Forum Replies Created
I’ve never really liked the idea that dragons were only based on singular elements — I grew up with the more sophisticated dragon stories, where they could fly, breathe fire, have nearly impenetrable scales, spaded tail, etc — but I do like the idea of a Davkul late-game crisis.
Davkul, far as I know, is a brilliant original concept from the developers. I really like the dark, gritty world they’re building, and I especially like that the “supernatural” element is so wondrous — unlike a lot of other fantasy settings, magic isn’t commonplace — the characters all have real-world, authentic vocations — so when you see someone who claims to have otherworldly powers, or is actually using them in some kind of capacity, it’s less “textbook magic” and more surprising and mysterious.
I’ve been playing Battle Brothers since it’s early release — back then, magic was something we knew absolutely nothing about. I can still remember the first time I saw a supposed magician actually raising the dead and thought “that can happen? That’s real?” Because the game conditions you to get used to the realistic life-or-death low-magic setting, stuff like that is actually interesting.
I would love to see more story around Davkul.
Odd — I can recall picking this game up maybe a month ago and was delighted to see that Caravan Guards no longer press the attack when mercenaries are in front of them. But yesterday I did note that they seemed back to their suicidal tendencies were back. Maybe there was a bug in the update?
I have very limited personal experience of operating dog in a situation roughly comparable to combat but, as for me, it’s not really much you can do after having dog unleashed.
From my experience with police attack dogs, this isn’t really true. Dogs are great at following commands, and can at times be recalled with a whistle. Of course, it depends on the level of training of the dog. I think a “possible” recall command depending on resolve or other stat would work.
As for dogs just being a distraction, that’s not really true, either — in just about every time period, dogs are often able to take down and kill human prey. Not always — but often.24. June 2019 at 17:28 in reply to: Ranged units can't hit the broadside of an Unhold? #25335
They definitely have limited ranged defense, but I’m still seeing pretty low hit rates for bowman (comparable with much smaller targets). I figured they’d have a legit penalty. Skeletons, for example, are hard to wound with arrows, but this doesn’t translate to just having a high ranged defense — shooters literally have a penalty to damage when they hit. I figure for Unholds the reverse is true, only for hit change, not damage. Even an extra 10% or whatever would make sense, since they’re such large targets.
I’ve pretty good luck with staffslings so far. They’re decent early game, and then useful again later mid-late when battles are longer, and ammunition tends to run out. I only phased them out in the very endgame, around the 2-3 crisis.
I do like this idea. Arresting an enemy would absolutely have a tactical advantage — less broken equipment. And it would have a certain amount of risk — enemy trying to break free (which I imagine would depend on their resolve stat). Fun idea if well executed. I’d really like to see it.
I see your logic, and I raise you one small reply as a response.
Not the biggest or most needed suggestion but I can agree it makes sense.
This definitely happens in real life, and makes sense to occasionally happen in the game. It makes sense that certain types (like the Undead) would never do this, but a handful of mercenaries surrounded after a route? Surrender is literally their best chance, there. No sense dying to the last man sometimes. I like this idea.
I do like the idea of certain brothers giving “team benefits.” I also have seen a handful of “events” where a peddler sells something for you, or an brawler trains another character, etc. Personally I love the Wildman one. But I agree having more tangible benefits definitely breathe a bit more colour into the strategy.
Be careful, though — having too many “necessary” benefits will cause a lot of players to create “ideal” teams covering all the bases, and that can cut down on variety. Personally, I’d like to see more unique traits (or “quirks”) that characters start with, that aren’t limited to occupation.10. June 2019 at 21:56 in reply to: The thing this game needs the most is a simple non-auotmatic biography page #25287
Yeah I like this idea, too. I have a lot of fun with character-building, but it’s sometimes rather limited without being able to re-write bios.
and a feature to change colors on your shields/tabards & helms. Hint, barber, wink…
I actually really like this idea. A late-staged, fully professional mercernary group could feasible have its colours on lots of its gear (helms, breastplates, etc). It shouldn’t be as easy as with a barber, because all but the very oldest groups probably have a mishmash of salvaged gear (as they should, given the theme of a mercenary company). But late in the game, this would be cool.
As for the “attach the standard to a better weapon” that’s just not how battle standards work. Throughout history, banners were… well, banners. They weren’t attached to other weapons because they’d make said weapons too unwieldy.
I’m usually not for the “give all players this trait” option but I will say there should definitely be more traits that imitate perks. In my honest opinion, the whole “how much fatigue you get per turn” notion should be a mechanic in and of itself, as currently some characters just need fast fatigue reduction to balance the ridiculously high demands for two-handers and certain skills. Take “spearwall” for instance — all the character is doing is setting the spear against the ground, for the time it takes to make two swings of a sword, and yet they can only do this for… thirty seconds before they’re completely exhausted? If that?
I must say I would love to play more varied maps, but if “axebro” doesn’t have iron lungs, there’s a serious amount of frustration in trying to use an otherwise fun member of the group. It’s so necessary it’s almost game-breaking. I would really love for this to become a trait, though the fact that it’s so necessary is signaling something. Maybe one of the character stats should directly affect fatigue reduction.
“Iron Lungs” isn’t the only perk that this is an issue for, either. I can’t tell you how badly the game needs a trait version of the “survivor” perk, given just how random and skewed the injury system currently works.
More change is welcome! Keeping an eye out for them.
It’s still a good sign. Over-arcing storylines are really one of the only things missing from Battle Brothers so far; aside from maybe the ability to play politics or develop new industries/economies in certain towns. My own list of “things I’d like to see” is fairly small, but an optional (or “continue when you’re ready”) storyline is the one I’m hoping for the most.
I typically have a build, with variations, that follows these basics:
1) Bowman: I have at least two or three archers who carry two-handers or spears as back-up weapons. I also have two crossbowmen who carry halberds (pikes or billhooks) in the same fashion; this allows them to support the front line once the bows aren’t viable.
2) Shieldwall: I insist on having at least three hoplites (spears with shields), using any secondary variation that suits them. It basically forces the enemy line to take damage repeatedly or expose themselves to more arrow fire if they choose go the “long way” around my own front line.
3) Between spearmen: I keep “men-at-arms” who can swap between hand-weapons — swords, maces, axes, or hammers, depending on if the enemy has shields or heavy mail — to charge out once the shield wall is compromised. This provides the additional raw damage that assists my bowman and primary spearman. Also, I give them throwing weapons — javelins and nets — to cover mid-range fighting.
4) Heavy-handers: At least two of my men should have great axes or greatswords on the group’s flanks. This way, if the enemy makes it en masse around the spearwall, they will be weakened by arrow fire, and I can have the two-handers clear out the weakened troops. This is opposed to early builds that had two-handers in the middle — I find it’s actually better to have them on the flanks.
5) Finally, the minutia: usually one of my billmen is a hound-master and I’ll pick one other character who has high fatigue to have a hound as well. At least one “man-at-arms” will have a myriad of secondary weapons and another will keep nets and more “specialist” weapons. This allows me to keep a balanced group that can improvise against unusual attackers. The archers focus on utility and offense while the two-handers on offense and max fatigue. The frontlines emphasize defense, naturally. So far the build has worked well for me.
Props for bringing up Lords of the Realm II since it was one of my all-time favorite games for years (now on Steam!) This idea might be a little complex for the current stage of the game (given all they’re already working on) but I DO absolutely like the idea of prices fluctuating based on industries, bandit raids, trade, and how many quests you perform for a particular town. Mount and Blade did this really well (another all-time favorite). I’d love to see a little bit more of that here.