Jagged Alliance 3 from Haemimont Games

[Strange Fellow]

It makes it so that you and the enemy aren't playing by the same rules. That should be avoided as much as possible.

I acknowledge this point of view but don't subscribe to it. Good challenge, good gameplay, respecting the player's time, a million other things are more important than "the realism" or whatever. But I'm already well documented as not really caring about the perfect simulation so yeah we're gonna disagree here. Actually you're not even advocating realism but PvP boardgame fairness, which .... I absolutely do not care about good PvP in a PvE game. Again I see why you want that but it's meaningless to me.

I probably shouldn't have included that sentence without backing it up. The only reason I'm insistent on this here is because I sincerely believe it does lead to better challenge and better gameplay. It's not realism for its own sake, it's realism in service to gameplay. This is clearly a very hard thing to get right, but the JA series did and I want anyone making a sequel to give it their best effort. For me it's a defining feature of the series, not because realism itself is an ideal but because it results in such good gameplay. But like you say, different strokes.

 

[thesheeep]

It shouldn't be up to them who gets the first turn. The side that surprises the other should get the first turn. It's natural, it makes intuitive sense, and it's fun. You plan ambushes while covering your ass. It worked great in the previous games, and they shouldn't have messed with it. I'll concede your point about managing a squad in real time sometimes being annoying. That's the number one thing that didn't work about it. But there's a perfect solution, which is to introduce pausing outside of combat, and they should have done that instead.

I also favor game mechanics that are applied the same way to both the player and the enemy.
So I'm not a fan of the player always getting the first turn, either.

I DO like their solution to you getting the first turn and the enemy getting a shorter, some-movement-only turn.
The absurd importance of the very first turn in many TB games is something I have always hated. Some games like the Expeditions games did it so far that whoever gets the first turn basically auto-wins. Absurd crap.

So why not take the JA3 solution and apply it both ways?
Whoever initiates combat gets the first full turn, the other side gets that mini-turn.
Make the "size"/AP limit of that mini-turn dependent on surprise mechanics.
Voilá, you got a mechanic that works fair for both you and the enemy.

Then again, I also don't like the teams-take-turns approach and favor individual turns, but eh, it is what it is...

 

[Zombra]

Strange Fellow
I was thinking more about "both sides should use the same rules". I agree that when all else is equal, this is desirable and the assumption should be that all pieces on the board operate in consistent ways unless there is a good reason not to.

The issue with Jagged Alliance is that the two teams begin with fundamentally asymmetrical behaviors. It's not two armies walking towards each other - it's sectors of NPC enemies sitting and waiting for player forces to come find them. They may patrol around the map a bit but they are not fundamentally searching for you in real time. Think how awful that would be, and then imagine how weak and toothless the gameplay would be if you could just sit in one spot and wait for the enemies to come to you because in theory you are all looking for each other. I mean it wasn't horrible in JA, DG, and JA2 for that difference to be ignored, but to me it makes sense to recognize the fundamental asymmetry and ask, "If the two teams axiomatically have different engagement bebaviors, does it not make sense to tailor our systems to acknowledge that difference and de-jankify it?"

 

[Beowulf]

Well, first turn advantage is something that will always be a problem in TB games. There's no way around it. There are however different ways to mitigate that - starting engagements far apart enough to nullify the alpha strike, the dreaded pod system, the dispersal to cover system, giving individual characters different imitative stats etc. They also have their own disadvantages. I don't think JA3 idea of having a miniturn is particularly bad solution in that regard, I guess we will just have to see how it works in practice.
JA2 (and most tactical games) balance the player initiative advantage by creating engagement environments where player is (sometimes vastly) outnumbered. The AI in JA2 was easily abusable - with decent guns you could trivialize later fights just by going prone with your squad and use gunshots to lure the enemies into a prepared killzone. It was even easier to do at night with luring enemies into light sources and then slaying them with interruptions.

So yeah - the miniturn might work, I'm going to give this idea a chance.

 

[ArchAngel]

What you are all arguing about detection and first turn actions is completely missing the point and it is the effect of another change they did. They made maps smaller and brought camera closer to characters and that results in these other changes. This game is decline in many ways.

 

[Beowulf]

What you are all arguing about detection and first turn actions is completely missing the point and it is the effect of another change they did. They made maps smaller and brought camera closer to characters and that results in these other changes. This game is decline in many ways.

Undoubtedly it is a decline in some aspects.
But:
1) We're mostly discussing it because we are experiencing varying levels of hype and just want to have something to do with the game itself while it is not released yet.
2) It looks to better in many ways than any recent nuXcom clones and last attempts to resurrect the Jagged Alliance IP.

And
3) I already brought the issue of smaller engagement ranges and was rated as "retarded" so I don't know really anymore - I haven't seen all those dev diaries and I only skipped through some of the gameplay videos so maybe I'm wrong on that issue and the maps will be big and you'll be able to shoot your ARs on longer distances than a grenade throw. Or it was just some decline enabler rating, who knows.

 

[ArchAngel]

What you are all arguing about detection and first turn actions is completely missing the point and it is the effect of another change they did. They made maps smaller and brought camera closer to characters and that results in these other changes. This game is decline in many ways.

Undoubtedly it is a decline in some aspects.
But:
1) We're mostly discussing it because we are experiencing varying levels of hype and just want to have something to do with the game itself while it is not released yet.
2) It looks to better in many ways than any recent nuXcom clones and last attempts to resurrect the Jagged Alliance IP.

And
3) I already brought the issue of smaller engagement ranges and was rated as "retarded" so I don't know really anymore - I haven't seen all those dev diaries and I only skipped through some of the gameplay videos so maybe I'm wrong on that issue and the maps will be big and you'll be able to shoot your ARs on longer distances than a grenade throw. Or it was just some decline enabler rating, who knows.

Fuck nuXcom and nuXcom clones, JA is not supposed to be anything near it and seems these devs forgot that.

 

[Zombra]

ArchAngel I mean, it's not just a new map for Jagged Alliance 2. If that's "the point" then okay, I get it. News flash, they changed some things. So now what?

 

[ArchAngel]

ArchAngel I mean, it's not just a new map for Jagged Alliance 2. If that's "the point" then okay, I get it. News flash, they changed some things. So now what?

What is that people shit on JA:BiA but it was closer to JA2 than what this is going to be. You were only shitting on it because it was not TB.

 

[Zombra]

ArchAngel I mean, it's not just a new map for Jagged Alliance 2. If that's "the point" then okay, I get it. News flash, they changed some things. So now what?

What is that people shit on JA:BiA but it was closer to JA2 than what this is going to be. You were only shitting on it because it was not TB.

"More slavishly followed the previous game" is not the same as "good". The things Back in Action got wrong made it a bad game. It was a drag. It wasn't fun. It didn't even capture the spirit of the originals.

Sure, maybe the things JA3 gets wrong will make it a bad game. But unlike BiA, the devs here actually thought it through, have reasons for the decisions they've made, and have explained those reasons. So far their reasoning has been sound as far as I can see, and it looks like they're trying to make a good game.

At the end of the day, what would you honestly rather play? A bad sequel but a good game? Or a good sequel but a bad game?

And for the record, RT games can be just as good as TB. Again, it's not about the label or the formula. It's simply about whether it's good or bad.

 

[Ghulgothas]

Yet another trailer.

 

[POOPERSCOOPER]

So is this game going to be good or not?

 

[Beowulf]

Yet another trailer.

Ok, so comparing the weapon stats with JA2 it looks like the ranges were limited afterall, e.g.
PSG1 - 36 (JA3) vs 80 (JA2)
M82 - 40 vs 150
Minimi - 30 vs 50
M14 - 24 vs 33

For other guns their range stats looks similar, I have the feeling that they wanted to put standard long barrel weapons ranges to reach 30+ without attachments, and sniper rifles to be able to barely reach further, but not by much.

 

[Zombra]

Voice actor/direction for Gus missed the point. Disgusting

Refunded preorder.

 

[Togukawa]

Those sniper shots at 1:56... What ridiculously short ranges.

 

[ArchAngel]

Those sniper shots at 1:56... What ridiculously short ranges.

What do you expect from NuXcom version of JA

 

[Taka-Haradin puolipeikko]

Those sniper shots at 1:56... What ridiculously short ranges.

What do you expect from NuXcom version of JA

Best case scenario: marketing insisted on close range shots because viewers of trailer on mobile.

 

[Abu Antar]

So is this game going to be good or not?

Probably gonna be siht. Pre-ordered anyway, to see for myself.

 

[thesheeep]

Bless your hopeful souls for submitting yourselves to uncertainty so that others don't have to

 

[raeven]

Voice actor/direction for Gus missed the point. Disgusting

Refunded preorder.

What point was missed, exactly?

 

[Zombra]

Voice actor/direction for Gus missed the point. Disgusting

Refunded preorder.

What point was missed, exactly?

Gus is an insightful, subtle, cool-headed veteran with understated charm, not a yelling meathead. It sounds like they went "Gravelly voice? check" and called it good.

 

[Sacibengala]

Voice actor/direction for Gus missed the point. Disgusting

Refunded preorder.

What point was missed, exactly?

Gus is an insightful, subtle, cool-headed professional with understated charm, not a shouting meathead. It sounds like they went "Gravelly voice? check" and called it good.

He got molested between games. His rage is to cope with that.

 

[lycanwarrior]

 

[POOPERSCOOPER]

I’m pretty sure if the JA3 team had listened to the Codex for game development advise they would come up with the perfect simulation of a giant machine with a big black dildo attached to it where you strap yourself to it and turn it on for a year non stop.

 

[mondblut]

I’m pretty sure if the JA3 team had listened to the Codex for game development advise they would come up with the perfect simulation of a giant machine with a big black dildo attached to it where you strap yourself to it and turn it on for a year non stop.

That's input controls, and I'm surprised it's not yet a golden industry standart alongside mouse and keyboard.