GOD

[GOD]

I feel like outright creating your starting mercenaries puts too much focus on them in a game with such high lethality. Kind of like how you don’t choose the looks of your troops in the original x-com. In most RPGs you’re going to spend a lot of time looking at your initial character because you as the player are meant to identify with them, so having them be customisable makes sense. In this game there’s a good chance of all of your starting members dying, so having the start of the game give them a disproportionate amount of attention feels wrong. The banner and name of your company should be more important to its identity than which mercenaries you start with. It also clashes with the atmosphere that the game currently has where all the game elements are abstractions of what feel like ‘real’ actions. Outright creating characters clashes with this.

JarricMartell wrote:

I really don’t think it’s a huge balance issue to let you specify your first 3 brethren. They are, after all, only 3 people, out of the 12 you will be fielding.
Also, if you’re using This War of Mine as an example, the players that want to start with two old teachers for the challenge can choose to do so, and the ones that want to start with a scavenger, a trader, and a cook for easytimes have that option as well.

It’s the gear that feels like the biggest unbalancing factor. Take that away and it’s much less of an issue. I also like the idea of ‘buying’ your starting characters, though I’m rather enjoying the completely random start that the game has right now.

[GOD]

A warning message will get implemented eventually, though the focus right now is on bug fixing.

The helmet is missing because they misunderstood how DLC is implemented. It may take a couple of days before it’s available.

[GOD]

PsenBattle wrote:

Another simpler solution would be that you “Buy” your founding members from a big, refreshable list of randomly generated brothers.
Similar to the points you use to build a warhammer army.
So you have lets say 1000 crowns and could decide whether you prefer to get just one boss hedge knight or start out with 5 beggars
Just jammin…

I like that. That way you keep the randomisation, while letting people pick backgrounds and appearances that suit the narrative they want. You could also re-use assets from the town recruitment for efficiency. It would need some testing though, to find out whether getting a heavily decked out hedge knight isn’t always the superior choice to taking a bunch of miners and jesters in burlap sacks. From what I’ve seen so far, good armour and weapons can be a real game-changer, so that might need an appropriate price tag attached to it. Maybe make the amount of crowns you get partly dependent on the difficulty level? You could also make it optional and keep completely random version as an alternative?

jimcrowley wrote:

An even simpler solution would be to allow the player to select either one two or three of the characters from the list. This would allow a reasonable freedom of choice without compromising the original design intention and would obviate the need for any sort of character generation.

The problem with that, like Malthus mentions, is that it could lead to the player focusing on trying to minmax the gear and backgrounds of your starting members, only picking the inferior option for role-playing reasons. It could still work, but would probably need to be balanced a bit by something like not letting the player see what kind of gear they start out with.

jimcrowley wrote:

As a side issue to this, the introductory narrative refers to ‘you’ and three comrades in arms – making four. So where is the ‘you’ referred to, as you only get three starting brothers?

You’re basically the cursor and face of the company. Shouting orders, saying who gets what gear, taking on contracts, etc. I figure they didn’t give you a physical presence on the battlefield because otherwise dying would be game over (since the narrative is technically about you) or confusing (who’s the new main character? Who’s the one giving orders?).

jimcrowley wrote:

Also it suggests that the three fought in the shield wall with you, which puts them as soldiers. Clearly, a lot of the potential starters are not soldiers, so the beginning doesn’t really fit the narrative. Maybe that could be changed to ‘have fought with you for the past few months’ instead.
I would prefer the ‘you’ to be one of the three initial brothers, picked randomly or otherwise, rather than being an invisible presence.

I interpreted it as a justification for why the starting members get some combat bonuses, while leaving things open as to when and how long they fought together. Makes for some space in the narrative where you can put your own story. Maybe they’re old war buddies and you decide to get back in touch with them? Or maybe, like you said, you met them only recently and managed to convince them of your plan to form a company.

[GOD]

I don’t actually mind the current way you start the game. This is more of a suggestion for if you decide to change it.

Looking forward to the finished product. :)

[GOD]

Malthus wrote:

I don´t think that would play out. If you would see the possible candidates with their backgrounds + equip you would simply choose the strongest best equipped guys. This is not the way it is intended to be. You shall start with imperfect men.

A solution to that would be to not show what gear they’ll get and what traits they have. So just the bust + background. Kind of like how you hire them, but without being to see their gear. I’m not sure whether you can even get all backgrounds when starting a new game, so something like the squire background might not even come up. I agree though that the point of something like this should not be to try and minmax your starting party.

Malthus wrote:

But what I would welcome is being able to choose how my starting 3 look. You can already choose the names of your mercs, which is nice to have, but you are stuck with their faces While I think it is easy to get another name just by calling yourself with another name it is hard to get a different look.
So my suggestion would be to let the player choose how his starting brothers look completely with no limitations if he so wishes, but let him choose only beards and hairstyles afterwards for them and any other mercs he might hire. So the player gets more customization while it stays relatively realistic in the actual game.

-Wish I could get my hair back with just a click xD-

You mean like just seeing the head and being able to customise it? I personally prefer some randomness in the character generation. Being able choose their appearance feels rather gamey. More gamey than choosing their names, since it’s so visible.

Hair is a state of mind. You just need to BELIEVE. :P

[GOD]

Found this post about there being a level cap of 10, which I wasn’t aware of yet. That would take away any need for balancing how many perks you can have per skill tree or an altering of perks acquired per level up. It does make me wonder whether acquiring perks will be limited to level up, or whether certain events can result in mercenaries getting or losing perk points.

[GOD]

Well it does basically translate to murder-axe :P

Pole weapons in general were just devastating – there’s a reason why swords were meant as side-arms. So many good ones that could be implemented:
Quarterstaff
Fauchard
Guisarme
Voulge
Pike
Glaive
Winged Spear
Sparths
Spetum (13th century, so just on the edge)
Bardiche
Halberd

As for other weapons:
Recurve bow
Viking sword – precursor to arming sword
Francisca – throwing axe
Danish axe
Falchions – might be in the game already? Don’t remember precisely.

PsenBattle wrote:

I think that one wouldnt bee too far out to be implemented. The Billhook or the one handed warhammer are also a bit out of era and they are in game anyways.
So basically we implement what we want, call it “artistic freedom”
First I’d like to stuff some gaps in the weapon range we have. Some more low power weaons like pitchforks, wooden flails, woodcutter axes and so forth. It would also add a lot of style if more recruits would bring their own, specific items just like the witchhunter with his hat.

The afformentioned sling would fit as a peasant weapon, being simple to make and scaling up to military grade versions. The quarterstaff is also something that someone who’s just starting out might have, being both versatile and simple to make compared to swords and such. More powerful versions could be reinforced and of better quality wood. Improvised weapons based on farming tools are also a good source, like the afforementioned pitchforks or sickles. You also have stuff like the cudgel or reinforced versions of weapons that can serve as an inbetween step (like a reinforced club between the club and mace).
Then there’s craftsmen bringing their own tools: like a blacksmith bringing a hammer or chisel, a tanner bringing a knife, a fisher bringing a net or fish spear, butcher with a cleaver, a miner with a pickaxe. Lots of those should make for great, relatively low-power weapons while being specifically related to the background of the recruit.

[GOD]

An expiration date would be more realistic, but it might be annoying to keep track of since your supplies and money are already decreasing as the days go by. Like, say the player buys supplies from three different locations while travelling, how would they easily be able to tell by looking at the supply number which ones go bad first? Do you add different counters or a viewable list? If so, that could get complicated rather easily. Not to say that it can’t be done, but I feel like it might just add micromanagement without actually adding tension.

The real issue is that food isn’t really important from what we’ve seen so far, outside of mutiny, so there’s only tension related to running out of money. You could circumvent this by adding ways to use supplies as a resource, rather than just having them passively go down. Such as arriving at a city and discovering that the people are starving as a result of raids on the farms. If you don’t share your supplies the militia get weakened even further, running the risk of the city getting razed if you don’t put a stop to the raids. That would also give the player different ways of dealing with a problem: give away supplies so that the militia can fight the raiders for now, deal with the raiders yourself or hope things will work out somehow (or maybe lure in another faction to deal with them?).

Or say that camping is implemented. You could add the option of having the mercenaries dine extravagantly and use way more supplies, but in return get a morale boost at the start of the next combat. Supplies will also naturally become more important once the amount of mercenaries you can have is increased and when non-combatants become an option (since they’ll probably take up supplies as well).

The suggestion of a maximum food limit could add further tension to this, though I’d also add a way to raise the maximum amount of supplies you can bring. Something like letting the player buy carts to bring along.

[GOD]

Having slings in the game would be really cool. It’s rarely used, so it would makes for something that sets the game apart from others. It would also add another tactical option that’s different from the bows and javelins. The biggest difference with bows would probably be that it’s less effective against armour – especially when it diverts impact or absorbs it – though it can definitely shatter or puncture stuff. The relevant attributes seem to roughly amount to:

-Cheap and easy to make. Cheap ammo – even if you use lead or clay bullets.

-Suffers from rain, but not as much as a bow.

-Can be used one-handed. Is more easily used on the move than a bow. Excellent weapon for a skirmisher.

-Impact damage. Can shatter bones. Causes debilitating internal injuries. Very deadly when it hits the skull. This would be pretty relevant to the
upcoming injury system. Best against lightly armoured or unarmoured opponents.

-Less penetration than arrows, leading to usually being less effective against armour.

-Harder to learn and master. Has it roots in hunting like the bow and not really used in urban areas.

-Not suited to tight formations or tight spaces (fortifications). Can’t fire over allies in a formation. Needs space.

So as a weapon you could have it be less effective against armour than a bow or crossbow, but it’s still deadly when a hit gets through. It’s also cheap, maybe with a special ability to scrounge for somewhat weaker ammo on the battlefield? Being one-handed also means that you can also use a slinger as a skirmishers, while having it use less fatigue and having more ammo than a javelin – though less damaging. It would also be affected somewhat less by poor weather conditions than a bow.
You could have the ‘hard to learn’ and ‘need for space’ aspects reflected by giving it a greater chance at friendly fire when firing into the lines. That way the player can organically overcome the problem by raising the ranged skill.

You can use it pretty well for hit-and-run without giving up the protection of a shield, so it might make for a good weapon for the Goblins. They seem like the type to use skirmishers and ranged weapons, with this one being a nice way to harass a formation of heavily armoured mercenaries to lure them into some traps.

Some sources here and here.

[GOD]

I’d keep an eye on how Early Access goes to see if any balancing is necessary. If so, fewer slots and/or a fatigue penalty could serve as an easy fix. Otherwise, maybe just give everyone 4 bags and replace that perk with something else – or give everyone 4 bags, implement the fatigue penalty and then have the perk take away said fatigue penalty as in Sarrisofoi’s suggestion.

[GOD]

jimcrowley wrote:

Some great ideas evolving here.

I think having only a single bag slot, with a chance to increase to two as the character improves, is spot on.

I would go further, and not allow the larger weapons to be carried in bags at all since, in reality they couldn’t be.

Nothing to do with weight, as they weren’t particularly heavy anyway, just the size. Try fixing a weapon, that is almost as tall as you if not taller, to your body in any way that would be reasonably accessible in combat or even practical while travelling.

So brothers who want to wield the larger weapons, great-sword, billhook, spear would need to have them equipped from the outset. If they then wish to switch to something smaller in combat, then, abstractly they would stick those weapons in the ground or drop them, use the smaller item and then pick up the larger weapon afterwards.

Having large weapons in the backpack might not be entirely realistic, but it does add interesting choices to the tactical combat. Like keeping a guy with a billhook behind your front line, before having him switch to a sword and shield after the initial charge wears off. Or starting a mercenary with a spear and shield to withstand the first wave of orcs and then switching to a greatsword once the lines have been established.
Having to drop the weapon, arm the mercenary and then go back for it if you want to use it again also bogs down gameplay and just makes it a hassle to use. Making it a hassle to use makes the player less likely to utilise it, which shouldn’t be necessary as it’s not a heavily unbalanced tactic. Items conveying a fatigue penalty is probably enough to dissuade players from hauling around unneccesary items. I kind of like the idea mentioned earlier of making those slots more valuable by giving them less, which also makes the extra slots perk more interesting, though you’d keep the problem of switching between a two-handed and one-handed + shield set.

[GOD]

Just thought I’d throw out a compliment for the art design that we’ve seen so far. It really fits the tone of the game that you seem to be making. Stuff like the humans actually looking somewhat like normal humans despite the stylised graphics, rather than hardened super soldiers. No rippling musculature with biceps the size of people’s heads. It’s also nice that they don’t look like heroes who will inevitably overcome all the odds and more like determined people who might well be in over their heads.
Kudos also to how it enhances the gameplay. For example: looking at a fight between orcs and humans it really looks like the humans are physically outclassed, while the gameplay reinforces this. This makes the orcs way more intimidating than if they were just covered in SKULLS SKULLS SKULLS! SHOULDER PADS! SPIKES! SKULLS ON SPIKES! SKULLS ON SPIKES ON SHOULDERS!

Are there more plans for the character skins reflecting gameplay in a way that matches the lore? Like for example, a young orc who is a bit older and more experienced than another young orc (higher level) having a slightly darker skin tone? That could also serve as a visual cue for the player on which orcs might pose a particular threat.

Also, will there be more character skins for enemy factions to diversify the enemies as development progresses, like with the humans?

[GOD]

Sarissofoi wrote:

But restocking now is fairly easy.
Food is plentiful and cheap and you can get enough money from fetch quests.
There is no reputation or fame now so now it will be just choice of slaughtering few peasants to steal their food and few crowns.
Not mention that pillaging will hurt you because you will local settlements weaker and poor so there will be less supplies, less gold for contracts, less militia to fend bandits/monsters, less items in shops. In current game it will be suicidal.

Precisely, hence my comment about adding more locations to the world map. I’m just throwing the idea out there now and agreeing with adding more locations, because I expect those things to either change as the game goes on (orc invasion!) or for new challenges to be introduced as development continues (larger map, events that affect supplies, etc.). It’s meant for when a desperate situation comes up and how you as the player react to that, rather than a mechanic that the player can rely on as an alternative play style. I’m also assuming that some sort of reputation system will be introduced to act as a check on taking and then throwing away contracts.

Rap wrote:

I know, and I quite like your example. That general idea of the player having to make tough decisions with logical (and somewhat randomized, for the sake of replayability) consequences is exactly where we want to go with the coming event system. This will also afford the player actions of less than exemplary morale – though to what extent exactly is still something we need to figure out. Sorry that I can’t answer more thoroughly to your very comprehensive suggestion, there’s just a lot going on right now.

No problem. I’m just making suggestions about stuff that I feel might become relevant in the long run. Planting the seeds in your minds, so to speak. :)

As for the extent towards which to allow less than moral behaviour, the current atmosphere you have got going on to me seems to be brutal, but not depraved. Harshness without edgyness, so to speak. It’s the difference between getting decapitated by an orc warrior and getting decapitated by an orc warrior covered head-to-toe in skulls, having the orc piss on your severed head and then rape your still warm corpse.

So my suggestion as for the players: yes to waiting for the militia to die so that you can loot the bodies; no to using villagers as incendiary pigs.

Rap wrote:

Indeed, it would require the introduction of a reputation mechanic first. Like you said, we might want to go with 2 values here. A ‘business reputation’ and a ‘moral reputation’. People might hate/fear you for the atrocities your men commit and not agree with your methods, but you might still be their best shot at getting a job done.

A reputation system like that could also lead to different kind of mercenaries becoming available to the player or maybe influence the asking price of certain mercenaries. An idealistic squire might ask for less at being given the chance to fight for a highly moral mercenary group, while a sadistic brawler might lower his price at the prospect of working with someone who lets him cut loose. Backgrounds, perks and maybe some hidden personality modifiers could all affect asking price or what kind of events they trigger.

It could also affect the contracts. In that if you’re trustworthy, but a scumbag, people might come to you with dirty deals that they wouldn’t show to mercenaries with a high moral reputation. You would still get questionable offers as a highly moral mercenary, but the lowest ones are reserved for the less morally upright.

[GOD]

I was thinking less bandits and more how the player deals with a crisis. Short term loss or gain versus your long term interests. In this case: taking the financial loss, taking a reputation loss, or harming your long term interests. So running out of places to restock if you keep doing it would be exactly the point, while continuously taking reptutation hits would also practically end your game since no one will associate with you.

[GOD]

Sarissofoi wrote:

The Devs stated before that you can’t go into the Dark Side. So no raiding or pillaging.
But it can make nice alternative playing when you play as bandit band and start as a bandit with access to bandits dens(when you can sell stuff and recruit folks) and being hunted by patrols and bounty hunters.
That can be kinda funny. But it is definitely future if at all.

They did? I thought it was something they were still thinking about for possibly after Early Access? This is what I’m referring to. Did they change their minds recently?

[Author]

Posts