Old Faithful? Jagged Alliance Returns

'Jabia' is not an acronym I ever want to write again

Pining for something unquestionably PC amidst this recent torrent of sound, fury and pre-rendered chest-thumping? A new Jagged Alliance game should do the trick. Jagged Alliance: Back In Action is a “modernised remake” of the one-time X-COM heir apparent, and it now bears a release date. Somehow, 2011’s ended up being a corker of a year for tactical strategy – this, Frozen Synapse and all being well Xenonauts should all be with us before dirty old Santa pays his next visit.

Back In Action will be back in action this October 18. On development duties are a mob named bitComposer, rather than original devs Madlab Software. How does it look? Why, just like this. German audio on this trailer I’m afraid, but it gives a pretty good sense of what they’re aiming for with this spit’n’polished do-over of the turn-based mercs:

I’m a bit confused if this is a remake of JA1, 2 or both – certainly it began life as a 3D rethink of JA2, but appears to have morphed somewhat. Either way, one downside of this being a ‘modernised’ remake is that presumably we’ll be denied this remarkable coverart from the 1994 original:

Oh well, can’t win ’em all, eh? One other thing that’s causing… difficulties among the JA true bloods is that this new game will feature an optional real-time combat mode (edit: ok, I can’t tell if it’s optional or not; some places are saying so, but the official site says it’s real-time with turn-based elements. Riiight) alongside other balance tweaks intended to make the 2011 version theoretically more accessible to those who didn’t grow up with the original. Ack, the terrible perils of pleasing a fanbase while trying to attract newcomers – I don’t envy any dev who attempts to update an olden franchise for the modern age. (Edit 2: and not actually being turn-based is about the most sure way there is for a Jagged Alliance game to piss off its long-standing fanbase. Tricky not to question that decision on paper, but I shall wait to try the practice before I judge).

More details on the official, semi-German website. And while we wait for October, let’s have those fond JA memories, please…


  1. unlimitedgiants says:

    That box cover is lovely. You just don’t see things like that anymore.

    • Sassenach says:

      I got so excited when I saw the picture of the box art and then you smashed my dreams by telling me it was just fantasy. You bastards.

    • iHavePants says:


    • Thants says:

      Too much mustache man, not enough mustache man, and Captain Janeway.

    • Tacroy says:

      Janeway looks like she’s about to kill someone with that clipboard.


  2. Inglourious Badger says:

    Wow, that hair! Are you sure that’s from 1999??

    Also, hooray for turn-based-strategy-action-tactics! It’s this year’s point-and-click

  3. Wizardry says:

    Is this turn-based?

    • Malawi Frontier Guard says:

      No, it’s real-time with pause because

    • TillEulenspiegel says:

      Real-time pausable with spacebar, according to the video. And it’ll pause on events like enemy sighted.

    • Wizardry says:

      So this is basically like…

      Pool of Radiance (1988) vs Baldur’s Gate (1998)

      Which has better combat and why?

      In other words, I think it’s pointless replacing turn-based combat in Jagged Alliance. It brings fuck all benefits at the expense of quite a lot.

    • Malawi Frontier Guard says:


    • DK says:

      Humbug. Real-time-pausable has advantages – especially when it’s done well. See the UFO series for how it can work.

      All you need to do is break the real time into small turn chunks – you get an actual turn based game, but with the benefit of real time. The turns are just smaller and for ease of the player, they’re often called “seconds”.

    • Oak says:

      The benefit of real-time is the spectacle of watching the action. I’m fine with forgoing that in almost every case for the myriad advantages and pleasures of turn-based combat.

    • jeremypeel says:

      I wouldn’t personally have chosen Pool of Radiance and Baldur’s Gate as examples for this point of contention – BG has incredible tactical scope, ya-know?

      That said, I can’t really imagine a Jagged Alliance in real time without imagining being killed repeatedly. This is a game in which I regularly spend five minutes or so weighing up the potential benefits of a risky long range shot against the potential for future limbs I’d gain crouching behind cover instead.*

      So there’s no way this won’t be a very different experience. But I think that’s okay – maybe they’ll create a version in which everything won’t be really bleeding hard to pull off, and consequently we’ll be able to play with the emergent possibilities of explodable walls and climeable roofs more successfully. That sure looks like a tactically-rich set-up to me in that there video; what’s more, if crippling yourself with your own mine isn’t JA, I’m not sure what is.

      * Top tip: Always find cover before ending a turn.**

      ** Top foresight: You will ignore this advice, naturally, because WHAT IF IT DOES WORK THOUGH.

    • Nick says:

      I don’t think BG would have been improved by turn based combat, personally. That said an implementation like TOEE had and encounter redesign to match would certainly have been fun (wish TOEE wasn’t so incomplete feeling, even with the fan stuff).

    • Wizardry says:

      @jeremypeel: Hmm? Not sure what you mean. I picked Baldur’s Gate and Pool of Radiance because both of them are low level AD&D (though 1e and 2e respectively). Temple of Elemental Evil would have been a more modern choice for a turn-based D&D game, but it has completely different rules (3.5e).

      So really, I’m not sure what you mean by your first paragraph. Are you implying that Baldur’s Gate has more tactical depth than Pool of Radiance? It has more spells and far more classes, that’s for sure. But both melee attacking and positioning is far, far more tactical in Pool of Radiance and all other Gold Box games. And the advantage of the grid based positioning and turn-based combat means that the targeted area of effect spells that Pool of Radiance does implement are far more tactically demanding than in Baldur’s Gate.

      In fact, that’s actually an advantage of turn-based combat. If you have enough action points or whatever the game uses to pull off an action, you will pull off the action. With a real-time with pause system, like in Baldur’s Gate, a fireball might miss your targets entirely, purely because the enemies have moved out of the zone before the casting has finished.

    • dadioflex says:

      The benefits of real-time with pause (like the fairly okay UF:A series – Aftermath was a good game) is that the game gets made. As a TBS it doesn’t. No-one is making anyone buy it. AFAIK.

    • Nick says:

      Have any proof that it wouldn’t get made as a TBS game? And don’t say they don’t sell or no one makes them because those are both demonstrably not true, just not that many are made outside of console games at the moment.

      I’m curious as to why they bought the JA name (synonymous with quality turn based strategy) if they had no intention of making a turn based game. It’s kind of like the X-com thing, only without the huge marketing force, developement team and “triple A” (*spit*) polish that means it will sell reguardless to people who’ve never heard of it. Who is their target market with the name?

    • Malawi Frontier Guard says:

      It doesn’t actually matter which type of combat is better here. They are just fundamentally different.

    • jeremypeel says:

      @ Wizardry: I don’t mean to imply that BG necessarily has more tactical depth than Pool of Radiance or TOEE; only that it still retains an awful lot and has incredible encounter design, so it doesn’t really say ‘real-time failings’ to me. Also seems to me that the quasi-first person action of Eye of the Beholder isn’t as tactical as BG’s, but I’d be interested to hear if you think otherwise.

      I do agree with your overall point. I’m only picking holes because I too have favourite RPGs, and in truth you’re making me want to get really stuck into Pool of Radiance! (Maybe we should take this Gold Box-y discussion to the brand spanking new forums?)

    • Wizardry says:

      @jeremypeel: Ah, I see. I thought there was a possibility of you meaning that. And yes, I agree. Baldur’s Gate does indeed keep a lot of the tactical depth. Just not all of it. And Eye of the Beholder is way less tactical than any Gold Box or Infinity Engine game because it’s merely a Dungeon Master style dungeon crawler rather than a tactical RPG.

  4. Nick says:

    Why are you saying people are annoyed by “optional” real time when they announced it was real time “plan and go” only and that was what annoyed people?

  5. Bilbo says:

    I couldn’t be happier

  6. McDan says:

    Alt-text: hur hur hur.

  7. Pidesco says:

    It’s Jagged Alliance 2 done in real time with pause. There is no turn based gameplay here.

  8. Vexing Vision says:

    Okay, I’m listening.

  9. Pemptus says:

    Meanwhile, a new version of the JA2 unofficial 1.13 patch (more like a mod, really) was released a couple of weeks ago.

    • Andy_Panthro says:

      At this point, I wish they’d just start increasing the number. Having a version of the version 1.13 mod is rather odd.

      Call it 1.14 or 1.2 or something!

      Anyway, I will definitely check it out. I played it with the 1.13 mod about a year ago, and it was incredible.

    • Alexander Norris says:

      It’s the 1.13 mod because the last official patch for JA2 was 1.12. Hence, 1.13 revision whatever.

      But yes, who cares about the real-time-with-pause vs. turn-based thing? Back in Action will not have 1.13, which means it won’t be anywhere near as fun as JA2. I want my seven hundred guns and my completely overhauled game mechanics (did you know R4462 completely revamps the chance-to-hit system to replace it with a semi-realistically modelled bullet physics system that realistically takes into account recoil, and completely overhauls the weapon attachment system so you can now have an assault rifle with Beta C-mags, a grip-pod, folding stock, LAM, silencer and ACOG?), damn it.

      The real-time-with-pause system sounds like it’ll be neat, though.

    • posfan12 says:

      More like a patch, really. And yes, I wish they would continue incrementing the version numbers like every other patch making community out there.

  10. godwin says:

    It all feels so lifeless and awkward, surely it’d be better suited to a turn-based AP system?

  11. Quine says:

    Santa is just your dad in a suit.

    Just saying…

  12. grasskit says:

    do games really need to have some real time with pause monster type thing, instead of actual turn-based combat? i mean im totally unconvinced that somehow turn-based is supposed to be old-shool and unattractive for new customers. just look at recent incarnation of games like civ, kings bounty, final fantasy series for gods sake, total war (ok no so much actual combat) etc.

    • Nick says:

      pokemon is turn based.

    • Wizardry says:

      I wish more people thought this way. You come across an article showing a real-time-with-pause Jagged Alliance remake and people (rightfully) bitch about it not being turn-based. Then you come across an article showing a turn-based RPG and people complain about it being outdated and unnecessary.

      Turn-based isn’t outdated. Turn-based can be very fun. Turn-based brings a whole range of benefits over real-time systems. Turn-based allows for a larger emphasis on tacticality.

    • Kelron says:

      Could someone explain to me what exactly is lost by a move to real time? Use gameplay examples if you like, I’m a big JA fan. I’ve played and loved a lot of traditional turn based games, but in most cases I’d rather have simultaneous turns or pausable real time play.

      As long as all the tactical options are still there – kneel, climb, aim, etc – and as long as I can still take as long as I want to ponder and plan my next move, real time play actually opens up more scope in synchronised attacks and dynamic play. For me the “I shoot you, you shoot me” model is a holdover from board games and the days of computers that perhaps couldn’t keep up with everything in real time. JA2 and X-Com have systems like reaction fire and reserved APs that all work to try and pretend the turn based battle is actually happing in real time, so why should a remake faithfully copy these instead of moving to proper real time?

    • Nick says:

      “For me the “I shoot you, you shoot me” model is a holdover from board games and the days of computers that perhaps couldn’t keep up with everything in real time.”

      The computers not being able to keep up thing is rather silly, if you actually believe it. Then again so is the holdover from boardgames thing. I can’t actually be bothered posting it again as this debate came up in another comments thread recently, if someone remembers which one and links to it you’ll find more detailed reasoning there.

      Anyway, long story short its mechanics which create a desired effect, feeling, style of game. The way it “plays” if you will. Both systems have strengths, both have limitations, both play very differently – which is the key thing. They are both abstractions, just of a different kind. One is not outdated, one is not modern and up to date.

    • 8-bit says:

      I am not going to be able to explain this very well but I will give it a shot. in turn based you can spend as long as you like carefully planning out your next move without fear of harassment from the AI. even with a pause button real time seems to be all about what is happening right now rather than planning ahead.

      or to put it another way, its like saying chess would be better if it wasn’t turn based.

    • Grygus says:

      If you don’t believe that PCs were initially incapable of tracking and portraying real-time combat among multiple actors then you were not gaming on PCs when they were young, when 16k was a lot of memory. Now it is a stylistic decision, but back in the day it was a choice dictated by available computing power.

      Would you agree that real-time pausable is a more believable representation of combat? Listen, I’m not looking to make decisions while hunkered down behind a piece of driftwood, unable to see my squad, eyes stinging from smoke, with unexamined pain in one leg, but strictly turn-based combat is a pretty extreme abstraction. As long as this system includes autopause options so that you can make important decisions, and as long as the AI isn’t incompetent making all the little calls, this might well be a more immersive system.

      The only real advantage of turn-based combat is that you can make a fight almost arbitrarily difficult, because an optimal performance can be assumed. If your problem is that this means the game will likely be at least somewhat easier, then okay we have no argument. Otherwise I don’t know see what the problem is.

      Baldur’s Gate had this system and I thought the combat in that game was very enjoyable.

    • Wizardry says:

      Baldur’s Gate had this system and I thought the combat in that game was very enjoyable.

      And if you went away to play through a Gold Box game you’ll realise just how much better Baldur’s Gate would have been had it been turn-based.

      Plus, you are dead wrong about the necessity of turn-based combat in the old days. Real-time games were very common in the 1980s, for example. Turn-based has always been a design choice rather than a necessity.

    • Tatourmi says:

      What you are actually saying is that chess would have been better if wood could get all real-timey.

      I wouldn’t say that this is the “only” advantage. Turn based oppens a whole lot of tactical possibilities by its extreme abstraction nature. It is not realistic, but passing a grenade around and shoving it in the UFO in X-com was a pretty rewarding thing to do. The fact that all your troops will move BEFORE the enemy can be used to define a strategy.

      The simplicity of the turn based systems as opposed to the complexity of real time systems also means an incredibly enhanced control over your actions and a conscience of their implication that, paradoxically as it IS the simplest system rules-wise, results in an increased tactical depht, if of a different nature.

      Turn based does a lot more than just simulate real-time, it creates its own world, with its own rules, which can be extremely diverse.

    • Nick says:

      “If you don’t believe that PCs were initially incapable of tracking and portraying real-time combat among multiple actors then you were not gaming on PCs when they were young, when 16k was a lot of memory.”

      You clearly don’t know what you are talking about. And probably weren’t playing them when 16k was a lot of memory.

    • TillEulenspiegel says:

      when 16k was a lot of memory. Now it is a stylistic decision, but back in the day it was a choice dictated by available computing power.

      That’s a broad definition of “now”. Darklands did real-time pausable in 1992. Fairly safe to say that anything after that (the few MB of RAM era) was not particularly constrained by hardware when choosing a combat system.

      For comparison, X-Wing was released in 1993; doing real-time AI for dozens of starfighters in 3D space (and drawing the graphics in software, of course) is orders of magnitude more complex than any real-time CRPG combat engine. Jagged Alliance in ’94. Fallout 2 in ’98. And so on.

    • Nick says:

      link to en.wikipedia.org

      Just for example.

    • Kelron says:

      Re: computing power, I was more thinking of calculating the possible moves for a large number of AI troops in real time at the same level of intelligence as turn based. Maybe I’m wrong, but I’m not sure that would’ve been an easy thing to do 10-15 years ago.

      Re: the advantage of turn based, I want to clarify that I am advocating systems where you have as much time to think as you want but the action is played out in real time. Whether that takes the form of simultaneous turn based or pause and plan real time, I don’t mind. Pure turn based games have their place, and I did not mean to imply that every game would be improved by a real time system.

      JA2 is a complex game that can’t be boiled down to pure tactical decisions in the same way chess can. Its mechanics result in emergent situations which can be dealt with in any number of ways – for me real time play would enhance this rather than restrict it. A strategy built around knowing the fact that I’ll get to move my soldiers first is not satisfying for me. It’s also a game that takes apparent delight in simulating the smallest details of combat, everything seems to be designed to make it as realistic as possible within the boundaries of a turn based game. That’s where my previous comment about reaction fire came from – turn based play feels like a restriction on the game it’s trying to be rather than a fundamental part.

      As an aside, I’m quite happy playing JA2 as it is and don’t want to pay £30 for a graphics update.

    • Nick says:

      You realise 10 years ago was 2001 right? And 15 was still a year after C&C for example.

    • Kelron says:

      I can’t think of any real time games with a similar complexity of simulation to JA2 when it was released. Fallout Tactics perhaps, a couple of years later. There were of course real time strategy games many years before that, but how many of them simulated so many small details while maintaining challenging AI?

      But like I said, I could be totally wrong on that front. It’s not in any way the basis of my argument for real time.

    • Nick says:

      The AI in JA2 isn’t anything special beyond just being functional, which is the case in most games. Also turn based games don’t have to be simply “I go, you go”, they can use an initiative style system on a per character basis.

      And since you ask.. Close Combat came out in 1996 and had much more complex stuff going on.

      Your argument seems to be that you don’t like turn based so its bad/out of date/limited/old, btw. Its fine, you don’t have to like it, but its none of those things, other than old, but so is real time. Well, it has its limits too, but so does everything, ever.

    • Wizardry says:

      But real-time games never needed the same complexity of AI that turn-based games did. The reason for this is that real-time games by their very nature restrict how close the player can get to working out the optimal solution to problems. In other words, turn-based games require decisions that are far closer to the optimal solution than real-time games to offer the same level of difficulty for the player. Real-time games have time pressuring the player. Turn-based games need to compensate with better AI or just generally more difficult opponents.

    • posfan12 says:

      Heck, there are cartoons like Yu-Gi-Oh! based on the premise of turn-based play.

  13. Pathetic Phallacy says:

    Not turn based?

    I think I’ll stick to Men of War.

  14. Soon says:

    Well it’s got to be better than The Jagged Edge…right?

  15. Eclipse says:

    looks more like Commandos than Jagged Alliance to me

  16. MythArcana says:

    I’ve been waiting for what seems eternity for a decent and functional sequel and looks like I’ll still be waiting. Jagged Alliance 2 (especially with that amazing fan mod/patch that adds 500% to the core game) was so much fun but extremely deep. The Sir-tech days are gone and so is the charm that went with this series. I’ll give this a try, but it looks exactly like the 11 other clones that 1C has pumped out over the years – and that ain’t good.

    • Balm says:

      I remember shitty “Hired Guns:The Jagged Edge” and unrelated “BrigadeE5″/”7.62” pair (those two are great example of tactical combat real-time-with-pause), but that’s it.

    • posfan12 says:

      There are also games like Paradise Cracked and Metalheart: Replicants Rampage, as well as the well received Silent Storm series (and not-so-great Night Watch and Day Watch). It’s sorta hard to keep all the Russian guys straight.

  17. Bodylotion says:

    Could be good i guess….

  18. Akike says:

    Certainly some polishing & finishing to be done, but still. *fapfapfap*

    • Akike says:

      Some “Men of War” style cover system couldn’t hurt.


      Oooooo! Just realized that some strange mixbreed of MoW & JA would propably be the best game ever made.

  19. BoboDaHobo says:

    I think a real-time pausable game with some sort of autopause system could be really fun and workable, but I’ve played a few games with that sorta system and they were all such a clusterfuck that it’s a worthless system… it’s more confusing and plays slower than turn based. And, since JA2 had such an elaborate turn/interrupt structure, it doesn’t really even provide any more realism than the classic system!

  20. noobnob says:

    Was expecting more polished gameplay footage of this “remake” in this article, but I get the same “JA: Ivan Dolvich Army” early build preview instead.

  21. sebmojo says:

    The borders are a lot blurrier than people are making out. Baldurs Gate had a ‘pause at the end of every round’ option, so you could put it on turn based if you liked. Of course, the only time you’d do that was for demonically difficult fights. And JA2 dropped out to real time dynamically.

    Conversely, Fallout 1/2’s endless jerky trash fights were tedious as fuckery. Let me choose when I want to get tactical, game!

    As long as it has some good pause triggers, I’ll be happy as Larry.

    • studenteternal says:

      I love all the fallout’s but I unfortuantly have to agree, I think a lot of people conviently forget just what a pain trash fight could become. In principle I am ok with pausable real time, but it can be made into a gawdawfull mess, I had some unfortunate flashbacks to Fallout: tactics watching that trailer there.

    • Nick says:

      I think a lot of people failed to find the combat speed control in the options.

  22. Ashrik says:

    There must be some mistake. Surely, they meant to bring it back as a First Person Shooter?

  23. Gadriel says:

    This makes me want to re-install JA2 or maybe Silent Storm again. I loved Silent Storm. It was one of the most under-appreciated games of all time I think. It had some legitimate flaws (mainly in believability ((You couldn’t see that guy crouching directly in front of you, close enough to fellate you, in a well-lit room ? Really?))) but it was fun as hell anyway.

    This doesn’t look that good. It’s obviously an early build but I find myself uninterested despite. This is coming from someone who has desperately wanted a proper tactical experience for a long time.

    • Saiko Kila says:

      Yeah, first Silent Strom was when, 7 years ago? And it had destructible environment and nice physics implemented, not only great graphics. I liked it even better than JA2. I always wondered how would new JA look and feel with S2 engine.

    • posfan12 says:

      Panzerkleins ruined the game for me. :(

  24. wcaypahwat says:

    Fallout tactics played fine in real time. It also let you drop into turn based any time you wanted to set up fancy manuevers.

  25. jonfitt says:

    If they have a problem with copyright they should go with the name Jagger Delights.

  26. wodin says:

    How is it possible to play a tactical game at 1 man scale in realtime? WEGO yes Realtime no…..while your busy moving one of them what is the other 3 doing? Nothing….

    For a bumch of Mercs there terrible shots…plus the enemy seems partly deaf and blind…maybe they where attacking the bad guys partly deaf and blind syndicate

    • Alexander Norris says:

      Read the stuff the devs have put out. You can plan moves, including delaying like Frozen Synapse to synchronise merc actions, and they will happen when you unpause the game.

      So it’s entirely possible. You just pause frequently to reissue orders.

  27. 30683 says:

    I assume nobody here played 7.62. Its smart pause mode is so much better then silly “turns” and “action points”. 7.62 is probably the best tactical game ever.

    If by “real time” they mean something similar to 7.62 it’s good news.

    • Malawi Frontier Guard says:

      You’re from a dimension where everything is opposite, and 7.62 good.

    • saabas says:

      If they can update JA to have battles like 7.62 and E5 Brigade (Pausable real time) then that would be just awesome imo. Only thing that ever bothered me about JA series (other tbs games as well) was that you can kill most enemies before they can get a shot off which is not only unrealistic and actually took away from needing any actual tactics- good merc with a good weapon could just steamroll everything, every TBS i can remeber ends up being no challenge at all. In 7.62 no matter how good a gear or a merc you have, enemies will shoot at you, they will take cover and using flanking , cover, ambushes is a worthwhile and even must have approach.

      In the E5 forum AAR section, someone posted videos of using real military squad tactics in the game, and it actually looked and worked perfectly and that fact alone raises the pausable real time system above the old TBS for me.
      Also having 30 guys shoot at you at once makes one hell of a sight and one never possible in the turn based system.

    • d32 says:

      saabas go and watch action movie. No one cares, how turn based games look. Gameplay, gameplay.

  28. ivan_dolvich says:

    hi all, i had to finally sign up on this awesome site to share my insights:
    1) this game is a clone of the old jagged alliance 2, as it seems it will feature no turn based system but the modern smart pause mode. if you are interested in this check out:
    brigade 7,62mm best played with blue sun mod
    2) in the vid they basically explain that all features from ja2 will be existing, and it will be awesome 3d nonsense, because isometric is no fun anymore (somebody said that, not me!)
    3) actiontimeline will be a command queue so mercs can do orders in a proper manner. never seen before anywhere!
    4) release approx in 9 month !?,
    just in case anybody has missed it, there was/is a jagged alliance 3d project and a jagged alliance 3 project:
    a bunch of devs went bankrupt, out of business or lost focus, new ja3/ja3d announcements are made every 2-3 yrs
    as a long time fan of the series i am looking forward to any attempt to revive the genre or even series, but i am not betting much money that it will be as good or longlasting as ja2

  29. Tmoore says:

    Few things – I remember loving the original back in the day – I recently reloaded it on my macbook in dosbox and was kind of actually “Meh.” – The X-Coms holds up better for some reason.

    secondly – anyone ever checkout Silent Storm? – Seems like from the video and descriptions it’s very similar in style – SS was turned based, but when there was no action or you weren’t spotted by the enemy it would move to real time so you could move freely. I thought it worked wonderfully.

    turdly. If you’re looking for something to hold you over till the new generation of turn based games comes out, do yourself a favor a try SS, it’s solid – destructible environments, rag doll physics, insane difficulty….

    • posfan12 says:

      “but when there was no action or you weren’t spotted by the enemy it would move to real time so you could move freely. I thought it worked wonderfully.”

      Yes, just like JA2.

  30. Lusit says:

    I still can’t believe that they got Freddy Mercury to give his likeness for the cover art.

  31. Kohlrabi says:

    I actually like that they implement the combat in realtime, this looks a lot like Frozen Synapse that way, and also firefights especially with automatic weapons will be MUCH more realistic.

    • studenteternal says:

      I am sorry, but are you insane? Frozen synapse is the best turn based game I have seen in a long time, but there its combat is A: nothing like that shown in this trailer, and B: not at all real time. Yes the turns play out simultaneousnesly, so if you just watch the results play out it looks real time, but you have no input during the results section ALL of the gameplay is done on your turn in the planning phase.