Hmm: Jagged Alliance 2 – Reloaded Details

By Jim Rossignol on November 10th, 2010 at 9:46 am.


Some details are emerging about the new Jagged Alliance game. It seems that the devs have elected to move on from the traditional turn-based game, and produce something in real time. In a post on the BitComposer forums they explain at length:

The “Plan & Go” system removes the turn-based structure. If the player wants to react to an incident, he can pause the game at any time or allow the game to pause automatically by carrying out a particular activity (e.g. if a mercenary has run out of ammunition).

Not exactly an XCom level move, but I can still sense the sceptical sighing of the original community.

, .

197 Comments »

Sponsored links by Taboola
  1. Olli T says:

    THEY’VE RUINED EVERYTHING

    …ok, ok, we’ll see how it plays.

  2. olemars says:

    Sounds fine by me, but I’ve never been particularly enthused by turn-based tactical gameplay. I loved XCOM mind you, but I in fact preferred the realtime mode of apocalypse over the turn-based battles in the original. Worked well enough in Baldur’s gate and friends too.

  3. P7uen says:

    That’s not so bad, UFO Aftermath or similar did that didn’t it?

    And that played ok.

    • Joshua says:

      Baldur’s Gate did it too. And that one is awesome.

      I actually might pick up Jagged Alliance Reloaded for that reason alone.

    • MadMatty says:

      Works perfectly well, played a ton of games that does that. Just press Pause whenever you want to do some serious thinking.
      The action looks much better in realtime too- you just leave the more mundane actions on Auto, like “Fire at Will”.
      I mean, an Alien/Unemployed dude has just appeared- do you really need to click on it to shoot it in the face?
      Even games like Supreme Commander and AI War has a pause mode, where you can keep stacking orders while paused, and then when you unpause it, you watch your beutifully hatched masterplan unfold (or not).

    • Archonsod says:

      E5 Brigade used it and it worked fine, and the game was something of a homage to JA.

    • Jad says:

      … you just leave the more mundane actions on Auto, like “Fire at Will”. I mean, an Alien/Unemployed dude has just appeared- do you really need to click on it to shoot it in the face?

      Well, yes, yes you do. That was kind of the entire point of the Jagged Alliance games — carefully choreographing every second of a very small, personal battle. If a dude appears, the question is not “do I shoot him”? It’s “how do i shoot him”? Maybe you should shoot him in the face — but maybe you are too far away and a torso shot might have a greater chance of striking him. Maybe you should switch to a different weapon or you should risk moving your man to a more advantageous position before taking that shot. Maybe you’re trying to be sneaky and you don’t want to shoot the dude until you’ve gotten closer. Maybe you have another merc with better aim who should take the shot, while your shotgun-wielding psycho merc should save his AP points for the dude behind the door. JA2 was a difficult game, and every bullet was important and every action, even against grunt enemies, had consequences.

      There are plenty of Real-Time Strategy games where the larger picture is important and the all the actions of a single unit is not. There are very few JA/X-Com style games were you have the control of — and need the control of — every second of a battle.

    • karry says:

      “That’s not so bad, UFO Aftermath or similar did that didn’t it?
      And that played ok.”
      No. No it didnt.

      “Baldur’s Gate did it too. ”
      Yeah, and Infinity Engine combat sucked as well. Except for Icewind Dale 2, which was a step higher, but still it didnt even have opportunity attacks. What kind of tactics can you expect anyway, when you just grab your characters in a dragbox and sick them at the enemy ?

      “E5 Brigade used it and it worked fine”
      Um, are you kidding ? Do you honestly see no difference between a primitive simple RTwP and a much more complex and detailed system in E5 ?

    • Acidburns says:

      Xcom Apocalypse used the realtime with pause gameplay and I much prefered it to the turnbased gamemode. I was never a fan of saving 17.5TU for aimed overwatch fire or whatever. Also I find I am much more patient in real time games. I always get impatient in turnbased games and charge in when I should be waiting!

  4. Choca says:

    We need more turn based game, not less.

  5. Premium User Badge

    Rinox says:

    Eh, if it plays ok then I won’t mind.

    Multiplayer is already shot to shit without TB combat though.

    • MadMatty says:

      There are options, like a limit amount of pauses for each player for instance. I´m sure one could come up with other solutions too.

    • sidhellfire says:

      Or like in Combat Mission, that was very good.

  6. Jacka says:

    Wasn’t this supposed to be more or less a straight HD update of Jagged Alliance?

    Now I’m going to have to hunt down the developers and put their heads on pikes and that sounds like a great deal of effort that could have been easily avoided.

  7. Nethlem says:

    Mh choise would still have been great.. like in xcom apocalypse that doesn’t force you into realtime/turn based.

    Why not just do both? Give the players options? Instead of turning another great TBS franchise into something different :/

    • jeremypeel says:

      I know what you mean, but attempting to do both more often than not ends up compromising both. See Arcanum for horrible details. X-Com Apocalypse worked, but its turn-based was nothing like that of Enemy Unknown’s.

  8. Subject 706 says:

    Judging by the forum reactions, they’ve effectively lost all JA2 fans as customers.

    Myself, I think it was an idiotic idea, and bitComposers explanation is so full of meaningless PR-speak, that I can’t help but lose all respect for them.

    In their own words, they are trying to make it “less niche” and “more accessible”. Which is nice, except that that type of game is always going to be niche to a certain degree. So, a sequel to a niche strategy game, now owned by a not-very-well-known publisher, has had its defining mechanic removed.

    Probably not a smart move, unless they have a gigantic hidden PR-budget to help flog the game.

    • Jesus says:

      JA2 is in my Top 3 games ever. I literally love that game.
      And after years and years of waiting for some sort of sequel or anything that can scratch that itch we get a watered down version of JA2 with prettier graphics and in real time.
      Well fuck that.

  9. Atic Atac says:

    Silly move really. People still like turn-based games and Jagged Alliance is nr. 3 behind X-Com and Homm in that field. It’s like if someone made an X-Com FPS! *sigh*

  10. N'Al says:

    Fallout Tactics!

    • mlaskus says:

      Fallout Tactics had a turn based system, though I never used it because real time was more fun.

    • Eclipse says:

      Fallout Tactics is playable just like any other Fallout… never played it in real time

    • sfury says:

      I liked it a lot, but had to step away once I started playing 5-6 hour turn-based shoot-outs for a single mission.

      As for Jagged Alliance – maybe if they execute that new system well it will turn up to be a good game, but seriously – JA’s most defining and awesome feature is turn-based battles and changing that – well they’ll be lucky if most of the fans stay just on a “Meh.” wave like me.

  11. Pemptus says:

    Eh. If they’re changing so much, why not make a new game instead of painstakingly recreating old maps? I know I know, it’s much less work. Still a pity to turn a beloved classic into something it was never meant to be.

  12. Premium User Badge

    Schaulustiger says:

    That isn’t half as bad as people make it sound. Bioware’s old D&D games (and NWN) followed the same principle and you could essentially play it as a turn-based game, pausing between every move.

    I’m fine with it and I’m really looking forward to it.

    • Subject 706 says:

      Except you never controlled a dozen mercs with guns and grenades in those games. They are apparently also planning to remove line of sight, making all enemies outside of buildings visible. I’m starting to wonder what they think their target market is…

    • Premium User Badge

      Schaulustiger says:

      @Subject 706:
      But you controlled half a dozen gung-ho wizards with spells and stuff.

      All I’m saying is that it could still work. A pause key allows for thinking and planning and that was the core of the Jagged Alliance games. I’d say, give them some time for a proper trailer/demo/preview and we can see how it turns out.

    • jeremypeel says:

      Mmm, a pause key would be pretty essential.

      ‘They are apparently also planning to remove line of sight, making all enemies outside of buildings visible. I’m starting to wonder what they think their target market is…’

      Whaaat? That’s like carefully removing all tension with a pair of comfort-tweesers. Reloaded is starting to sound more like Gain Ground than JA.

    • Subject 706 says:

      Completely different games, completely different mechanics. Sure, a real time JA2-remake MIGHT work, but if the slew of mediocre to bad real time JA2 and XCOM clones are any indication, combat will most probably degenerate into a space-spamming mess.

      I’d have been much more excited if they had gone for some sort of simultaneous turns system, similar to Frozen synapse, maybe.

      At the end, though, what was the reasoning behind this decision? It seems like they don’t even know their target audience.

    • Requiem says:

      @Schaulustiger Real time and pause is a horrible system, it worked okay in NWN because you just controlled one charcter. But in any game that gives you a larger group to control, you either let the ai do their thing and combat becomes a total clusterfuck or you pause and micromange every character which is far more stop start and immersion breaking than Turn Based ever got.

      Plus there’s a big difference between controlling six characters and eighteen, outside of RTS games I don’t remember any realtime and pause game allowing you more than six characters to control.

    • Miko says:

      The pseudo-turn-based pause-all-the-time system never worked properly and was a massive pain in the rectum compared to the much better straight-up turn-based system in the AD&D gold box games. It’s one of those things that sounds great until you try it.

    • Ragnar says:

      I think Temple of Elemental Evil did this much better than Baldur’s Gate. ToEE did “turn-based that looks like realtime” and that works much better than the Realtime with pause that BG and NWN does.

    • Wilson says:

      @Requiem – Yeah, I agree that real time and pause is more irritating and immersion breaking than turn based, generally. For it to work you need to reduce the time between pauses, so you aren’t constantly stopping to make sure everything is ok. Which is tricky in tactical battles between individuals you want to keep alive. It worked for me in the Total War games battles since you didn’t need to react instantly to any new situations. I doubt it would be the same in this game.

    • Premium User Badge

      oceanclub says:

      “Real time and pause is a horrible system, it worked okay in NWN because you just controlled one charcter”

      Thats’s the way “Dragon Age” was too, and I thought it worked fine. I think it’s a very happy medium between turn-based and real-time, giving you strategic possibilities but still allowing quick-paced play.

      P.

    • malkav11 says:

      Let’s be clear here. Real-time-with-pause is workable, and a hell of a lot better than real-time-without-pause. It is fundamentally, irrevocably different than proper turn-based, however.

    • Dave says:

      I always wished those D&D games were truly turn-based.

      ARPGs are great, but D&D in particular was very much designed to be a turn-based thinky game.

      What I want to see is a revival of the CyberStorm games, so long as they keep the true turn-based mode.

    • Jad says:

      It is fundamentally, irrevocably different than proper turn-based, however.

      Yes. I remember having this argument with idiots on Kotaku when the whole new XCom thing blew up, but I didn’t expect there to be this kind of “oh what’s the difference” thinking on RPS.

      I really believe that turn-based and real-time systems are one of the fundamental divisions in gaming, like plants and animals. More so than the common genre labels like “RPG” or “Strategy”. The mechanics, the moment-to-moment gameplay of a real-time RPG and a RTS can be more similar than a true turn-based RPG and a turn-based strategy game. Fundamentally: how much time do I have to make this decision? Can I bring the full weight of my intelligence and decision-making abilities to produce the ideal outcome of the task at hand, whether it’s defeating the hell-demon or upgrading my city’s production? Or am I constrained by my reflexes and multi-tasking skills to perform what is perhaps not the mathematically perfect response, but is exciting and thrilling and enough to win?

      In my opinion, real-time-with-pause has always been an ugly hybrid of two fundamentally disparate game phyla. Not enough direct control over your character to have that chunky impact of a good action game, but not enough fine-grained, satisfyingly OCD management of a good turn-based game.

      I’m sure that there are people who like it, and more power to you, but real-time is NOT a replacement, or evolution, or anything like that, of turn-based.

    • Requiem says:

      @Jad Too right. Or to put it another way, Turn Based is Chess, real time and pause is Hungry Hungry Hippos. Now Hungry Hungry Hippos can be fun, when playing with kids or after having a skinful with (so-called) adults but even at it’s best it’s still not Chess.

    • sebmojo says:

      You people are hilarious.

      Set up a plan. Execute it. Hit pause when it goes south. Go back to start.

      OH MY GOD IT IS HUNGRY HIPPOS STUPID GAME FOR KIDS GAME STUPID DAMN DUMB WHY DON’T YOU LOVE ME MUMMY WHY WHY WHYYYYYY

  13. Pardoz says:

    In other news, Bitcomposer is also working on a faithful remake of Doom with updated graphics. It will be presented as a 2D isometric turn-based game in which you control a squad of Smurfs who run around the map trying to collect pixie dust from rainbow unicorns, but will still be perfectly true to the spirit and gameplay that made the original a classic.

    • poop says:

      why dont you guys like the isometric smurf DOOM remake? fucking PC gamers are never satisfied with anything, in my opinion it perfectly captured the feel of the original – Dominic White

  14. Tuco says:

    Stupidest move ever.

  15. Chris says:

    I prefer pause-able real time to turn based games. They’re less clunky.

  16. Atic Atac says:

    The whole premise of the game is terrible and these are awful decisions any way you look at them.

    Decisions:

    – Remake Jagged Alliance 2 …that game is perfect as is and the graphics don’t really need an upgrade.
    – Remove the turn based element …now well, if you were asked to name the single most important element of why Jagged Alliance works then you probably everyone would name the turn-based combat…over setting, story, merc recruiting, rpg-elements etc.

    What you have left is a warped shadow of a great game that doesn’t make any sense at all. It’s like that XBLA Wing Commander reboot which was a terrible top-down arcade shooter which no-one cared about. The Jagged Alliance will not carry this mess and they should just stop what they are doing and either make a proper JA3 or use what they have and make this game under a different name.

  17. Joe Duck says:

    XCOM Apocalypse did this a looooong time ago and it was quite bad. It sounds very easy to implement on paper, but it is not. The orders you give take some time to execute, so after your unit has started an action, do you have to wait for it to finish? Does your new order go into a printer-like queue of orders? Can you cancel orders in that queue? Or does the guy actually drop everything and follow the latest order?
    It can be very, very tricky to do this right. In terms of simulation it’s actually less realistic, because as a commander you could in theory issue 300 orders in a second, per second. In turn based, you give 300 orders in a second, but then wait for i don’t know, one minute till the next batch. A free pause system is very unrealistic. Turn based is simpler and more elegant, I think.

    • Artist says:

      What? X-Com Apocalypse is awesome! Do we play the same game?

    • Mr.T says:

      I second that.Xcom apoc was great.Hunting the last straggler ,for example,was less of a drag.

      And for realtime vs turnbased:

      Simply include an configurable Autopauseoption (stops every 1-60 seconds for example).
      Then its turnbased again.And can be played whichever way one prefers.

    • Subject 706 says:

      Except that JA2 didn’t really have that “hunt the last straggler boredom”, as it was real-time outside of direct combat.

    • Pemptus says:

      I thought we abandoned striving for realism by the time we could use our action points to run around an out-of-turn enemy, shoot them, in the left boob with a pistol, walk away a bit, holster the pistol, equip an rpg and shoot the enemy in the face with it.

      My point: “realism” shouldn’t be used as an argument for or against the turn-based system.

    • Archonsod says:

      “It can be very, very tricky to do this right. In terms of simulation it’s actually less realistic, because as a commander you could in theory issue 300 orders in a second, per second.”

      Erm, you can do that in real life too. The realistic approach in that case is to have a confused soldier who doesn’t do anything because he’s spent the last minute aiming, shuffling, flicking between auto and semi auto etc.
      In most real time modes this is modelled by having a time to complete for every action, so if you keep over-riding actions nothing much happens.

      I prefer the real time approach when done well (the UFO series post Aftermath and the E5/7.62 games). If done right it throws in a little more tactical complexity, for example pistols actually being useful in close quarters because they’re a few seconds quicker to bring to bear and shoot than a rifle, which might let you drop the enemy quickdraw style before he draws a bead. You can’t model things like that in a turn based situation, the best the UGO style can do is give you a couple more shots with the pistol, which is useless if the other guy gets to spend an entire turn shooting at you first.

    • Joe Duck says:

      Apocalypse was a huge disappointment, nowhere near XCOM 1 or 2. It was ambitious but poorly executed.
      And about realism… ok, so it’s forbidden to talk about realism in a discussion about turn-based games…
      I think that is a gross, gross oversimplification. What is more realistic, Steel Panthers, Combat Mission or Close Combat? The three are awesome “sim” tactical level wargames with different time structures (Pure turn based, simultaneous and real time, for those who have not played).
      I would argue that different levels of combat are better represented by each game type, but I also would argue that by far, the most clunky and convoluted one is the realtime paused simultaneous system of Combat Mission.
      Turn based, for me, please…

    • Archonsod says:

      Combat mission isn’t real time, it’s a WEGO system. They only added in the ability to run in real time in Shock Force. I don’t find it particularly clunky, the only real issue is the lack of feedback from the unit AI on why it felt your orders didn’t need to be followed that turn.

    • karry says:

      “I second that.Xcom apoc was great.Hunting the last straggler ,for example,was less of a drag.”

      You know WHY it was less of a drag ? Because developers intentionally castrated AI in real-time mode, so that all aliens actually know where you are, and are running towards you from the start. Basically you could build your soldiers in a line somewhere, and wait.
      You call that great, you call that X-Com. I call that a game for lazy and intellectually challenged.

  18. Eclipse says:

    I was jizzing in my pants, then the line:

    ” It seems that the devs have elected to move on from the traditional turn-based game, and produce something in real time. ”
    FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFU-
    ok, not interested.

  19. KillahMate says:

    If they really want that why don’t they make it optional?

    Surely a bit more work would be justified if it’s the difference between the game selling and not selling to a horde of turn based game fans. I’m not being sarcastic, I’m convinced they have just made the game unprofitable.

    • Ozzie says:

      Yeah, for me at least the title turned from a must buy to a…well I dunno…maybe when the price comes down, a lot, and I have some spare money…

      I’m not a huge turnbased fan, but I think there isn’t a game that implements turnbased combat better than JA2. And to mess with that…I think that’s foolish.

  20. Navagon says:

    I think people would have preferred a choice. Like in X-Com Apocalypse where you get to choose real time or turn based combat before every squad based battle.

    Generally, I chose turn based every time. Not because it’s ‘OMG more tactical’ but because it was easier by far. Even your crappy inaccurate units could run up to an enemy and shoot them repeatedly in the face without consequence. With real time the chances of getting a rocket in the face were far too high. Unavoidable, really.

    All in all turn based games aren’t really realistic enough to be considered tactical. I suppose you could coin a new term for turn based games: chronoillogical. And that’s coming from someone who chooses the turn based option when it’s there.

    • jeremypeel says:

      Nobody claims turn-based games are realistic; or, if they do, they’re in denial.

      The thing is, tactical gameplay has almost nothing to do with realism. Sure, give the people realistic trappings like ammo types, locational damage, whatever you want, but the great tactical gameplay in JA2 was down to the range of options of available to you, the number of different factors you had to take into account during battle, the relationship between the battle screen and the plan-and-execute meta-game above it and, of course, the careful balancing of all of these elements. Although if you ask me I still think the game was too bleeding hard.

      Turn-based fans, speaking (maybe a little too) generally, don’t go for these games because they’re realistic. They go for the meticulous planning, stunning executions and dramatic failures. As many have said before, it’s far closer to the appeal of Chess than Operation Flashpoint.

    • Ragnar says:

      Anyone who thinks any strategy or tactical game is realistic, be it realtime or turn based are in denial.

    • Archonsod says:

      “the great tactical gameplay in JA2 was down to the range of options of available to you,”

      Which isn’t affected by turn based or real time gameplay. The only difference in a real time with autopause is it lets you stop and adjust your planning as the situation develops, rather than having to wait until the enemy had responded. Replace time units with actual units of time and it’s pretty much the same thing, only instead of most efficient use of TU’s you’re looking for the most efficient use of the next N seconds.

    • Navagon says:

      @jeremypeel

      Very true. But turn based gameplay is not only pretty alien to the origin of the term (tactics), but also the context in which the gameplay takes place. Something like King’s Bounty works because it’s already fairly abstracted from any semblance of reality and is decidedly more chess-like anyway. Equally games like Civilization and Total War have chess-like overtones.

      As Archonsod points out, a real time game doesn’t need to lose any of the complexity or indeed rob you of the necessary time to think and plan. The only difference is that you’re not going to be attacking static targets. Then being left standing there while the enemy throw their worst at you.

      @ Ragnar

      Nobody is saying that either are realistic. But there’s a wide margin between 100% authentic tactical combat and a total abstraction of the very essence of reality itself.

    • Archonsod says:

      Real time done well can introduce more complexity as you’re no longer forced to abstract to fit into the abstracted time system. Like I said elsewhere, you can start factoring in things like how quickly a weapon can be brought to bear on the target, or that a grenade thrown twelve feet takes longer to arrive than one thrown six. Furthermore, you can do all that without having to lose anything you’ve already modelled in the turn based system.

    • dysphemism says:

      I agree that there’s a level of abstraction with any turn-based system that is least blatant when the game itself deals in abstraction (see Civilization, as others have mentioned). With a game as obsessed with concrete, nitty-gritty specifics as JA is, a turn-based system is a bit incongruous.

      That said, I’m not sure real-time with pause will work well at all here. Because it relies on you hitting the brakes every time new circumstances arise it kinda falls apart when your crew gets split up — you just aren’t able to effectively monitor the whole battlefield and things can spiral out of control without your knowledge. Dragon Age and Baldur’s Gate worked because they were largely melee-based, so the scope was small. When I played JA, things were much more spread out, with me often breaking up the team into groups of 2 for flanking and such. Maybe if there was a well-implemented zoom feature or a really intuitive HUD…

    • Archonsod says:

      Depends on the implementation. You can always pause as soon as a unit comes under attack and go see what’s happening. The UFO series handled it pretty well by letting you set an autopause if someone came under attack. Similarly, you could set a priority on whether to return fire or run for cover, and whether to complete the plan or interrupt it. It meant you could rely on the game pausing when attacked if you wanted, and even have the unit queue up an appropriate response for you too.

  21. Malawi Frontier Guard says:

    You know, I’m happy if they keep the ability to decapitate dead enemies with a machete.

    • jeremypeel says:

      You can do that??

    • noobnob says:

      Yes, you can. If I recall correctly, you can get bounties by murdering certain NPCs found in the towns, and of course you need proof that you killed them. Right. You take their heads off, and take ‘em to the bounty NPC. It’s possible to chop anyone’s head off and fill your mercs’ inventory with them, though.

    • coldwave says:

      What?

      You didn’t do that in JA2???

    • jeremypeel says:

      Amazing. I know how I’m spending my Christmas. Can this become a tribute thread to the many bizarre quirks on JA2?

      This one time, I had two of my mercs walking across a swamp. Exhausted they were.

      So much so that poor Meltdown passed out, falling on her face with a melodramatic groan in the murky waters.

      Drowned instantly, she did. Lost half an hour’s play time.

    • Nick says:

      You can send flowers to the queen via the net and get a little in engine cinematic when they arrive.

  22. Berious says:

    Meh, I’m having visions of those mediocre eastern european XCOM re-imaginings. If you’re trying to tap into an established fanbase with a remake why screw around with the fundamentals like this?

    Still, I’ll buy it if reviews are really positive, but I’m not following the hype any more.

    • coldwave says:

      UFO Afterlight was good.

    • Archonsod says:

      Aftermath was the only weak one, and that’s primarily because it stuck too close to X-Com. Aftershock and Afterlight were both great, although I’d have to pick Aftershock as the better of the three solely because the strategic level was more expansive.

  23. Hippo says:

    I think that if you want to remake a great old game, you need to identify what people love about it in the first place; why are people playing JA2 10-15 years after release? If the answer is “it’s a game about mercenaries fighting a war”, then go ahead and remove the turn-based combat. But I suspect that’s not actually the case, and that people play it precisely because it offers great turn based combat. And if that’s true, then removing the turn based combat from the remake is, well, pretty dumb really.

    The thing with these remakes is that the greatest PR-asset the publishers get is all the people who loved the original and want to spread the word about the remake – provided they are actually interested in it. If you remove the main element that they enjoyed about the original, then you’re going to lose them. Not only that, but some will no doubt start to work against you, as they’re so disappointed by the direction you’ve taken.

    So, yeah, pretty dumb move.

  24. mrmud says:

    I think turn based with pause is generally superior to pure turn based for this kind of game.
    As someone with their roots in the first X-Com, I still prefered the real time mode for Apocalypse as well as the real time mode for Fallout Tactics.

    • Tuco says:

      Sorry but you’re delusional.
      Apocalypse was a huge shit compared with the first, original X-COM (aka UFO: Enemy Unknown).

    • mrmud says:

      Im not saying that apocalypse was better than enemy unknown (that would be crazy). But I do think that RTWP (real time with pause) was better than TB in apocalypse. I also think that the reasons that apocalypse was worse than enemy unknown were largely unrelated to whether or not it was turn based.

    • Archonsod says:

      Personally I preferred Apocalypse to Enemy Unknown.

      Admittedly, for the simple reason that it implemented gravity. Inevitably my X-Com were actually little more than disgruntled demolitions workers. Alien in the building? No building, no more problem …

    • The Hon. Reverend Fred Gherkin says:

      I dug X-COM: Apocalypse as a kid for a few simple reason: improved interface (not having to reassign gear to agents at the start of every friggin’ engagement), easier combat, more forgiving and explanatory, GRAVITY making destructible environments SO much more enjoyable (raiding the Cult of Sirius was one of my favourite pasttimes and money-making endeavours, delicious Psiclones). Nowadays I think I love Enemy Unknown/Terror from the Deep and Apocalypse equally. They’ve got their differences, but I think that adds some nice variety.

  25. Mattressi says:

    I wouldn’t mind so much if they just stole the series’ name and changed the gameplay, but to do a ‘remake’ and change the gameplay is very odd indeed.

  26. Elos says:

    X-Com Apocalypse had such a good real time system I ended up using it most of the time and I’m a big fan of the original two. If they just copy that this’ll be awesome

  27. Brumisator says:

    Oh god, so much whining, so much hatred. God forbid someone tries to EVOLVE gameplay in an old and outdated game. Stop being blinded by nostalgia, people!

    • Tuco says:

      There’s no evolution here. What the hell are you blabbing about?

    • pkt-zer0 says:

      I hope you’re being sarcastic.

    • Brumisator says:

      God forbid developers try to do something new and interesting instead of a reskinning of an old game.

      The old jagged aliances are on GOG, chances are some of you even got it for free recently from there.
      They’re still playable, go play them!
      If you wanted a reskinned map pack of the old games, you’re very short-sighted imo.

    • Oak says:

      I guess some people assumed a remake of a game might use that game’s defining mechanic.

    • Jesus says:

      You are a complete idiot.
      Sorry I usually don’t resort to insulting people over the internet, but it seemed like an only option here…

    • ulix says:

      He is right, though. If you want to play Jagged Alliance, go play Jagged Alliance. The graphics aren’t that bad, even by today’s standards. I for one am very happy with this move, as I, too, find round-based with pause to be much more enganging and fun then pure turn based.

    • Ozzie says:

      Alright, if they want to make it an original and innovative game, how about calling it something else than a JA2 remake? Too much to ask? Even JA3 would be fine with me…

  28. jeremypeel says:

    Bleh, ok. As this was our poster boy for what-2K-could-be-doing-alongside-XCOM, this is a bit of a blow.

    And, as fans of a particular brand of turn-based gaming hold JA2 in the highest regard, alongside only the likes of X-Com and Silent Storm, it feels like a thick move.

    Yup, this is a blow, but I’m still interested. The original JA is still very much playable; I know this kind of argument (rightly) doesn’t normally hold much sway, but I’m interested to see where this version of the game ends up, knowing that we’ll still have the original.

    It’s also worth point out that – for me at least – turn-based combat was only one part of JA2’s draw. A significant part, yes. But I loved JA2 because it merged meta-level tactical thinking, on-the-ground combat that pushed the X-Com model forward, alongside Baldur’s Gate-influenced open RPG elements, in exploration, reputation, merc personalities and complex traits. Really, it was a game that did absolutely everything I could dream of, and pulled it together under an invasion plot-banner that made sense and was thoroughly entertaining*

    If a game was announced tomorrow that featured as many fully-featured elements, with REAL-TIME combat, I’d jump for the moon.

    So… they are my conflicted feelings on the matter.

    *On a side note, Dead State seems to be doing similar appropriate things for the zombie survival setting, and causes me to shit myself with excitement.

  29. noobnob says:

    Oh man, I was excited for some Jagged Alliance news, but this has ruined it for me. I’ll still keep an eye on this game to see how it turns out.

    If they rename the project to “Hired Guns 2″ or something, then they can do whatever they want with their game, but as long as I see the “Jagged Alliance” name, I’ll be expecting a JA game.

  30. Tuco says:

    There is a demand for turn based games exactly cause there are so few of them in these days, and virtually none with an high production value.

    On the other hand, who damn cares about another generic, mediocre RTS?
    Who the hell they think they are? Blizzard? Relic? Seriously, who damn gives a shit about Bitcomposer?
    They manage to gain some attention just for the Jagged Alliance license they bought.

    They are going to fail hard producing a real time game, cause they are alienating their fanbase without making this game any less niche.

    P.S. By the way RPS user base is very disappointing. Almost everywhere discontent is unanimous, but here there are many “Uh, don’t know, maybe real time is better”. You are legitimating this kind of shitty marketing decisions, guys.

    • The Hammer says:

      Who are you speaking for, here? Because there seems to be a few JA fans in this comments thread, and there’s a broad consensus of “OK, let’s see what happens!”

      What you’re doing is preaching, and preaching through a prism of whine and hyperbole, at that. When you speak of the “fanbase”, what you’re actually doing is speaking for yourself, and your perception of what the game should be. Don’t speak on behalf of people you don’t even know.

    • Tuco says:

      @The Hammer: No, I’m speaking for the whole fanbase.
      Just read bitcomposer forum, or RPGWatch, or RPGCodex, or ITStudio Forum, or GT forum, or NeoGAF (and so on…).

      Almost 99% of the fanbase is greatly disappointed. For some strange reason just here on RPS almost half of the users think this may be turn out well.
      Guess most of them simply don’t know a shit about what Jagged Alliance is.

    • Pemptus says:

      @Tuco: Or maybe they just don’t treat computer games as a religion?

      I think changing the system from turn-based to real-time is a terrible idea, and that’s probably why I’ll be giving this one a miss, after trying the demo. Hell, maybe it’ll turn out to be playable. Huge Jagged Alliance fan btw.

      Same thing as with Fallout. I was greatly disappointed with F3, but didn’t find myself betrayed or slapped in the face like the forum-posting “true fans”. I played for a while, found it very meh, and moved on.

    • jeremypeel says:

      RPG Cod-

      Sorry, automatic wretch response there. RPG Codex? Reasoned Debating Forum of the Year 2009? Why didn’t you say so?

    • Psyk says:

      Or we choose to wait and see and think that crying online like a bunch of babies is a sad waste of time.

    • CMaster says:

      RAWRRR! I AM ANGRY AND DISSAPOINTED THAT NOT EVERYBODY SHARES THE SAME OPINIONS AS ME.

      Because you know, actually trying how the system works in reality would be crazy. We should simply hurl shit now.

      It does however seem that they are abandoning the “pure remake” angle a little.

    • Tuco says:

      @CMaster: We all tried those hybrid systems too many times and we know how they always turn out being absolute shit.

      But I can understand how someone who just doesn’t know a shit about strategy and tactical games can obviously just don’t care about it.

      My problem is: I love this franchise and i was hoping for a true revamp, not for the dumbing down which you find so interesting.

    • CMaster says:

      @Tuco
      My point wasn’t whether you should have to like this change. It’s clearly a departure from the stated (if slightly questionable) aim to simply remake JA2 for modern computers. Certainly, the system they are changing to might be bad and not to your tastes. I was merely singleing out this crazy phrase: “P.S. By the way RPS user base is very disappointing. Almost everywhere discontent is unanimous, but here there are many “Uh, don’t know, maybe real time is better”. You are legitimating this kind of shitty marketing decisions, guys.” – youre basically saying it’s unacceptable for people on here to have a different point of view, and everything wrong in the world is because others here disagree with you.

      (For the record, I personally love stratergy games, without being reliant on them. I’ve never entirley liked turn-based systems as an abstraction, but it can work better than some others and does allow multiplayer better than a pauseable system. I also think that the attitude of a lot of developers/finacers of “real time games sell more, therefore every game should be realtime” is crazy. There’s obviously a chunk of gamers who want a turn based tactics game, so why not give them that and clean up due to the lack of competetion?)

  31. jeremypeel says:

    I’m putting this in a seperate comment, as I’ve made enough points in the last already.

    What does this mean for Jagged Alliance Online? A turn-based system would make so much more sense in a browser-based game.

    To be honest, I’ve been looking forward to that far more than the remake, a far less interesting proposition.

  32. Caleb367 says:

    Hm, semi-realtime X-Com Apocalypse style? Could be interesting. Well, i’d prefer the old turn-based system, but could be worth trying.

    On the other hand, at the mere thought of a revamped JA2 ‘im screaming and tearing my hair off like a little girl. Heck, I’ve been playing JA2 for freaking ten years.

    Between this and Dead State, I think I’m gonna kiss my social life goodbye once and for all. XD

  33. coldwave says:

    Actually, I think it’s ok.

    As long as they implement it smoothly, like Brigade E5 or 7.62( only wiyhout bugs).

    Fully turn-based system is too flawed and unrealistic for a tactical shootan game.

    And I absolutely love both JA2( and v. 1.13 too) and X-com.

    • Tuco says:

      Yeah, actually I think it can turn out “well” just like Brigade E5 or 7.62, which in fact were far less compelling games, nowhere near to the original Jagged Alliance in any way.
      Just poor copies with bad implementation.

      And you know what? If I must choose between poor copies and original I’ll stick with the original.
      So I’ve done so far, and so I’m doing with this one, in fact.

    • Pemptus says:

      @Tuco: Good for you lil’ buddy! You’ve finally arrived at the conclusion that you don’t have to play games you don’t like! Clapclapclap!

    • Tuco says:

      @Pemptus: what about don’t buying licences they don’t care about?

      I’m not pissed cause someone is making a game I don’t like, I’m pissed cause someone bought a licence I care a bout just for the sake of turning it in a generic mediocre RTS like thousands out here; *preventing* any chance to revive this franchise in a genuine manner.

    • Archonsod says:

      “Yeah, actually I think it can turn out “well” just like Brigade E5 or 7.62, which in fact were far less compelling games, nowhere near to the original Jagged Alliance in any way.”

      Actually the combat was a lot better. The problem was the narrative and indeed any sense of direction was buried under a mess of horribly mangled translation, lacklustre quests and bugs like entire cities turning randomly hostile for no reason whatsoever. But the combat and gun porn was excellent.

  34. Zogtee says:

    I don’t care, because I have all the original games from GOG, and never expected anything from this.

  35. Curvespace says:

    One of the biggest changes which people have kind of ignored is the removal of Fog of War. That makes a huge difference to gameplay and removes one of the most important dramatic devices in my opinion. Approaching a village or compound, unsure of who’s inside it or how jacked-up with weapons they are forces you to constantly make interesting strategic choices. Getting rid of this it will just be a question of sweeping the map from the weakest point of contact onwards. Lame.

    • blind_boy_grunt says:

      i actually always liked the idea of real time with pauses. In my mind it always seemed full of potential, effective flanking, surpressive fire, run&gunning, surprising someone from behind, etc.
      Still i just don’t know how these guys couldn’t have anticipated at least some of the hate. I mean they seem to pretty slavishly remake ja2 and than someone says wait let’s make it younger and hipper and they completely throw out or change a pretty essential part of the game. The irritating thing is perhaps that they didn’t throw out something the fans loved because it wasn’t working but because they decided it wasn’t attractive enough.
      But the thing is this: no fog of war? are they completely fucking nuts? THIS IS THE WRONG WAY! THIS IS WERE I DRAW THE LINE IN THE SAND! =)
      It seems they want to minimize the save’n’load of the original, which on the one hand seems like a good idea but as stupid as it sounds the need to save and load made ja2 feel a bit more real, like you were fighting an actual enemy, someone who really wanted to kill you (and often did). The removal of the fog of war makes it more game like and ja looses a lot of the suspens.
      But i guess i’ll wait for the game to judge

    • blind_boy_grunt says:

      i just read this from the developer:
      “we have of course also scrutinized the combat system to assess how here too we can produce an up-to-date adaptation and version. This has not happened without first having an intense exchange of opinion with fans and enthusiasts of the genre. In this respect, we have also looked closely at the later developments in classic games such as the Fallout series for example.”

      I guess this is the problem. They think they are gonna have as much success as fallout3 by just making the battles real-time. Or perhaps they are talking about fallout:tactics.

    • Josh W says:

      Exactly, removing fog of war is so serious!

      Any game that requires scouting as a portion of it’s mechanics can be manipulated via the save system. The same is true of games with a large randomised component. This is a reason for adding options for special difficulty modes with only save-and-quit, or with autosaves on every turn. Or a reason for semi-randomised levels and save before battle. It is not a reason for changing the information balance of the game.

      Play Poker with all the other players showing you their hands, it will be so much more strategic!

      On other hand you can make games work without a scouting mechanic, it’s just taking a whole facet out of the game.

      My gut impression is that these game designers seem very much like choreographers than improvisers, who loved the potential for setting up elaborate stratergies with the game, but felt frustrated by it’s “randomness”. Unlike turnbased vs real time, fog of war is much easier to implement as a mode, because you can plug it into the code in the AI and UI sections, while leaving the rest of the game logic intact. I’m sure there are a lot of people who would appreciate a “no fog of war” mode in a number of stratergy games, and many implement it as a cheat, but equally many people, particularly fans, will value it exactly for the spanners it puts in their works, and the requirements for proper scouting it opens up.

    • Ozzie says:

      You couldn’t save/load cheat your way through JA2, since the game saved the randomized numbers for the current move that determine the results of your actions. Therefore, it’s not a helpful tactic.
      Fallout did let you do it though, and oh boy, did I use it often. But its turnbased combat sucked anyway.

  36. SwiftRanger says:

    JA2 still reigns supreme in its genre, beating the hell out of X-Com and Silent Storm imo. It’s a 1998(!) game though so the last thing we needed was a move into another genre, there simply aren’t any turnbased squadbased in development anymore now. Real-time with pause isn’t turnbased, period. I am not gonna compare Baldur’s Gate and The Temple of Elemental Evil either, anyone who has played both games knows which one is the most tactical and engaging. Not complaining that a new JA isn’t a turnbased game is like admitting you don’t want a revival of turnbased games. Shame on all of you.

    No line-of-sight is hilarious as well. bitComposer has already lost most of their goodwill now, hopefully they at least provide a turnbased option or the ability to mod it in.

  37. hamster says:

    Hurray…I hated the whole AP system where people would miss turn after turn after turn. The only turn based strat games i think are still viable in today’s market are games like the King’s Bounty remake. As for staying true to JA2, l’m pretty sure the devs are making JA2 for more than just the fans of the original game.

    p.s.: i’m guessing they took away LOS because it made exploring enemy compounds too time consuming. Maybe they could add LOS back in the moment you initiate combat.

  38. Clovis says:

    Realtime with pause is very, very different than turn based, especially for JA2. I see movement as the biggest problem. JA2 was all about using your MPs to the max. Let’s see, I can fire off two rounds at that guy and then I have enough left to move to that crate and duck. The interruption system was very important too. Your plan falls apart when you round that corner into a shotgun blast. Realtime with pause can have some of these elements, but will never deliver the same kind of meticulous planning of the turn-based version.

    I’m playing DA:O right now. For some reason, even though it should move along faster, I find realtime with pause to be very tedious. I’m always missing opportunities to have used the best ability on the best enemy at the best time. I have a hard time shrugging that off, but I’m getting used to it. I’d prefer a pure turn based system there too. I always feel like flanking should devolve into a weird waltz. When it doesn’t I feel like I’m just getting away with something. ::shrug::

    Anyway, having said that, this game can still be good in the same way the XCOM can still be good. It would be great if they kept the gore from the original, for example. You could definitely decapitate people. I remember the hospital area to be especially grisly looking. The weapons, inventory, the crazy merc characters, etc. can definitely make the game good. The combat won’t be like JA2, but maybe it will be fun in it’s own way. Maybe the new JA will feature an orders system like DA:O but with unlimited slots and better commands; that could be cool. It just sucks that a classic squad turn based tactical sim is not being made by someone.

    • ulix says:

      “I’m playing DA:O right now. For some reason, even though it should move along faster, I find realtime with pause to be very tedious. I’m always missing opportunities to have used the best ability on the best enemy at the best time.”

      You mean… like it would be… in reality? Don’t say!

    • Archonsod says:

      “I see movement as the biggest problem. JA2 was all about using your MPs to the max. Let’s see, I can fire off two rounds at that guy and then I have enough left to move to that crate and duck.”

      Thing to remember is in a real time system, the guy doesn’t just stand there while you snap off two shots and run for the crate. You can have other things instead, like do you waste five seconds dropping to a prone position before shooting, or do you start shooting in the hope you can get off those shots before he can bring his weapon around to fire. He might even run for cover himself once you start shooting, so you need to take that into account too.

    • arccos says:

      “The interruption system was very important too. Your plan falls apart when you round that corner into a shotgun blast.”

      This combined with the way fog of war was implemented was my biggest problem with the game. If a merc rounds a corner and get killed before being able to respond, what does the player do? He doesn’t keep on playing. He loads from a save and doesn’t round that corner. Same thing with getting surprised walking into a group of enemies.

      That’s not interesting. There’s no real adjustment to your strategy because you were surprised. You just reload and treat the enemy like you know its there when its still in the fog. It was a cheap, broken part of the game. If they made the mercs more disposable, similar to X-Com, it would make more sense to continue playing after a couple got popped. But nobody plays JA2 like that.

    • Clovis says:

      @ulix: Reality? I’m talking about games. Neither JA2 or DA:O have anything at all to do with reality. I find turn based more fun.

      @Archonsod: You make a really good point. It’s strange. I like how I get such fine tuned controls in pure turn based, but when that’s applied to real-time I hate it. I can’t do those calculations you area mentioning. Maybe I’m just too dumb. It’s too complicated like that. And then when I hit play too much stuff happens at once. I’d be pausing every two seconds to understand what happened in the last two seconds. Also, the abstraction in turn based games never bothered me. If I play JA2 or Blood Bowl, I don’t remember my actions in turn based. I remember the battle/play in real time. Plus I know all the details.

      Ok, an example. I give a bunch of orders to shoot various enemies in various body parts and then hit play. Shots go off everywhere. Ok, what happened? I saw the one dude get hit, but what about the other 6 shots. I guess I gotta’ check each enemy to see if they were hit. Blah.

      Realtime with pause can definitely be fun, but just not in the same way. And sure, it can definitely involve more decisions and be more complex. That’s just not what I want. I don’t enjoy that particular kind of complexity, I guess.

      @arccos: I loved that though! If you got a shotgun to the head by turning a blind corner then it is your own fault. JA2 shouldn’t be played by constantly re-loading, although I did occasionally resort to it. Mostly you learn from your mistakes. I really don’t remember too many times the game felt unfair. If something went wrong it was either a bad “dice roll” or I screwed up. I do agree that JA2 was more prone to save/reload than XCOM. Most mercs were not disposable. It was still fun though; I liked dealing with a highly injured team. I don’t see how removing the fog of war would make the game better though.

    • Heynes says:

      @ulix
      By your implied logic, simulations would be the funnest and most popular games on the market.

    • Archonsod says:

      ” I can’t do those calculations you area mentioning.”

      It’s no different from a situation in X Com where you have enough TU’s to take a third shot at an alien or take cover; you’re just taking a gamble on whether you can hit and kill with that last shot or whether you want to run.

      “Ok, an example. I give a bunch of orders to shoot various enemies in various body parts and then hit play. Shots go off everywhere. Ok, what happened? I saw the one dude get hit, but what about the other 6 shots. I guess I gotta’ check each enemy to see if they were hit. Blah.”

      That’s a feedback rather than a mechanics issue. I’ve played RTS games where each shot generates a hit or miss floating over the targets head and any other notable effects, I’ve played TBS where you have to select the enemy unit and examine it just to see if a shot caused any damage. Too little feedback is an annoyance no matter what the game is, in general.

  39. Sigh Is Me says:

    I’m sorry, you lost me at “realtime”.

    Still, I guess I was able to live with it in Men Of War, so if it isn’t utterly fail, it might be worth playing, even if it will never become a JA game.

  40. Vivi says:

    I’m more turned off by the fact that they directly ignored all the polls and research they did into how exactly they could improve the original turn-based gameplay.
    Oh, and the fact that they won’t include any risky content like racism, brothels, drug references…
    Which makes this another failed reboot/remake/whatever.

    • Ozzie says:

      wot? Addtionally they dumb down the game world? Oh geez, okay, I guess I stick to the original then. A shame, since I thought that the original would have been improved with a more intuitive interface and 3D graphics.

  41. televizor says:

    Wow, considering I’m kinda old (25) but didn’t have a PC back in the day, I missed out on a lot of great games that I later had to play. And some of them I just couldn’t get into (I’ve started System Shock 2 like 2 times now) because of the technical … ummm chasm. Jagged Alliance 2 was one that I did though, I played it during summer vacation on my parents computer and I loved it.

    I was so looking forward to this remake but now… not so much.

  42. Boris says:

    So this is why I couldn’t sleep last night. This is the disturbance I felt. It’s all so clear now.

  43. Wait! says:

    Btw, just realized this reading through the comments:

    Where is the game that has building / object physics and destructability like Silent Storm, yet also fun decapitation by Machete and Headshots and other good time gore, is turn based and has a f*ckton of weapon arsenal to choose from, while carrying out fully moddable missions in the name of whateverplotexcuse via very talkative, highly charismatic operatives?

    No offense, but something like that is such a blatantly obvious smash hit just waiting to be made, I just do not understand why nobody is at all doing it.

    Fun(+tense) combat with gore+destruction+charisma+lotsa guns = epic win.

    Notice how I do not even need a good plot excuse for the epic win part.

  44. Lujo says:

    What a shame.

  45. Clovis says:

    They probably took their cues from Blood Bowl. I mean, does anybody even play the turn-based version of that game? Maybe this will also feature super awesome AI.

    • Tuco says:

      Duh?
      Didn’t played it myself, but every person I know who palyed that game used the turn based mode.

      By the way, they are making a big misunderstanding thinking at real time as “turn based evolved”. It is not. It’s just a complete different genre.

    • Gothnak says:

      Methinks Clovis is being sarcastic… Especially with the AI comment.

  46. Premium User Badge

    Horza says:

    Why hasn’t any other game than Combat Mission used the WeGo system, which is clearly superior to traditional turn basedness.

    • The Hon. Reverend Fred Gherkin says:

      Any game using that system needs to have REALLY good AI for friendly units. I swear to God, if I lost a Merc because he was just sitting there and neither shooting nor moving for the full sixty seconds I would lose it.

      Combat Mission was really frustrating at times.

  47. malkav11 says:

    I wish developers would get through their thick skulls that turn-based gameplay was not simply an artifact of hardware restrictions but is in fact a legitimate form of gameplay that IS NOT EQUIVALENT to real time with pause.

  48. Gothnak says:

    Everyone who loved JA2 goes ‘ARRRGGGHHH’ everyone who didn’t play it goes ‘Look, there is nothing wrong with real-time’….

    JA2 remake loses all original fans and attracts some new ones…

    In short… Stupid move.

    • Jad says:

      Agreed. There are plenty of game series that could make radical changes that would make me more interested in them, but then would make the original fans of the series unhappy. But a world that only makes games I like is a rather boring world, and I’m not such an egotist to wish for that outcome.

      I would be much more likely to buy a racing game if it was as arcade-y and nonsense-filled as Mario Kart. I understand that if I go onto a thread talking about a sim racing game (or even a mostly unrealistic racing game) and ask for banana peels to be added in, there’s going to be a lot of angry people on there. It’s not my game series, I’m not a fan, and I understand that not every game should cater to my tastes.

      Some people like turn-based games. They play games like JA2. Some people like real-time games. They have many games to choose from to cater to their needs. A remake of JA2 that switches from one game style to another will make the first group angry.

    • Archonsod says:

      Yup, because the only reason any of us liked JA2 was because it was turn based. In fact, I completely ignored the gameplay beyond it being turn based entirely. It could have been space invaders for all I know.

  49. Reaven says:

    Each turn in JA2 represents something like a couple seconds, I don’t see how you get around playing this unless its pretty dumbed down… or you pause every few seconds.

    • Premium User Badge

      wengart says:

      Aa long as the TACAI is good (oh hey someone chucked a grenade at me, guess I should chuck it back or gtfo) it should be okay. Of course I have a feeling player focus would be centered on character placement, where to put suppression fire, and microing the guy trying to outflank the enemy rather than torso or headshot type stuff.

  50. Premium User Badge

    oceanclub says:

    I got a free copy of Jagged Alliance: Deadly Games due to being a beta GOG.com user. Other than the obvious topdown/isometric graphical difference, how does that compare to JA2?

    P.

    • Premium User Badge

      drewski says:

      The most obvious difference is that Deadly Games is, more or less, a game of linear progression through scenarios.

      JA2 (like the original) starts you out in one sector of a map, and says “go nuts”. You have complete freedom to take over whichever sectors you want in whatever order you want, and the enemies have their own AI to decide what sectors they want to defend and how strongly. You still have all the tactical battles of Deadly Games, but in a strategic environment where you have to consider where to attack, where to defend, and how strongly to attack and defend in what areas.

      It’s not exactly Total War, but the strategic map does give you something else to think about.

    • Caleb367 says:

      JA:DG is actually an expansion pack for the FIRST Jagged Alliance. It’s several years older, both in graphics and engine. The basics are all there, btw. A couple of examples: JA:DG has no stance (no crouch or prone or whatever) and only one level of play (you can’t climb on top of a roof). JA2, on the other hand… just put Lynx with a sniper rifle on top of that guardhouse and carnage ensues. Or Shadow wiping out some 25 baddies without a whisper (Solid Snake’s a freaking amateur! XD). I could go on for hours XD

    • blind_boy_grunt says:

      the first jagged alliance had the sectors already, deadly games,if i remember that correctly, is more of a multiplayer extension. Which was fun and it had a an editor for maps. For some reason i enjoyed the simplified version(as in no stances, roofs etc.) as much as the battles of ja2. And it had “Unusually Ruthless” Reuben. Ruthless because he killed his family with a hedge trimmer. Unusually ruthless because he had to recharge it two times. My teenage self laughed at that for quite a while. He came equipped with a hedge trimmer btw.

    • Premium User Badge

      drewski says:

      He wasn’t asking about the first Jagged Alliance, he was asking about Deadly Games, hence that’s what I referred to in my response.

      I used to love the voiceover when you selected an item in the first engined games.

      “A molotov cocktail.” Yes indeed.