Tags: Jagged Alliance 3 (Strategy First); Richard Therrien; Strategy First
<b>Richard Therrien</b>, one of the founders and owners of <a target=_blank href=http://www.strategyfirst.com>Strategy First</a>, has posted more info on future Jagged Alliance games in the <a target=_blank href=http://www.strategyfirst.com/forum/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum;f=47>Jagged Alliance 3</a> forum.
<br>
<br>
Here's an interesting bit on multiplayer from <a target=_blank href=http://www.strategyfirst.com/forum/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=47;t=000002;p=2#000035>this thread</a>:
<br>
<ul><i>Nothing to worry about DiAnna. This tactical system evolution would be more a multiplayer related mode of play.
<br>
<br>
There is a problem when considering multiplayer for turn base systems. This problem is the amount of time that it takes before it is your turn again. If we are to have a multiplayer mode for JA3, something has to be done about that. Same for Disciples.
<br>
<br>
This being said, dumbing down the single player tactical system to support variations for multiplayer gaming is out of the question. Adding options on how the multiplayer is dealt with is a must though.
<br>
<br>
Consider just this possibility:
<br>
An additional initiative factor based on certain stats, the amount of unused movement points in the previous turn and the health state of a merc or player character could be used to create an initiative based 'unit turn' instead of a 'whole team turn' in multiplayer. This is an example of how you can cut down on the impression of down time a player must support while waiting for his turn, since everybody gets to play more often but for shorter periods. (In other words, all units get 'their' turn and not necessarily all at the same time as opposed to a player getting 'his' turn and moving all his units around in that turn). One advantage of such a system is that the order of initiative in the turn (who gets to play in which order) is variable in that it depends on units being injured or not or having saved their moves or not. (Saving your movement points would give you initiative points for the next turn unless they were used up during an interrupt sequence).
<br>
<br>
There is also the possibility of having a timer option in multiplayer so that every unit has a certain amount of time to decide what he will do.
<br>
<br>
There are also more possibilities. The idea is to get an optional set of rules that would be available for multiplayer purposes and let the players decide if they want to play that way or if they prefer playing the way they were used to.
<br>
<br>
Hope I was making sense here.</ul></i>
<br>
Another curious post is a reply to <A target=_blank href=http://www.strategyfirst.com/forum/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=47;t=000002;p=2#000041>this post</a> by DiAnna:
<br>
<ul>But... but... I WANT a "simple sequel". I want JA3 to be just like JA2, with tweaked up graphics, a different huge map (but still a map) and my same old AIM/MERC buddies to trek off on a new adventure.
<br>
<br>
<i>Well this is not JA3, this is yet another product. Wait for the announcements.</i></ul>
<br>
Does this mean that JA3 is not a simple sequel, but <a href=http://www.rpgcodex.com/gamedetails.php?id=257>the other JA game</a> based on the same engine is? Sounds a bit weird to me.
<b>Richard Therrien</b>, one of the founders and owners of <a target=_blank href=http://www.strategyfirst.com>Strategy First</a>, has posted more info on future Jagged Alliance games in the <a target=_blank href=http://www.strategyfirst.com/forum/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum;f=47>Jagged Alliance 3</a> forum.
<br>
<br>
Here's an interesting bit on multiplayer from <a target=_blank href=http://www.strategyfirst.com/forum/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=47;t=000002;p=2#000035>this thread</a>:
<br>
<ul><i>Nothing to worry about DiAnna. This tactical system evolution would be more a multiplayer related mode of play.
<br>
<br>
There is a problem when considering multiplayer for turn base systems. This problem is the amount of time that it takes before it is your turn again. If we are to have a multiplayer mode for JA3, something has to be done about that. Same for Disciples.
<br>
<br>
This being said, dumbing down the single player tactical system to support variations for multiplayer gaming is out of the question. Adding options on how the multiplayer is dealt with is a must though.
<br>
<br>
Consider just this possibility:
<br>
An additional initiative factor based on certain stats, the amount of unused movement points in the previous turn and the health state of a merc or player character could be used to create an initiative based 'unit turn' instead of a 'whole team turn' in multiplayer. This is an example of how you can cut down on the impression of down time a player must support while waiting for his turn, since everybody gets to play more often but for shorter periods. (In other words, all units get 'their' turn and not necessarily all at the same time as opposed to a player getting 'his' turn and moving all his units around in that turn). One advantage of such a system is that the order of initiative in the turn (who gets to play in which order) is variable in that it depends on units being injured or not or having saved their moves or not. (Saving your movement points would give you initiative points for the next turn unless they were used up during an interrupt sequence).
<br>
<br>
There is also the possibility of having a timer option in multiplayer so that every unit has a certain amount of time to decide what he will do.
<br>
<br>
There are also more possibilities. The idea is to get an optional set of rules that would be available for multiplayer purposes and let the players decide if they want to play that way or if they prefer playing the way they were used to.
<br>
<br>
Hope I was making sense here.</ul></i>
<br>
Another curious post is a reply to <A target=_blank href=http://www.strategyfirst.com/forum/cgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=47;t=000002;p=2#000041>this post</a> by DiAnna:
<br>
<ul>But... but... I WANT a "simple sequel". I want JA3 to be just like JA2, with tweaked up graphics, a different huge map (but still a map) and my same old AIM/MERC buddies to trek off on a new adventure.
<br>
<br>
<i>Well this is not JA3, this is yet another product. Wait for the announcements.</i></ul>
<br>
Does this mean that JA3 is not a simple sequel, but <a href=http://www.rpgcodex.com/gamedetails.php?id=257>the other JA game</a> based on the same engine is? Sounds a bit weird to me.
