Topic: Some tactical thoughts

  • Author
    Posts
  • #2442
    Brutalficus
    Participant

    So I have been enjoying this game quite a bit, and I started to think about what other tactical options I would like to see.

    1. Mounted combat would make total sense in this game, it would add another layer of combat as well as more rations needed for a quicker moving band of mercs.

    2. The ability to rotate the battle brothers 360 degrees as to allow for phalanx formation, or other tactical formations.

    3. Speaking on tactics, perhaps a way to pre determine your formation going into a non ambush battle scenario would be fitting?

    4. And lastly going back to formations there could be bonuses to group cohesion, like shield wall but more complex and demanding.

    #2558
    Buce
    Participant

    I agree that you should think about mounted combat. It’s difficult to implement but it could be icing on the cake :)
    Horseman should have different move options (gallop, trot) and can’t stop easily plus can trample enemy. Movement should give bonus to damage.

    Tactic formations is “the must have” option. Maybe instead of free placement we can choose tactic like: line formation, edge formation, skirmish formation, circle formation and we can mark our battle brothers for different role in such formation like: shieldman, marksman, supporter?

    #2566
    Holy.Death
    Participant

    You don’t need to rotate units. Facing is not important in this game, positioning is. Instead of making specific formations you should consider who should be where and against whom. But I’d be in favor of being able to set a starting formation of some kind. If only to make my men stop forming the long line at the beginning.

    #2567
    Sky
    Participant

    Yes, there should be an option where you can set the starting positions of every member like a default battle formation that is remembered by the game and applied whenever it is possible. Would be real PAIN to assemble in a tactic way before EVERY battle.

    #2577
    PsenBattle
    Keymaster

    3. Speaking on tactics, perhaps a way to pre determine your formation going into a non ambush battle scenario would be fitting?

    4. And lastly going back to formations there could be bonuses to group cohesion, like shield wall but more complex and demanding.

    to 3: A deployment phase at the beginning of battles is absolutely on our list.
    to 4: I think that wouldnt work well with the small scale engagements we have.

    The first mounted units will join the scene with the goblin faction, but we are still not 100% sure about horses for the battle bros. Partly because of game design, partly because of visual representation issues.

    Overhype Studios - Let´s roll!

    Facebook Youtube
    Twitter

    #2584
    GOD
    Participant

    Yes, there should be an option where you can set the starting positions of every member like a default battle formation that is remembered by the game and applied whenever it is possible. Would be real PAIN to assemble in a tactic way before EVERY battle.

    Maybe have the game remember how you arranged their deployment in the last battle. Saves effort on building a menu for it, while allowing you to make any necessary adjustments to the new scenario.

    I think cavalry might not fit the relatively small scale of the engagements. Also uncertain as to how you’d gracefully implement them (they’d require tons of mechanics) while also ensuring that they don’t dominate combat.

    #2619
    Brutalficus
    Participant

    I think mounted combat could be implemented if it was limited to one character one the field, like a commander or general type battle brother. That one character would lend more passives to group morale while alive, have increased movement range, and increased damage output but at a cost of only being able to attack forward or some other limitation, and be very disheartening and expensive to the group if slain. Also the horse could be considered a “brother” even though it’s acting in tandem with its rider, meaning all those bonuses would be at a cost to having another brother on the field for support. That would actually balance having multiple horses in battle as well as you would only be able to have six total entities on the field with enhanced passive buffs.

    Out of battle they could just provide faster movement at the expense of more rations being used? Or perhaps you would draw more attention to yourself from raiding parties and ambush bandits given the noise and dust etc. of horse travel. Additionally they could be reasonably expensive and a rather large investment, even taking a tole on the group finances when stabled (still have to eat).

    As for the group cohesion, maybe it’s too large scale for the skirmish battle type, but I didn’t intend it as being so. Maybe, for example, if you had the phalanx I mentioned earlier you would have passive range defense applied or a boost to shield wall. It could also allow for archer protection but at the cost of archers being unable to fire (line of sight) unless the group broke the circle for a turn to allow them to shoot.
    For example this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpLtXIlkyYA (start the video at 1.25) not medieval, but the tactic would be similar.

    #2620
    Kalanar
    Participant

    Yeah, the shield wall thing from Troy is definitely cool, but not really in the scope of what I think they’re trying to do here. Current shield wall is simple and effective. Mounted troops adds a whole new balancing can of worms that I think would steal from the simple elegance of the tactical system they have going. Perhaps for Battle Brothers 2, when they have the money to hire 12 more people to develop it because they made so much money off of this massive hit (I hope)…

    #2631
    Sarissofoi
    Participant

    I am personally against mounted combat.
    I really like this settings with no horses.

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.