Content Suggestions

[GOD]

It’s not the system itself seems difficult to me, but the conflict with design of the mechanics that are already present which would take effort to deal with. Currently, a random chance of post-battle revival facilitated through a companion is the only one method that seems like it would be suitable. This could change if they add mechanics facilitating the proper taking of prisoners.

One problem that won’t go away though, is how adding capture mechanics that have to be applied in battle can quickly get complicated, as you can’t just have characters get captured during the battle itself. A capture in battle would be the equivalent of adding a certain kill, as someone who is captured is effectively dead and can no longer contribute to battle. Furthermore, you can’t remove anyone from the field, since every participant is represented on the battlefield at all times, meaning that a potential prisoner would also have to remain on the front line. After all, they can’t teleport off the battlefield. To take your net example, it would mean that the person restrained by the net would have to remain in that position until the end of battle for them to count as a prisoner, because they are not dead and therefore still a part of the battle. In the meantime, they would have the opportunity to escape by getting loose or being released by someone else. In other words, the actual capturing would still have to take place post-battle. For that to also work, the net would have to be persistent, rather than temporary, of which we don’t know yet whether that is the case. A club wouldn´t actually be fitting for a role like that, since it only stuns for a turn (which is more like a concussion) and a longer stun would be way too powerful (and basically mean you turned them into a vegetable).

The idea of taking prisoners in the middle of a fight would be weird anyway, since it isn’t really possible to take people prisoner in the midst of an intense scrimmage. It’s usually a group as a whole that surrenders. This’ll get better reflected in the mechanics once enemies can retreat.
As for save scumming, people are free to do that if they want, but a game should never incentivise it when it isn’t necessary. That’s just poor design.

[Sekata]

We’re in agreement for half of that. A capture would essentially count as a death state. The model would be on the ground as though dead, and would be incapacitated for the remainder of the fight. No question there, I don’t consider it an issue. If the status requirements for inflicting it are high enough then it becomes the same as having earned the kill. Same for the mace. Lets say you have a brother fighting a raider and the raider is wielding a mace. The brother takes a blow to the head that would have zeroed out his hp anyway. Ok, he’s no longer a factor on the field, but instead of death being the only option, the brother goes into a state of unconsciousness. Not something that would have to happen every time, and as you’ve mentioned that the possibility could be influenced by a unit that is already going to be added to the game.

So yes, in my mind the captured state would essentially be the same in-game as the death state, just having different consequences post battle.

I don’t see how any of this would incentivize save scumming. Ideally to me, this game would be as brutal as ironmode xcom . On that subject, xcom does feature a capture mechanic that is treated the same as a death state. It’s not unworkable or awkward.

If people want to find a way to cheat then they will. Resources spent trying to circumvent people who don’t want to play the game as is, are resources that can’t be spent on spectacular features that real players will enjoy. Put an ironmode checkbox at the start of a playthrough that prevents save loading and be done with it.

[GOD]

The disagreement on the other half is rather crucial though. ;) Units rendered unconscious in X-COM are stunned and can still wake up, so they’re still in the fight and not in a separate death state. That’s the point I’m making. The only people completely out of the fight should be the ones that are dead, not the ones rendered temporarily unable to fight, because otherwise it’s just an improved version of a kill – especially in a game like this where missing several turns can be game changing. What X-COM does have is intact bodies turning out to occasionally not be dead in the post-battle screen, which, like I said above, I have less of a problem with.
The thing with the club is that hitting someone on the head is a very bad way to to take them out, if you’re planning on taking them as a prisoner. It’s a weapon for a reason and a blow to the head is extremely lethal. They’d need to add some sort of subdual mechanics to make it work, though you’d keep the problem that trying to non-lethally subdue someone on a battlefield could easily look weird.

Save scumming was in reference to certain contracts requiring you to capture specific people. That would encourage save scumming, since it’s quite easy to accidentally kill someone with the current combat, even while whittling down their armour. Hence you’d save scum to restart the mission until you get it right. That’s design that encourages retrying until you get it right.

[Sekata]

Are you sure about the stun thing? I’ve put some pretty good hours into Xcom across about two finished (long) playthroughs and a heck of a lot of unfinished ones, and i’ve never had a stunned target wake up. Get blown up by a stray grenade sure. Explode to bits from a poorly aimed rocket sure. Don’t know if I’ve ever had one get up. If i’m not wrong at least twice a day, its only because i haven’t spoken. Can you send a source to confirm?
Best I can find is this:
http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/655782-xcom-enemy-unknown/65310084
But the interwebs can be full of contradictory info. If you find something that proves the contrary, please let me know.

That aside, lets take m&b for an alternative example. Units can be knocked unconscious and are in a death state. Never ever ever get up. Granted, bodies disappear in M&B and it doesn’t have the same…. fidelity of style that BB maintains, but the game still provides an example of prisoners being obtained through a pseudo death state.

As for the lethality of maces, a system doesn’t have to be complicated. You have a % that the target goes into the current model (face smashed) or a different model (just on the ground out of the fight). One would show that the target will not be joining any sequels, and the other would imply unconsciousness. I suppose that’s what you mean by subdual though.

It is absolutely possible to accidentally kill targets in the current combat. It’s also possible to fudge existing missions by not paying attention and running into a bad ambush on deliveries, or failing to protect a caravan target. A capture mission would be one among many where the player has to make a choice to stay true to the iron man model, or pansy out and start over. To be honest, the fact that other people are going to do that doesn’t bother me. Let them play their game. I’ll play mine and try to learn from the mistakes that failed missions and lost soldiers like Rumold and Grimald and Engelbert… I’m gonna need a minute.

Weapons can be added that specialize in capture, not that they’d be necessary. A few items have functions that lend to set up for a capture even now. The stun on the mace, the armor crushing move of the warhammer, etc. In real life apprehension of a living creature, human, quadruped or otherwise comes with the risk of killing said entity. Nothing new, or unexpected there.

I don’t know, i just imagine a lot of different things being added to the game. It’s got insane potential for expansion in so many different directions.

Edit: Even my forum posts are iron man mode T-T. Those are man tears. I’m not gonna correct the mistake on that reference post. I did goof there. I will clarify though. My experience is with enemy unknown, but I see that units did wake up on the original title. The concept still works in the more recent iteration, where a stun completely removes the alien from combat.

[GOD]

Sure: here and here. It just tends to happen slowly so you usually never notice. But when they do wake up and you happen to be carrying them…
I just saw your experience is with the newer one though. I prefer the openxcom version myself, as the new one is just too disjointed design wise. I also can’t stand the mega-shoulder pads and how you can change the appearance of the soldiers. Curse you space marines!

I haven’t gotten to trying to playing M&B, but disappearing bodies would be something that I could see the purpose of (system load), but would just look weird to me. Though the combat there is not separate from the world map, correct? Battle Brothers has a very controlled map where everything that you see actually exists and can be interacted with, so someone or something disappearing is a much bigger deal than on a map with many different soldiers that are less important individually.

As for iron man, it’s more that I’d like the challenge to be fair and not reliant on the main objective only being achievable through luck. This is kind of tricky, since I’m all in favour for not being able to reliably pull of your actions. But it’s the difference between gambling wrong, or not being able to affect the end-result at all. It would be like the stun rod randomly electrocuting the target for no clear reason, rather than just missing or the target resisting it. The game does that really well so far, since there are no unfair mechanics that randomly screw you over. There’s always something that you could have done better. And regarding targeted subdual, I’d like to see difficult and risky mechanics that make it akin to a kidnapping, so something you’d only want to do if it’s really worth it. Easy to botch, high reward (in terms of contracts) when successful. Like taking a rival noble prisoner for a contract, but with a high penalty if you screw up and kill them.

Also, just to clarify, I’m not against taking prisoners becoming possible. It’s just that I’m nitpicking about how it would be executed. ;) It would take quite a bit of effort to do it justice (if you want to involve it in contracts and such), but could be really cool if done right.

[Sekata]

I can agree with all of that. M&B combat is separate from the world map though, and not nearly as intimate as xcom or BB.

I’m going to disappoint myself if I keep thinking of all the possibilities in this game. I’d love the chance to catch a noble. Capturing one would raise your reputation. Killing him would lower it with all parties, since you both failed the mission and killed a highborn. Those would have to be some high paying contracts.

[GOD]

Exactly. The current contracts are tame in terms of risk and reward, so well-paying jobs that also punish failure would be a great addition. I can also see it kicking off an event sequence if you happen to fail and have to deal with the family of the dead noble. Fellow mercenaries coming after your head. :D

I’m just holding out hope for multiple expansions. A game like this just gets better the more content you pump into it. Norse invaders. Byzantine empire. Slavic kingdom. The Spanish. The French. Dutch, Portuegese, Rus. Sea travel. More in-depth cities. Struggles between nations. More units for all the factions. Etcetera .

[Sekata]

I’d love all of the above, I just sort of worry that it might become too much like M&B, which has a lot of ‘nation equivalents’. It lacks all of the supernatural elements and polish though, widely loved as it is. B&B could really be something distinct and remarkable. The more content the better, absolutely.

[Sky]

It can not become too much like M&B. It’s not like MB, it just seems that way because the world map movement of your unit, that’s all they have in common. When the faction conflicts will be added, that too would be similar to MB and to any other faction conflict mechanics game out there. Apart from the world map everything else is quite different.

But it could become even more than it is now. By giving the characters more of a personality, not only by traits and backgrounds but by adding in some characterizing one liners like the Darkest Dungeon has. It would require some work but would add immensely to the atmosphere of the game. Be it curses and whines on the battlefield, or disappointment frustration or cheering up on town or management screen as they get better or worse equipment and jobs.

Tipps for new players
BB Wiki

[Sekata]

Sky wrote:

It can not become too much like M&B. It’s not like MB, it just seems that way because the world map movement of your unit, that’s all they have in common. When the faction conflicts will be added, that too would be similar to MB and to any other faction conflict mechanics game out there. Apart from the world map everything else is quite different.

But it could become even more than it is now. By giving the characters more of a personality, not only by traits and backgrounds but by adding in some characterizing one liners like the Darkest Dungeon has. It would require some work but would add immensely to the atmosphere of the game. Be it curses and whines on the battlefield, or disappointment frustration or cheering up on town or management screen as they get better or worse equipment and jobs.

Having played both extensively, i’m pretty sure that i’m capable of coming up with an opinion of what “too much like” is from my own frame of reference. I’m aware of the differences, thanks.

I just wouldn’t want to see BB take all of its cues from mounts and blade, when its got so much personality from the features that make it different.

[GOD]

Oh, there’d mostly be there to add more depth to the human side. I agree that I wouldn’t want to see the monsters get shafted! That’s why I’d also like to see the same done for the supernatural factions, like the different Orc groups having different warband compositions and leaders with different perks (one featuring more berserkers, another fielding a large amount of young Orcs). Details like that breathe more life into the world map and the groups wandering around on the map. There’s just so much that can be added relatively easily and that I would like to see. I almost hope that Early Access takes longer and that we won’t see the finished project until a year later. :D

It’s actually rather interesting to see people frequently bring up similarities to Mount and Blade. I haven’t played it myself, so the X-COM elements stand out more to me. Is it really that good?

[Sekata]

It’s a pretty good game. One of those titles that sucks away 100 hours before you realize it. That’s even before you realize how many mods expand it to make it even more detailed. It’s the kind of game some people have to uninstall for their own good.

All that being said, its not perfect. It lacks quite a bit of polish, and rules that apply to the player do not at all apply to the rest of the world. There aren’t even other mercenary companies to contest with. The player is the only one who happened to have that million dollar idea.

In some ways, BB is already more successful in my book. Instead of feeling like an anomaly, the player feels very much like a part of the world. That will be even more reinforced when competing mercs get added.

[Anonymous]

I’m sure the devs have all kinds of things in store so here’s a fairly simple idea.

When escorting a caravan I like to attack incoming raiders because I don’t like fighting with the tactically limiting wagon train sitting in the middle of my lines. But when I move to attack the enemy in the over-map unless I’m clicking constantly my band will simply walk past the enemy. I’d like to see a single click set up an intercept order which continually updates the pathing so my troops will automatically intercept or chase an enemy group.

[Author]

Posts