Rugged Coalition

Anyone got the M82? It did 56 damage in the arsenal trailer, so I'm curious to see if enemy can survive a hit.

If you would have checked the dev diaries and forums beforehand you would have known what to expect. I'm sure the German previews also described and showed how the game was. This way you could have lowered your expectations. Or they should have released a demo. Although I don't think THQNordic would have wanted to waste resources on something that would just result in lower sales.

In the way you try to describe the events as if Russia or pro-russian people are blameless victims and that all the opposition to them are nazis.

I made a marksman so that I could use it in combat with my squad all the time to see how the personalities interact with a "custom" character. But as LoboNocturno says, I haven't seen much yet.

You should probably check if there are updated drivers for your GPU. Does this happen when you're in the main menu (with the 3d background), or only in-game? What if you change the details to low in options/display -settings?

There was an implication that JA2 "headgear freedom" didn't offer any choice or offered less choice. I simply gave an example where this wasn't the case. I also wrote about the late game in the message above yours... to add to that, I checked a savegame on day 70+ and Bobby Ray's didn't have any NVG on sale, so I don't think it's trivial to get the absolutely best gear for all mercs later in JA2. In JA1 you had only one slot for weapon accessories, so you could either attach a scope or a silencer. Is this a better system than in JA2 which allows both of these to be attached at the same time?

I thought you were not going to discuss politics? Or do you mean that you will just ignore posts if someone points out your false claims or asks you questions, while you continue to make new accusations? You do realize that people can just read on Wikipedia about 2014 Odesa clashes to find out how misleading (kindly put) you are? Or that people here might have a general sense of history and politics to understand why there could be animosity towards Russia(ns) in Ukraine and Moldova?

Remember sandman25dcsss doesn't want to discuss politics. 😉

Some guys being the (lawfully elected) Ukrainian parliament and overthrown being voted out. And killing of Ukrainian population was going on, probably a good reason to vote him out.

Looks like none of the parameters create a file that small either. I guess they have developed a more efficient compression method for the hpk files? And JA3 can't extract the files compressed with this old method the tool uses at the moment? You could try using the --dont-compress-files parameter, file sizes don't match, but if the game detects it doesn't need to apply any extraction it might work.

It's quite simple then, you kill the enemy by any means necessary.

No, only JA1 and JA:DG were for DOS, JA2 was Windows (and Linux later).

If there's a singular enemy that can be killed with one shot, why would you waste a grenade? Who doesn't take a 99% shot?

We know that JA is not a full simulation, it's not deterministic (CTH 100% or 0%). There is RNG. If you don't show CTH your brain makes up the stories why the shot hit or missed. And with if you pile up enough systems and details on top of each other, at some point, it creates that lovely experience that is playing JA. Thank you for the discussion. Let's see how JA3 measures up.

So you agree that in early to mid-game JA2 can offer more meaningful choices regarding this mechanic? Aren't you worried that JA3 incentivizes the player to skip night missions entirely? Typically in the late game JA2 you would have a dozen or so mercs in three squads or more scattered all across the map. Items would also be scattered all around the map. If you have all maxed out gear for a character, you have earned it. (Trust me, you rarely want to waste compound 18 on spectra helmets in JA2, so you wouldn't have the best possible head armor even in end game.) Oh... and it doesn't make you OP.

I'm asking myself if Ice can make this shot or not. If I, let's say "estimate", that the answer is yes, then I take the shot. (And in JA2, if the shot missed, it might make the enemy crouch or go prone, so you wouldn't feel like you wasted that shot.) If they would have wanted to have CTH in JA1 or JA2 they would have added it. Despite looking similar on the surface level, the tactical combat in JA is _fundamentally_ a different experience from recent XCOM or any of its' several modern clones. Whether this is the case with JA3 remains to be seen. It's difficult to articulate what this experience is (especially since English is not the first language for many of us), but this forum has plenty of examples of people trying to explain this. Let's say you're a coach of a football team and it ends in a penalty shootout, who do you pick to take the shot? What if the player has been slightly injured? What if the player seems to be disturbed by the pressure and crowd? What if the player tells you that he doesn't want to get picked? What if it just hasn't been this player's day, maybe he already missed a penalty during the game? Or will you just check the statistics who has had most success on penalties and based on this pick the 5 best ranked players? Maybe ask Carlo Ancelotti. JA is offering you the experience of being a squad leader. You make the decisions based on you being familiar with your mercs. Does JA3 expand on this? Unlikely. But people here, people who have played JA2 and feel that it offers something unique, don't want it to be reduced to be a glorified boardgame. So sure, come tell us that a game that is generally considered one of the best games ever made, that you've never played, is at fault for not having CTH. XCOM is _ok_, I'm not saying that simulation orientated strategy games are better than boardgame orientated, just different. And I happen to prefer the simulation approach. Just as many people prefer Paradox games over Firaxis 4X games. I just generally feel disappointed whenever developers go with this boardgame approach, it seems unambitious. Sure, we have tooltips now, so we can add more modifiers there! But in my mind this just adds complexity, not depth. If there's a -1 to CTH because of a killed teammate, but +1 because of a scope attachment, it makes them both pointless. There's no human decision needed here, you can leave the decision for AI to calculate. This is not an e-sport game, some like to min-max, but generally this is not a franchise about shifting meta and optimal plays. I hope you understand a bit better my point of view into all this madness.

So let's say you have two mercs left in base training militia and the enemy attacks (or you're doing some night-ops with two mercs). You have NV goggles and a helmet. In JA3 you either: Equip Merc A with helmet and Merc B with NV goggles Equip Merc A with NV goggles and Merc B with helmet In JA2 you either: Equip Merc A with helmet and Merc B with NV goggles Equip Merc A with NV goggles and Merc B with helmet Equip Merc A with helmet and NV goggles and Merc B with nothing Equip Merc A with nothing and Merc B with helmet and NV goggles So I don't think JA2 has less "meaningful decisions" in all scenarios here... I think JA2 offers also better chance for emergent storytelling, because of course you load up your best merc with the best gear and then the merc without gear has to do all the heroics. Besides JA2 already has this "choice" with the gas mask and NV goggles which you can't equip at the same time. (And there's also slot for extended ear, I assume this item was just removed from JA3?) In JA2 you could also fallback to using flares if you don't have NV goggles, are these in JA3? And getting the best armor and NV goggles for everybody (and maintaining them in perfect condition) is not trivial. I think JA3 is discouraging night-ops with this decision, it's telling the player that it's better to do all combat during daytime because of this arbitrary limitation.

Few clarifications about Jagged Alliance 1: You can crouch, but when you shoot you stand up. Ability to stay crouched while shooting was added in Deadly Games. Elio is the first native guide offered by Jack. If you "dispose" of him, Jack will offer better guides, one of them is Hamous. Hamous was then added to AIM roster in Deadly Games (along with 9 new mercs). Using chunk of steel changes the weapon icon, for handguns it makes the barrel longer. Use crowbars to open crates (and doors), I think health is the most important stat here. Also pay attention to the stamina, use canteens to restore stamina. I played the game during Summer of 1995, I believe it was released in Europe around that time. At that point I was yet to play UFO: Enemy Unknown, so I really liked the squad management in this game. Overall it feels more like a struggle for survival. There are fewer weapons, but I don't really have any problems with pacing since new mercs are also unlocked based on your reputation and Jack keeps giving you new quests. Enemy can easily get interrupts from windows and when opening a door, so you should use wall probe to scout ahead, this also reveals some enemy dialogue you wouldn't otherwise hear. Fighting only during daylight can feel a bit limiting, but if you've ever been to a jungle you know you wouldn't want to stay there during the dark. And the snakes/eels are a bit too harsh of a dice roll. I also played DG quite extensively, it's a stand alone expansion that removes the strategic layer and replaces it with a campaign that's a series of scenarios. You can also create these scenarios and campaign yourself and they also added multiplayer. Instead of daylight, you have a set turn limit and no free roam. The patch extends the turn limit for the campaign and ruins the balance since originally you weren't supposed to have time to collect all the loot. Mickey also makes an appearance by occasionally trying to sell you items. Multiplayer had support for 4 players, but due to the limitations a scenario could only contain 4 x 8 characters, AI or player (+ 8 non hostile npc/civilians). Meaning that you couldn't create a coop scenario for 4 players. And for 2 player coop you would only have max 16 enemies, which can be quite trivial for a single player let alone for two players. PVP mode could be interesting, but it really dependent on the mission. Rarely other player could kill all 8 mercs of the other team within a time limit, and the interrupt system was at times very annoying when you have several mercs waiting and none of them get an interrupt when the opponent appears. Anyways, I feel very nostalgic about these games. Crafting molotov cocktails, shouting at the screen trying to rally my troops to get the job done, seeing in horror a grenade fly in the air only to let it land in the middle of my mercs and not explode, taking turns falling down while walking on ice, tracking down final enemy from the tracks in snow or blood stains in terrain... Today they are quite quick to pick up and play due to the simplicity, but overall might not offer enough (especially DG) to keep the interest in playing them longer. I would still recommend people try the first one.

Yes, we know it was a mistake to show the modifiers. Clutters the UI and distracts players' attention.

My Jagged Alliance box says: And at the back of the box there's this: Jagged 2 boxes use the following description: I like this because it's simple... So I would describe the game having a strategic layer with the economics, logistics and hiring decisions. The personalized mercs spice the whole game, especially the simulation based tactical combat. This is the meat of the game where you also do the exploring and solving of "quests".

No, that's not what he said. And again, it's the opposite. Adding CTH to JA tactical combat is changing the experience into math puzzle where the player is encouraged to start calculating (or pixel hunting) for the best CTH. However... the combat doesn't seem that logical anymore, for instance it seems that single shots or burst fire doesn't affect the enemy, only machine guns can suppress the enemy. So a benefit from "desperate" shots has been removed that should be there, thus making it feel that a missed shot was a wasted shot.

Hi there, new user here! I can tell you. I've been lurking here since Gamescom 2022. What caught my eye was that you wrote this: And since I've been following the arguments here, there's this one "peculiar" line of thought that keeps coming up. (Many of these posts have been edited, but I'm going with the current form.) This thread (started by anon474 on May 3rd) where the OP says is then followed up by user KyleSimmons on May 4th: and then followed up by user Woody 7 minutes later: (Godzilla shows up in this thread agreeing with the list as well.) Then there's the infamous DevDiary6 thread with anon474 ranting about CTH being part of all tactics and strategy games and "turning JA into an RPG". And I would like to highlight one more user, Elite77 on May 29th writing: To me this raises few questions, first what genre do you think JA1, JA2 or JA3 are? Secondly, are developers forced to follow some genre laws when making games? Do you complain on From Software forums that they should have difficulty settings because that's what video games usually have? Then generally you've been calling users stupid and having alts here on the forum, accused devs participating in this "positive spinning" and demanded devs apologize for their design decisions. (In this heavily edited thread for instance:) All this ad hominem really doesn't convince me. Every user here might be stupid and beerbuddies with the developers, but how is it relevant to question whether JA3 needs CTH or not? And part of this "argument" is this very weird comparison: If you would have spent any time reading what other people have said here, they're generally critical about many things in the game. (Portraits, inventory, burst/auto fire, explosion physics... and yes, those grit and ability mechanics too.) Also, I would like to point out that JA fans have lived through several disappointing releases since JA2, so I don't think that the comparison to Episode 1 release hype makes any sense. Finally there actually might be a valid argument that goes something like this "Without CTH I don't have enough information to make tactical/strategic decision."... or that's what I think is being said. Even with this argument there's a weird tendency to build a strawman argument that people who don't like CTH should play the game blind. To me the situation seems the opposite, most players here want more information, namely the portraits and stamina and maybe expanding on these ideas from previous entries with more voice lines and such. To me all these CTH zealots only want that, they want to reduce the game into a black screen with % number showing so the player can decide whether to shoot or not. This line of thinking is shown in the (p)reviews that complain about the confusing information, they blindly look at the modifiers and decide based on those whether to take a shot or not. Clearly the devs should have removed the modifiers too. In my mind the only reason to include the CTH info is whether the tactical battles are too much like XCOM - like it seems with all the abilities and modifiers - so if the tactical battles are no longer having the same ambition and intent as they have in JA1 and JA2, they should probably execute this one with a shot in the back of the skull with showing CTH.