GODSPEED

Purely out of looks and style! The Buck Mark Sporter is litteraly a Buck Mark Pistol in carbine form. Pistols being in the really complicated RESTRICTED category, this carbine gives that shoulder stock pistol feel without the hassle. The betetta CX4 Storm is also an option, but one I always worry they will switch to the RESTRICTED category.

What doesn't help is the stupid situation with the cost of graphics cards for the last year or two.. But, don't lose hope yet! Sometimes some companies give high requirements, but the game is smoother, and sometimes not. I often watch https://youtube.com/user/RandomGaminginHD It is impressive how sometimes very old hardware or even very budget hardware can and will run new games even below minimum system requirements!

Yes, it's a Russian-only movie with English subs. Sorry, I should have mentionned that.. I watch a good amount of movies with subs because I only understand French and English.

And to come back to your original post about COMBAT DISTANCE, this is one of the most important aspects that seriously need an upgrade! Jagged Alliance 2 had to solve a problem of low resolution game engine and distance. So, they "fixed" the problem by using 2 different scales. The size of the maps, the buildings, roads, characters are all on one scale, but then, the view distance of the units and the shooting distance ate all scaled to a square that represents 10 meters by 10 meters. So it looks ridiculous on modern systems. Combat Distance and the scale of firefights is important, and we have that boosted capacity because of 3D engines. I am really anxious to see more and I hope I can one day play Jagged Alliance and really feel fear for my squad as a distant Sniper could be extremely dangerous!

This is such an easy question for me to answer, but it is - like you said - such a complex problem to solve for the dev team. You have exactly the same thoughts as me on the subject. I want Jagged Alliance 3 to be an upgrade like Jagged Alliance 2 was an upgrade to the first game. I do not expect the same level as 1.13, because many features are too complex and also experimental.. but, 1.13 provides good examples of features that have improved the original JA2... one of the important ones is SUPPRESSION. This is an important strategy and complexity to add to a tactical game, making soldiers lose AP or unable to move, becomes an important way to create strategy for movement. It also creates the simple logic of the importance of a support unit with a light machine gun. But, what you said is what I believe is important. It is the dev who wonders if complex features are worth the time and money. Unfortunately, I have a feeling that gaming is not what it used to be.. it is less about pasionate game designers, and more about businessmen running companies who want the products to be easy to make and easy to make money. So, instead of figuring out new and unique features (taking risk), most will simply be satisfied to nearly copy (or copy and tweak) features from modern games that make good money. (why modern xcom clones work well). Another issue is the multi-platform approach. I do not have anything against consoles. There have been games unique to consoles that I have greatly enjoyed.. and maybe for a modern company, it is necessary for financial reasons? But I believe that in the end, the PC gamer is the one who gets the short end of the stick. A computer is the ideal machine for more advanced strategy, tactical and simulation games. Not only because a mouse and keyboard make it easier for many features, but also the seating position is ideal for serious thinking. But the last decade, we have been given games that are made for consoles, that are simplistic and "easy" to learn that offer very little freedom and very few choices to make. A good example I like to share is a game I really loved when I was a young adult; Battlefield 2. This was one of my favorites games to play. I used to play with a squad and we used to practice playing together. The game, for a shooter, had alot of strategy, because you had a commander who could issue commands to squad leaders and squad leaders were the ones who had to request various support options from the commander; like artillery, supply drops, uav drones, etc.. So it was important to practice communication within your squad so the squad leader could best know if and when he should requests features from the commander.. this was way more important than having a good kill/death ratio.. as everything was a team effort. Now, when you talk Battlefield, most do no even know about these layers, because since Battlefield 3, it was made for more mass market and consoles. Another ecample was Rainbow Six 1-3. Just planning the missions could take hours, and it could be complex. But instead of tweaking that formula, Ubisoft now makes some of the most simplistic copy/paste games that require no planning, no thought, no strategy.. Jagged Alliance 3 suffers this problem as you said; us old fans, we want Jagged Alliance 2+ ..new graphics, new story, some new mercs, all the voiceovers, tactical battles, freedom to what you want, how you want as quickly or slowly as you want, with realistic weaponry and simulated ballistics of bullets, realistic equipment features like magazines, bullet variations (FMJ, JHP, AP, etc..), better attachment systems, etc... But is it worth it for Haemimont Games to want to make the very small market of old fans happy? Or is it more worth it to make a game like more modern games and get all new players but also MAYBE get old fans because of the name it has? I have my worries unfortunately.

You are EXACTLY right and this is also one of my biggest worries. I worry that a series that was truly unique and original will end up being generic and feel like a clone of some of the modern turn-based games. Not because those games are bad, but because we will lose what made Jagged Alliance so special. But, in any case, this is hard to know when they have released very little information.. I think we need to see more gameplay to have any idea of the game engine and how they will handle the distance scale. Will weapons actualyl have realsitic statistics with range? and will it work with the scale of the maps or will we constantly be playing CQB with sniper rifles?

Ok, I see what you meant! The distance at which enemies will shoot would vary greatly depending on the element of suppression. UNFORTUNATELY, I would think 'suppression' is a mechanic that is too "hardcore" for the approach most companies take on these games. Let's say this game has some elements of suppression; i think the enemy should prioritize taking shots from far away even if the weapon is innnacurate, so that you could potentially lose AP for movement and help the AI with shoeter range weapons to approach/flank with SMG. As an example, if you have some enemies with pistols, smgs and ar; the ones with AR should go in cover further away and shoot as much as possible as the smgs and pistols start getting closer. Maybe something like, AR between 1-2 and then pistol would need to be at 3 to be effective. But this is very "normal" behavior, I would hope that they can have flanking enemies. If you play JA2 1.13 with the +AI executable by sevenfm, the AI is crazy good at flanking and using camouflage to hide! They will also try to suppress you with high volume of shots so you lose AP. Unfortunately, I do not think this JA3 will have suppression; and I expect firefights to be something like Back in Action and enemies to simply stay where they are and rush when there is nothing else to do. I think it is very hard for me to think what is possible, because I have never seen this game engine in a tactical game. If it is close to the game engine as in their previous tbs Omerta, we can expect a simple tactical experience and minimal distance/range. What do you think?

In my opinion, I would like to see: Assault rifle scale to be PChar able to accurately shoot as far north as possible in the screenshot. Pistol should not be much more accurate than where the NPCs are standing between 3 and 2. Beyond that it should lose so much accuracy, you would not want to use it. Sniper rifles should really be anything like an Assault rifle with added rage accuracy depending on the scope. I also think sniper rifles should be a "rare" thing, and more focus should be put on more realistic real-world behavior of a squad carrying a Dragunov, where it helps to lay down support at longer range. Shotguns should be in between pistol and assault rifle, depending on buckshot or slugs (slugs accurate to 200 meters) and no wide spread of buckshot like in many shooter games.

I think this an interesting topic to discuss as it is incredibly relevant to the type of game (and for anyone who actually cares a little about firearm specs/stats and a hint of "realism"). That said, I'm not certain if you played JA2 1.13 with NCTH (New Chance To Hit) system that you can activate when creating a new game, but it was intended to address this specific issue. It is a highly mathematical problem that also brought on new issues concerning balance, suppression, realism and the length of firefights. For gameplay reasons and the fact turn-based games slow down time to an extreme degree, having firefights that would last as long as a real firefight, with all the missing, suppression fire and everything that beings along, I feel that it would make the game difficult mostly on our patience and it would become a fristrating affair with simple 5-10 monute battles into hour-long marathons. As I'm pretty certain most of us here are old enough to understand that warfare is so far away from the portayal it gets in video games and movies; it is often more like entrenched squads that suppress areas and exchange bullets for extended periods of time to cover and for another squad to move in, or armored support or a drone strike.. Games tend to be heroic, and as much as I appreciate realism, I think for the purpose of having fun and also not taking TOO much of my time, I think most tuen-based games have a decent length in terms of to-hit ratio; from the old x-coms, jagged alliance, silent storm, 7,62 high calibre to the newer xcoms, phoenix point, etc.. I enjoy being able to miss a few shots, but to try emptying a mag before maybe ever getting a shot on target would mean I would have to carry over a dozen magazines for a fight on a map with 20 or so enemies, or, habe very little enemies. Honestly, for effect, I would prefer more enemies to help make the setting feel more realistic (you are taking on a small country), but slightly "game-efied" combat like we've already seen. If it was a realtime game, I'd say YES alot of missing shots, lol! It's hard to give numbers though. I think it depends on how the game plays. I want the possibility for a well place headshot to become a one-shot kill (unarmored) but a helmet should protect to a certain degree against small calibre firearms. I REALLY DO NOT WANT A GAME WITH BULLET SPONGES!!!!!! I don't want enemies to get progressively more health as the game furthers deeper into it's story. I do NOT want bosses that will require Resident Evil levels of shots to take down! In JA2, Deidranna went down as easy as ANY soldier. As for camera, I ALWAYS want completely free camera, I want to zoom out far to get a good overview of the enemies that are at the maximum possible firing distance in the game. I also enjoy being able to zoom in to see the details of the equipment, pouches, camouflage, clothing. I like the wode picture, but the devil is in the detail! I'll look over this topic further later on when I won't be on my phone.. but thanks for bringing this up, and welcome to a friendly community!

They are in line with Phoenix Point, which is the game that I find it most resembles in the gameplay video. I haven't looked at the Steam Survey stats in over a year, so I'm not certain what is considered budget hardware anymore, but a 960 is quite old and I would guess most PC players have better. And, unfortunately, I would also think that they will not optimise it as well as they could if this was a PC-only game. It will be optimised for the next-gen consoles and the PC will simply have higher settings possible. What do you feel about the requirements?

This is maybe where I disagree with you. I don't think Jagged Alliance has aged badly, quite the opposite, many newer games cannot even equal it. It isn't like it is a fond memory! Many of us fans currently play it quite regularly. Just the way you can move mercs around and select/command other mercs while others are still moving; it is easy to play it as if it was a realtime game (outside of combat). Most games require you to wait until the individual,unit has completed it's move, before selecting another unit, umecessarily slowing the game down. The way it switches to turn-based and switches back out after two turns without encounters. Unlike many mosern games that are cosntantly turn-based, really slowing down parts you don't want to slow down. The way you can easily target enemies simply by mousing over them and aim at body parts without having janky ui buttons as selection methods. I really hate this method as it slows down the game for no reason and just adds unecessary steps that a game in 1999 had resolved. The way it is simple to hide all the action buttons, like the prone, crouch, turn, etc.. and simply use keyboard commands. I could go on... Jagged Alliance 2 is plenty of features that shame modern turn-based games. I would see no reason to not build on that! Well, I can see a reason.. The lack of experience with JA2 means they don't understand all the positive features that game has compared to the modern ones that actually slow the pace down unecessarily and add plenty of useless ui functions for no reason. Nah, I really hope they replicate a 20 year old game, because in this instance, this 20 year old game plays more fluidly than most, or evan almost all, modern tactical turn-based games!

This is in big part why I am so attached to a higher AP point count. Sure 100 AP is = to 25 AP and is = 6 AP.. ..but, it starts by making it simpler to differentiate different types of weapons and ALSO rate of fire of different weapons. Firing off a burst from a FAMAS should REALLY feel different than a burst from an HK UMP, gameplay wise. Eventhough the FAMAS would be considered an Assault Rifle and the UMP an SMG, I would like to think that the FAMAS would be just as quick to take more shots and cost equal or even less AP than a ump (unaimed shot, aiming is where short vs long guns start being different). It helps to mike minor differences feel like they are differences. Having too small an AP count means there is too drastic a difference (or not enough ot a difference) between 2 firearms. I would rather not have a system that divides or seperates AP usage by weapon category; like an SMG would use less AP than an Assault Rifle, simply because it does less damage than an assault rifle. I would hope for slightly more complexity to be honest.

Sounds like my job alright.. Yes. I appreciate the safety of keeping a gun away from a person who goes haywire when something happens. I also think a basic course is necessary just to teach basic safety measures! The amount of times I've seen paintball/airsoft players wall in the waiting room/hanging out an talking with a loaded 'gun', finger on the trigger.. It's scary! Canuck Commander 14" 12gauge 3" can hold 4+1. It's a decent budget shotty, Canadian market stuff made Turkey (not sure why, but we've got plenty of Turkish made firearms, as well as chinese Norinco). I like it for "plinking" as I wouldn't hunt with such a short barrel. Very nice models! I REALLY like the Tikka! It has that tactical modern sniper rifle look, but with wood. I really dig wood on rifles. Also really like those rifles that keep iron sights. A model I'm looking into for shooting paper; Browning Buck Mark Sporter (22lr).

Hey, those aren't bad games at all! I just think the layering and freedom found in some of the more complex tactical games is missing and/or lacking in many modern remakes/reworks/re-imaginings. I believe it is mostly to appeal to a bigger audience through the use of multiple platform options; thus, the more controlled and linear approach.

The Announcement Trailer had a CGI short movie and some gameplay.. I'm guessing (really just a guess on my part) that they already have all the underlying mechanics in place and they are creating the different locations, details and questlines. Usually, games get a very early CGI reveal (3-5 years before release) to announce itself and create some buzz around it. Gameplay reveal usually comes when they've nailed down most elements of the game (1-3 years ?). In my own mind, I would like this to be an early-mid 2022 release, but I would imagine something closer to 2023. I think they are playing it "safe" by keeping a little quiet about this game. They must realize the game has a little bit of a cult following (yes, I am part of the Cult of Deidranna okay!!? 🤣 ..we hoard guns and take turns slapping someone called Elliot).. so, maybe keeping quiet is actually the better way to control the fans that would turn things too negative? After all, just that Trailer Reveal has created a stir and a buzz in the JA world.. so it doens't take much to get us going. I might be overthinking that.. and they are simply not at the stage of releasing more info as you said.

Any good "tactical" movies that cam scratch that Jagged Alliance itch to recommend? A couple of movies I very much appreciated: 9th Company (2005): Russian movie about a bunch of recruits who are sent to Afghanistan in the late 80's. Brutal movie, very realistic and anti-heroic in a way. Nokas (2010): Norwegian movie (from real event) about a heist that ends up as a gunfight in the streets. Very realistic portrayal of gunfights, weapons and nothing over the top.

I love discussing the game with my fellow Jagged Alliance crazies and freaks... but I'm having a hard job shaking off a feeling that the game is walking a very thin line and I just don't know "what foot to stand on" with JA3. I look at screenshots and talk to you guys, and things look bright.. I start reading some articles, and some details about the new game just bring my spirits down a little. 😪

I was kind of hoping to get the physical magazine.. It would have given me the digital also; but I haven't opened a PC-gaming related magazine in maybe (almost) 2 decades. I'll go check it out over the weekend and PM you in the case I do just ge the digital files. Thank you!

Is anyone ordering the physical magazine? I created an account on the Gamestar website, but it did not let me select my country (only 3 countries available to select). [sorry, could not edit my last post]

https://www-gamestar-de.translate.goog/artikel/neues-gamestar-heft-ja-jagged-alliance-3-wird-wirklich-entwickelt,3374188.html?_x_tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-GB&_x_tr_pto=nui

One of the displayed artwork gives that vibe! I'm really curious/anxious to see more about this game.. ..it'll be interesting to see the advancement in their game engine and how they implement the Bethesda we know so well into a game dealing with space and worlds.

Not to break your spirits @Wigen, but I think of we look at games under the THQNordic umbrella, most games like Tropico, Surviving Mars, etc... function on DLC. unfortunately. I really dislike this trend, as a person with an old-school mindset. But, I do not work this industry, so maybe it is a necessary evil for some companies to survive?

I think we were waiting for you to say that! 😅

While I have my fair share of criticisms of Bethesda games, they do create unique worlds that can really draw me in and keep me immersed for hours upon hours. I am looking forward to Starfield while we wait for the next Elder Scrolls title. Got this e-mail today.

We are tomorrow!!! 😁