Jagged Alliance lives on

[Kreegle]

<strong>[ -> N/A]</strong>

This bit of news will no doubt excite a few of you (I'm already pretty happy about it): The Jagged Alliance franchise has been licensed to Strategy First, an up-and-coming game developer / publisher. Time to break out the party hats!<br><br>Here's a bite from the press release:<blockquote><em>“The Jagged Alliance series has been a world-wide hit, and has had a tremendous following among end-users,� said Robert Sirotek, Vice President of Sir Tech. “We did not want to leave our loyal fans of the series without ongoing support, so we entered into a partnership with Strategy First to provide end-users with this service. Strategy First will provide us with access to distribution channels, and bring the series under ‘one roof’ to permit better quality control and management of the franchise. It is always better that a franchise of this size and quality be managed from one source.� <br><br>“Strategy First is delighted to be managing Sirtech’s Jagged Alliance franchise,� said Don McFatridge, President. “We have been fans of the franchise for years, and look forward to bringing the series back into the retail channel now, and extending the title with new products in the years to come. </em></blockquote>Now that is good news. Who are Strategy First though, you say? I wasn't too aware of them either. Apparently they've made such games as "Disciples: Sacred Lands, Europa Universalis, Kohan: Immortal Sovereigns and Steel Beasts".<br><br>That still doesn't mean much to me either... but when I read this on the <a href="http://www.evilavatar.com/EA/News/M38792/" target="_blank">Evil Avatar forums</a>, I was immediately pleased:<blockquote><em>I'm not surprised considering Ian and Linda Currie, the husband and wife team who produced and designed the Jagged Alliance series, are now managing Strategy First's Ottawa studio, where most of the Sir-tech Canada development team are now. </blockquote></em>From good news, to excellent news! Bring on Jagged Alliance 3!<br><br>Sourced from <a href="http://www.evilavatar.com/EA/News/M38792/" target="_blank">Evil Avatar.</a>

[jvn3t]

Awesome, awesome, awesome.

[James]

JA3 would be very good indeed!

I recently started playing JA1 again. For those people who haven't yet, you really should. The graphics are quite dated, but the game as a whole is still really good. You could get it, as abandonwere, at the home of the underdogs

Considering that the original developers would almost certainly be making JA3 (if it's made), then it should be the best tactical game since, well, JA2 I guess.

[Section8]

I'll probably be vilified for saying this, but I prefer JA over JA2. Jagged Alliance 2 had some elements I didn't like.

[Rosh]

I'll probably be vilified for saying this, but I prefer JA over JA2. Jagged Alliance 2 had some elements I didn't like.

Just out of curiousity, which elements? I know not too many liked the Sci-Fi elements. Nor a lot of the aspects of Meduna.

JA was a pretty good game, still fire it up now and then, along with the expansion.

Essential, I think the hidden humor in JA2 was pretty good. If you've got to say it, say it with flowers. The "sex scenes" were a riot the first time I "saw" them. A lot more of the game made it quite fun, and the replay is there. I'll agree that there's parts of it that are a touch cliche...but there was more than a few good things about it as well.

On the part of a sequel, the Currie team is working on it. Let's just hope they spend a like amount of time for JA3 so that it still continues to be one of the best squad-based tactical games around.

[Viktor]

Best news I've heard in a long time!

[Ixian]

JA2 is a really good game, despite some bugs in it....BTW Strategy First did an excelent job on Disciples II....It stoped me from killing ppl after seeing what horrible things they did to the HOMM serial in HOMM IV.

[Rosh]

JA2 didn't have that many bugs in it. Comparatively very few to most recent games. It had a few that they patched up rather well. The only thing I had an annoyed time with was the sometimes annoying length of pauses when there shouldn't be that much going on AI-wise.

I've heard things about HOM&M4, in going vastly from the formula of HOM&M3 and the previous games. Cheesed off a number of fans, and was possibly just a bit less ill-recieved than M&M9. Too bad, since I rather liked HOM&M3.

A Friend: "Hey, M&M9 is fun after a while. It'll grow on you!"

Me: "So can yeast, but you don't hear me touting that, do you?"

[Red]

One of my friends, and avid JA2 fan (which reminds me I have to tell him about the whole JA licensing being shifted to another company) found that if you click to open a door but then select another door one the player is supposed to open the door, the second door (even if locked!) will open instead...

Well, I think that's what he told me

[Section8]

Just out of curiousity, which elements? I know not too many liked the Sci-Fi elements.

I didn't mind the Sci-Fi. However, the fact that I had to exploit the game to beat an Alien Queen because of it's compulsory damage interupts was dumb.

I didn't like the swarming nature of AI enemies. I found the best tactic was to set my guys up in good cover positions, fire a warning shot and wait for the enemy to come running.

This may just be my stupidity, but I didn't create my own character until a long way into the game, because the AIM email to me seemed to be a profiling service for existing mercs. I dismissed it as something unnecessary.

But most of all, there were some shonky calculations behind the scenes. I hated the way the outcome of enemy shots seemed predetermined. I could pop up, and get shot in the head for X HP damage. So naturally, I reloaded, and no matter what action I took, the result was exactly the same, regardless of the relative difficulty of the shot for the AI character. It defeats SAVE->FAIL->LOAD->REPEAT syndrome, but I can't stand cheaty calculations in games.

[Rosh]

I didn't mind the Sci-Fi. However, the fact that I had to exploit the game to beat an Alien Queen because of it's compulsory damage interupts was dumb.

Yeah, she was a good deal too hard. Best way to beat her was to go into combat, step out one square, shoot at her until you have 2 points left and duck back into cover. Kind of makes sense because the Queen has to wait for you to pop out and might not get a shot off in time, but still...

I didn't like the swarming nature of AI enemies. I found the best tactic was to set my guys up in good cover positions, fire a warning shot and wait for the enemy to come running.

Sometimes I've noticed this, but mostly for patrols. It would have been nice if they really did some flanking or other tactics in patrols. Base installations and towns would flock to a point. To see it, try enabling the "see all" cheat sometime to see how they will generally have a spot to wander in.

This may just be my stupidity, but I didn't create my own character until a long way into the game, because the AIM email to me seemed to be a profiling service for existing mercs. I dismissed it as something unnecessary.

IMP, different locale. Even if it was for profiling your mercs, it would have helped tremendously as you'd like to know who can be hired along with each other. I've got a couple of "dream teams" in which I can clear the first two cities with just 3 people on hard. The custom merc is a definite good thing. Plus, have you sent flowers, yet?

But most of all, there were some shonky calculations behind the scenes. I hated the way the outcome of enemy shots seemed predetermined. I could pop up, and get shot in the head for X HP damage. So naturally, I reloaded, and no matter what action I took, the result was exactly the same, regardless of the relative difficulty of the shot for the AI character. It defeats SAVE->FAIL->LOAD->REPEAT syndrome, but I can't stand cheaty calculations in games.

I kind of liked/loathed this as well. Often the AI can predict your movements to a point it seems, but you'll never know if the enemy has heard you. So when you pop up your head, chances are the enemy has heard you already and expects you, and you're right in their aiming range. Or they watched you stand up, etc. The range issues, the enemy often has equipment that you'll not have yet for a while (and isn't always dropped, either). Also, the outcome of combat actions right after a save and reload do change, but if you do the same thing right after reloading, often the enemy will respond just the same way. It's kind of cheating, but if you need to, you can use that to your advantage.

[James]

Sometimes I've noticed this, but mostly for patrols. It would have been nice if they really did some flanking or other tactics in patrols. Base installations and towns would flock to a point. To see it, try enabling the "see all" cheat sometime to see how they will generally have a spot to wander in.

The people in non-random locations are scripted to do this though, right? So when they go on alert they can go to certain positions (guards leaving a building and heading towards the main gate, or whatever...). This must make it much easier for the computer to respond in a sensible way (if you can call it that, it's really the scripter who's responding :-).

How difficult would it be to develop an AI system, which in random encounters such as meeting redshirt patrols in JA2, could respond in an intelligent (or even stupid, if they are green troops) fashion?

Could one develop a system where, with no cheating (or at least not much), the AI could respond rationally without scripting? For example, using half its men to lay down a base of fire, whilst trying to flank (using cover if available) your team with the others. This would then would ought to force the player to respond in a thoughtful way, setting aside a small reserve to deal with flanking attacks. If the AI didn't cheat then you could ambush the flanking troops with your reserve, if you had kept them hidden.

If this could be done then it should effect other areas of the AI's response in a positive way. For example, if the enemy squad attack in the way above and it has a guy with an MG he will do the suppressive fire, not try and lug the thing round to the flank where he will be of less use. If the AI can attack well in the first place then designing this type of feature should be easy.

Is it even realistic to expect developers to be able to justify spending time on AI development when so many consumers just want multiplayer, or don't care if the AI dosen't challenge them to actually think?


The (few) shortcomings of JA2 aside, it's right up there with XCOM 1 and 2 as far as I'm concerned. It seems to have a pretty good mod/campaign community too.


I also prefer JA1 in some ways (yes, I don't really like Sci-Fi mode), but overall I think JA2 is the better game.

[Grifman]

I didn't mind the Sci-Fi. However, the fact that I had to exploit the game to beat an Alien Queen because of it's compulsory damage interupts was dumb.

Well, you could play without sci-fi.

e the swarming nature of AI enemies. I found the best tactic was to set my guys up in good cover positions, fire a warning shot and wait for the enemy to come running.

The AI had it's weaknesses, but I can't think of a better one in this type of game. All in all, it's pretty hard to play without reloading if you don't want to lose a merc. The guys waiting in buildings in corners are the tough ones and more than make up for the running mobs. Of course this is mostly in night ops. Daytime it's pretty even with the AI, I think.

y just be my stupidity, but I didn't create my own character until a long way into the game, because the AIM email to me seemed to be a profiling service for existing mercs. I dismissed it as something unnecessary.

It's called reading the manual.

But most of alll, there were some shonky calculations behind the scenes. I hated the way the outcome of enemy shots seemed predetermined. I could pop up, and get shot in the head for X HP damage. So naturally, I reloaded, and no matter what action I took, the result was exactly the same, regardless of the relative difficulty of the shot for the AI character. It defeats SAVE->FAIL->LOAD->REPEAT syndrome, but I can't stand cheaty calculations in games.

It's not cheaty. The engine uses random numbers based upon probabilities to hit, etc. However, it saves the "seed" number. This same thing was seen in Civ. You have to do something differently, move your men in different order, get another enemy to shoot, so that the same result doesn't come up again with the same number. It's not cheaty at all, like I said, I've seen it in other games.

Grifman

[Section8]

Well, you could play without sci-fi.

As I said, I didn't mind the Sci-Fi. I hated the queen. She's a small part of the Sci-Fi mode.

It's called reading the manual.

A luxury I didn't have. Borrowed the CDs off a mate.

It's not cheaty. The engine uses random numbers based upon probabilities to hit, etc. However, it saves the "seed" number. This same thing was seen in Civ. You have to do something differently, move your men in different order, get another enemy to shoot, so that the same result doesn't come up again with the same number. It's not cheaty at all, like I said, I've seen it in other games.

The thing is, I did different things with the same character, for the same result. That pisses me off. I did figure out that diverting that particular enemies attentions elsewhere helped me out, but that's poor gameplay. It makes me as the player aware of the game systems, and requires me to play the system, not the game. I prefer games where I can believe my enemies are conscious beings, rather than something tied into a series of equations.

Funnily enough, I never noticed the seeding in Civ, probably because if a unit died, it was just another casualty. I was very reluctant to lose my mercs in JA2. Both have their good and bad points. Individual personalities add a lot of flavour to the game, but I much prefer X-Com's more faceless squaddies. I still feel for anyone who's been out on a few missions and then gets taken down, but I'm more inclined to accept that they are dead and move on without them than I was in JA. The flat rate fo wages also helped things in that respect. But that's just me.

[MF]

I liked JA1 better as well, Gareth.
For a couple of reasons.

A : It was a tad more gritty, less humor. (I liked most of the humor in JA2, but the 'Elliot you idiot' thing is not my kind of humor)
B : Ivan's Russian text. JA2 was a nice touch having him speak the occasional word of English but the written text in JA1 was better. Besides, I liked the crappy digitized voice in JA1.
C : It had a more robust combat system. Less complex, but it was extremely reliable.
D : It's older, I was younger when I first played it, it was a unique experience back then etc.

Of course, JA2 has a nice modular weapon system, a 2-story system, prone and duck options etc. It was more fun, but somehow JA1 was 'the bomb' and JA2 just '(one of the) best tactical game(s)'

[Section8]

Oh yeah, I'd forgotten all about the "Just Shoot Me" stuff in JA2. That sucked.

[Nutter]

JA lives again - this is fantastic news
i am glad ivan hasn't used "all the ammuntion for weapon"!

as for JA vs JA2, some things such as merc portraits and mercs i have found much better in JA than JA2

JA was overall more enjoyable because everyone had a chance of missing, no matter how good they semed to be - in JA2 it seems difficulty has everything to do with more enemies, and enemies never missing and pretty much nothing else

i was behind some rocks at range, and still got shot down through the rocks - these guys don't miss, and the game becomes a case of sneaking around at night to guarantee survival

however JA2 allows dual gun wielding - not very practical, but looks good =)
the interaction between mercs is also much more entertaining in JA2