GOD

[GOD]

Yes. Fatalaties are currently the only sure-fire way of keeping them dead (next to cannabalize, I guess).

[GOD]

Sorry, but I’m having trouble understanding what you’re saying. If I’m correct, you want to see more varied art assets for the weapons? Like different weapon-handles and such? Something like that might get in, since it’s much less work than making a new weapon and they could re-use some assets left over from the weapon quality plan.

[GOD]

Yeah, it’ll get quite a bit bigger. I figure though that the weapons that are similar to already existing weapons will be of a somewhat lower priority than those with a more unique role. Like, will we see the either the glaive or the voulge? Neither? Both? As long as they have a relevant role I’d like to see them make it in, but I dislike weapons that you’ll never want to use and that are just there as filler.

[GOD]

Ah, so probably something like a seed that determines the stats gained per level up, so that you can’t reload and get different results. Or something else, we’ll see.

[GOD]

That’s the thing though, time and effort spent on giving those weapons unique, balanced and fitting abilities, is time that could be spent on weapons that are less similar to already implemented weapons. Me, I like pole-arms and made a similar suggestion earlier on about ones that would fit the game, but I’m not counting on most of them making it in because it would involve time better spent elsewhere.

/

A lance is a cavalry weapon. It’s the impact of the horse that makes it special, with different versions of the weapon being optimised for that role. You didn’t use them when on foot, since you’d be better off using pole-arms build for that role.

Also, scythes used in war didn’t have the blade extend side-ways like that, as it just limits your range and its swing wasn’t useful in a fight. Rather, the blade was extended upwards and reinforced, so that the scythe could be used like a fauchard or voulge. It was basically the improvised version of those weapons, so we might see it in that capacity.

[GOD]

Yo. I’m not a developer, but I’m fairly sure that I know the answer to most of these. :)

1 Yup. They’ll implement it once the save-system is stable enough.

2 Possibly. Multi-hex opponents would require tinkering with the engine though, so other stuff is getting done first, if it gets added.

3 Last I checked, the devs had said no. It’s humans versus the rest.

4 War dogs are getting implemented. Not sure about other animals.

5 Event system is planned, which could include duels.

6 No word on an arena.

7 You mean legendary items? You’ll have to find those, rather than them being random drops.

8 Camping system is planned.

9 I think player ambushes are planned, though I’m not a 100% certain.

10 Enemies retreating is planned.

[GOD]

There are some older threads that discuss it. The tricky bit is that you don’t want to get a bunch of weapons that are too similar to each other, as that is frequently a problem in games. Another issue is which weapons are too modern to fit the setting (though rule of cool definitely applies).

[GOD]

I recall Rap talking about something like evening out the overall amount of stats gained, although the amount per stat would still be random. I could be wrong though.

[GOD]

Some more old ideas, including the above suggestion on Nine Lives on by itself.

Transferable AP damage:
Have a stun do 9 AP of transferable stun damage to the target, rather than just skipping the next turn. For this to work, ending your turn has to count as the unit having full AP again. This would mean that a stun against a unit with full AP works exactly as it does now – they skip their next turn. Similarly, a unit that decided to wait but still has full AP would just skip that turn like they do now. However, if the unit has decided to wait but spent AP, then the amount of AP damage that remains after being deducted from their AP pool would transfer to the next turn. As a result, you can’t casually use the wait command as a buffer against stuns, because you’ll be hindering yourself in the turn that follows.

For example. A units spends 4 AP and waits. That unit then gets stunned. The turn they were about to receive is skipped and 4 AP is deducted from the AP pool of their next turn.

Shield Bash perk:
This suggestion presupposes the above suggestion on transferable AP damage. Have the Shield Bash perk increase the AP costs of abilities by 1 for a single turn (so movement cost is not increased). So it turns into a method that can be used to prevent the other unit from using two 4 AP abilities, while a two-hander would only be unable to attack when moving across difficult terrain (and not having taken the Pathfinder perk). It also enhances offensive use of shield bash as a way of dealing with an entrenched opponent taking potshots (shield up, stab or slash) by breaking the deadlock. You remove their positional advantage, take the spot and then force them to either use their shield or attack as they can longer do both, for that turn, while standing still. Or make it more useful for breaking a battle line, since people knocked out of it will have more trouble effectively joining the fight again. That way you make the perk increase the flexibility of shield bashing, while two-handers not being able to attack should be situational enough that it is not exploitable (and make pathfinder more attractive for two-handers).

I also thought of a change that is closer to the current fatigue damage of the perk. Rather than having the shield bash perk do a flat amount of fatigue damage, make it increase the amount of fatigue that actions take in the unit its next turn by a percentage. That’s more flexible and useful than the 10 fatigue damage it does now, with a percent based increase in cost being stronger against high fatigue attacks. This could be in addition to the AP increase tweak above, in case that isn’t strong enough on its own, or as a replacement if the two-hander is too exploitable.

Nine Lives:
Make Nine Lives tier 1 utility. Keep the ability as it is (once per turn), but change the end-result of when it goes into effect. Rather than the unit being left standing with 1 HP, it falls down as if dead and can therefore no longer be targeted. Next turn, he gets back up, pushing away anything that was standing on him, and rejoins the fight with 1 HP. Basically, you give him a one-off second wind similar to that of the wiedergängers, except the merc was never technically dead (meaning that if the fight ends before the next turn, he counts as being alive and with 1 HP in the post-battle screen) and can only do it once. The only one capable of attacking him while down would be then be the ghoul with its cannibalize ability. Naturally, other units could also take his gear while he’s on the ground. This would remove the problem of Nine Lives leaving you with 1 HP and then immediately dying to the follow up attack.

/

Wouldn’t that pretty much be mechanically the same as having it work once per turn?

It’s hard to give specific examples, since the point of the design is that it does not rely on familiar convetions. Ascendancy and Tone Rebellion are the best examples of what I mean, though.

Beasts seem more to trend towards individual mythological monsters, rather than an organised groups. I like the idea of putting them in the Wetland faction and turning that faction into a culturally unique Beastmen variant.

[GOD]

Nice. That’ll be be helpful when I’m powering through some puny caravan harassers.

[GOD]

Menu options that allow for different degrees of speed for the animation would be nice. Like normal, fast, fastest.

[GOD]

A larger scouting radius for bases would be possible, reflecting watchtowers and such.

He’s talking about fights between different factions (undead and orcs, for example) that you can end up in.

[GOD]

Jago wrote:

I’m not sure I understand. Do you want hitpoints NOT to influence the chance to stun, the chance to be stunned, or both? Also if we tie the chance to CAUSE stun to the weapons, wouldn’t a mere peasant have the same chance to stun as an experienced knight if the carry the same type of mace? That doesn’t seem right.

Basically, I’m not convinced that the stunning needs to be changed (having it be affected by stats). However, if it was changed, I’d want the chance of getting stunned be based on hitpoints rather than fatigue. The stun chance of weapons would remain unaffected, similarly to how weapon damage is unaffected by stats. It’s like how in this system a peasant does the same amount of damage with a greatsword, if he hits, as a knight.

[GOD]

It is cause to dismiss it when there are alternatives to it or if the mechanic isn’t necessary. Hitpoints might be less dynamic than fatigue, as your chance of getting stunned would remain stable for most of the fight, but would make more sense thematically and would give a boost to the stat and Colossus perk. It would also remove the problem that undead pose for the fatigue approach, since they never get tired and thus would always get a boost regardless of how much they fight. In contrast, locked spread or not, making it fatigue based would only further cement the superiority of high fatigue characters over low fatigue ones, as for its effect to be dynamic the variation between stun chances at the different stages would have to make a noticeable difference, otherwise why bother, which would result in large differences between a high and low fatigue character. Fatigue simply does not need a buff like that, therefore I’d rather see the chance of being stunned depend on HP, if the decision is made to tie it to a stat.

That arbitrariness is just the way the system works, similar to how none of the stats increase the amount of damage you do with weapons. That’s arbitrary, as you’d expect individual strength and skill to be a huge factor, but it’s done that way so as to shift your attention towards the gear, rather than the stats. Same goes for stunning, which is part of why I’m against having stats influence the chance to stun – that should remain the territory of weapons. I’m inclined to think the same of the chance of getting stunned, since it’s not all that common and only really a factor when fighting Orcs, which is fine and something that makes them different from other factions, while still being manageable with the right preparations.

[GOD]

I expect that we’ll see a slight change in the AI behaviour eventually so that it’ll attack with multiple groups that are individually weaker than you, but stronger combined. This could result in bases sending out troops to help, if the AI feels like it would tip the scales.
Territory isn’t really a concept in the game, though .

Your first post talks about advancing time by an hour for every 3 rounds, not by minutes. The range implied by a battle taking minutes is already included in the current engagement radius and is actually rather generous in who can join the fight. There’s no gain in trying to complicate it further and would not be worth the effort involved.

Jago wrote:

In real life where battles could last for days, the actual fighting was much shorter. It could take a few hours, including capturing fleeing men, but most of the time was spent of camping and waiting for a good time for an attack (an extreme example, the battle of Tours lasted for 7 days Battle of Tours. Also these were large scale battles with thousands and ten-thousands of soldiers on each side.
In Battle Brothers we have only little skirmishes. These fights won’t be over in 80 seconds, but 10-15 minutes for a medium sized battle (12-12) with good armor on both sides sounds realistic. The largest battles would probably take 30 minutes at most, including hunting down routing units (i.e. finding that last archer).
Well, if you are ambushed in the forest, the enemy is probably very close, close enough for the combat to start in 1-2 turns. You could say the combat starts when your scouts notice something suspicious (shades moving between the trees) and then everyone prepares their weapons.
In other words, there’s no need to chance the game in this aspect. Reinforcements arrive if they are close by. Other enemy groups outside the battle couldn’t move much further even if the battle lasts very long. It’s working, it’s simple, leave it as it is.

Pretty much, yes, though interestingly enough, large battles like that are actually relatively less lethal than the kind of skirmishes found in Battle Brothers. There, having an army around means that you can prevent the enemy from pressing the advantage and annihilating a unit when they break or try to retreat, through the threat posed by others units (flanking, getting surrounded). This makes retreating more feasible, while in battles on the scale of Battle Brothers most of the troops would just die, since the enemy has no reason not to run them down when they can.

[Author]

Posts