fallen enemy soldiers. What about raiding supply depots for weapons and equipment? Is that not possible? I have a feeling that when I finally get to play the game that I will go along with the intended play style, and initially play the game for what it is. However, I just think that, while doing so, I will be grumbling about how the game defies logic for the sake of an intended gameplay mechanic.

I am reading a lot about scarcity of ammo but every so often someone else comments that eventually they have so much ammo that any need for a patch or a mod, is unnecessary. Can more people clarify this, especially if they have progressed further into the game?

It is actually quite surprising how so many mods have been created in such a short space of time, given that the game has only recently been released. Whether people like the game or not, or want improvements, it is testament to Haemimont for making the game easily moddable and right from the beginnings of its design.

I still won't get to play the game for another few weeks, where I can then create my own verdict on the game, but these sound like good changes based on the description. I will play the game through once, as intended, but as I play I will be making notes of all weapons and what I would want to change. Granted, that the weapons behave in this JA3 universe that Haemimont has created and by changing them, it might change how the whole game flows, but being a 'gun nut' I simply can't let slide a weapon that doesn't behave like I expect it to. Therefore, I will undoubtedly create my own mod(s), which will hopefully integrate with other people's. With respect to the above mod though, I will say that the changes look to go beyond what I may have wanted to modify myself but they all look promising. Hopefully, others who are currently playing the game can give a more educated opinion on what they think of those changes. People are playing and enjoying the game but are they enjoying the game simply for what it is? Would all these, and any other, especially realism changes elevate the experience or just make it different?

I found that in JA2, that single, aimed head shots were the best way to play. Full auto fire was rarely needed and I don't think my mercs ever run out of ammo because of that. Sniper rifles were clearly the best damage output for single, aimed head shots. It wasn't realistic and I wished for combat where all weapon types remained relevant and automatic weapons would have their uses, just like in reality. One of my suggestions for JA3, during its development, was to have more than one Marksmanship skill. Each weapon type would have a separate skill. That way, not every merc could turn into a long range sniper, just because they were accurate with other weapon types. This would limit the amount of snipers available to you. That, along with my proposal to eliminate body part aiming and have it so you can only specify a body part at close ranges or via a telescopic sight if the target is not running and the shooter is skilled enough, would encourage more unpredictable combat. It would encourage automatic fire as well. Obviously, this wouldn't have the full auto damage reduction that Haemimont went for (which is 'game balancing' instead of realistic balancing). However, according to @Tzg, these suggestions cannot be made because that apparently isn't what a Jagged Alliance game is about. As much as I love JA2, I wanted to see improvements to its combat realism (and that does not mean turning it into a military simulator). There was still room for change while keeping it a JA game, which to me means having character-based soldiers with RPG qualities, fighting in a modern day setting with weapons based on real life, in a progressive campaign and in the order you see fit.

That is fair enough. The thing is, JA2 came out many years ago and as good as that game is, it had its flaws. Not only that but computing power has gained in leaps and bounds since then. Surely, there is capacity to create a smarter and more variable AI that dynamically reacts to your tactics and deployment? Saying that everyone else, other than you doesn’t understand what makes a Jagged Alliance game is silly. Suggesting that, somehow, for it to be a Jagged Alliance game, that it has to have rigid AI that is no better than the prequels, however old they all are, is equally silly. Being rushed by enemy AI that happily gets picked off by sniper rifles isn't what makes a true Jagged Alliance game. That was just an aspect of the possible AI at the time those games (particularly JA2) were made.

Now you are just being rude to everyone for the sake of it.

At least two people have complained about the enemy AI being predictable, which limits the enjoyment of the game. If you can keep applying the same tactics over and over, and are only changing them just to try something different, instead of actually needing to, then there is a flaw that needs to be addressed. I said that sniper rifles, or to be more specific, single aimed shots, are the dominant way to play the game. If all you need is to keep doing that to progress in the game, at what point does it stop being fun and just be a case of going through the motions until you finish it?