GOD

[GOD]

I knew from the faction description on the blog, but I did not think of them as all that dangerous until I saw a berserker get in a kill against some militia that had gotten ahead of my mercenaries. Then he got another. And another. And another. And another. Full swing, no survivors. Next turn he reached my company, killed most of them in the first round and the rest in the second. After that, I made them priority targets for my ranged units.
You can kind of think of them as the Orcish equivalent of swordmasters, in that they’re not a big deal if you just shoot them. However, if they manage to get in a good position they can really RIP and TEAR.

[GOD]

Berserkers are curious, as they seem weaker than the other adult Orcs . . . until they get a few kills in. A berserker hopped up on battle rage is more than capable of causing a party wipe.

Seems like you haven’t had a chance to really fight werewolves yet. They’re particularly dangerous when encountered in the early game, so you should fight them at that stage to get the best impression of their power.

[GOD]

An experience bonus is definitely a plus when it’s a trait, since it means that the recruit gains power at an increased rate compared to other recruits. More power means more survivability, so conversely a exp penalty means that your recruit has a lower chance of survival than a recruit with an exp bonus. It also means that said recruit will catch up quickly to your higher levelled mercenaries when you recruit him as a replacement, making him more valuable than those who’ll take longer. I still don’t like the perk version, but it’s rather valuable as a trait.

[GOD]

That still seems more of an issue with potentially exploiting morale, rather than disengagement attacks themselves. Using a swordmaster like that does sound intentional though, since you are using a combination of positioning, terrain, abilities, perks, gear and increased stats to deal with the werewolves. Basically, your swordmaster is build up to excel in a situation like that. On the other hand, if some skeleton archers join the fight your swordmaster is in big trouble. You’ll notice that if you tried the same with a guy not build for the role then he’ll get torn to shreds. I found that out the hard way. :P I also don’t think other games make for a good example regarding attacks of opportunity, since they tend to be used as redundant P&P remnants, rather than as a legitimate part of the gameplay. It’s always just a prick that barely hinders you, which isn’t a problem there because they don’t want the player to be tied down like that. Battle Brothers, however, does put emphasis on not being able to get away easily. Hence the difference.

Secondly, I’m against disengaging being certain because uncertainty is such an important part of the combat. The game has hit and miss mechanics, while it could also do away with that and replace it with averaged out, guaranteed damage. You could tweak it so that the end result would be the same, in terms of death count, but the end result would be a game with a markedly different flavour to it and would play completely differently. This is because there is a huge difference between guaranteed risk and potential risk, in terms of how people experience them. The latter has more high and lows to it, because the player cannot guarantee what the result of their next action will be and makes for more unpredictable gameplay. In this game, this is reflected by how there are very few combat actions that you can be certain of that they will succeed. Same goes for disengaging. Not knowing whether you will be able to escape or not means that you have to approach the situation differently than when you do know. The only way to be sure is to have prepared beforehand by giving your character the perk that allows them to do that. Similarly, the only way to neutralize an enemy is through a temporary stun, that first needs to hit, or death. An enemy is therefore always a risk and never harmless, unless properpyl dealt with.

As for making it depend on fatigue, having such a crucial mechanic rely on fatigue would make it an even more important stat than it already is, since you’ll become a sitting duck when it runs out. Combat would start to revolve around fatigue even more than it already does. That’s not a buff that fatigue needs, while also making fatigue recovery more necessary than it already is. The result is a lessening of different viable options, rather than an increase, as you cannot afford to not invest in those stats and perks.

I think part of the disconnect here and why it might feel odd, is that maxed out fatigue gives the wrong impression of the state that the mercenary is in. That is, totally exhausted rather than winded. The fact that they can recover through waiting or encouragement shows that they are catching their breath, rather than that they’re utterly exhausted and barely able to move. If they were actually that tired, they would just fall down.

Guidon – You’re more than free to praise your local deity. ;)

[GOD]

3: I haven’t counted them up, but more expensive backgrounds do tend to end up with higher stats. However, this appears to be random to some degree, so I’m not sure if there’s an average baseline.

Nice work on the sheet! I’m going to avoid reading much of it, because I like to keep things intangible to some degree, but others will get a lot of use out it.

[GOD]

1: To a degree, though only the devs know how much. The balancing I’ve seen so far is like this: a background like the swordmaster is rare and powerful, but comes with its own drawbacks and you need to put effort into making the most of him. He is also expensive and there’s always a chance of him having poor stats or traits, so you need to weigh your options. Similarly, a cheap recruit will usually be bad but might turn out to have good stats and traits. The game therefore seems to avoid straight upgrades and there is always a use for weaker tools or recruits, with weaker tools being cheaper and making for good backup weapons if you break all your expensive ones.

2: Yes, the traits a character can get and their odds of getting them depend on which background they have.

[GOD]

Reaching max level not feeling like an achievement has less to do with the level cap itself and more with the levelling pace. It’s not a rare achievement, because the lethality of the game requires that new brothers can catch up to the higher level ones at a decent pace. Raising the level cap is not a solution to this as it would require making individual levels less valuable, as otherwise you’d get overpowered way too quickly, or buffing enemies, though that would result in the kind of gamey powerlevels that the game has been avoiding so far and make the increased level cap pointless (for example: early game enemies becoming a total joke). However, tweaking the levelling pace would have to be done very carefully, if at all, as without a decent amount of speed losing brothers becomes too much of a penalty – new recruits can never catch up, which would encourage save scumming after an important death.

I also don’t think seeing traits or stats is a good idea. The current design of the recruitment system emphasises having to roll with the hand that you are dealt. The game gives you enough information to get a decent impression of what you’re getting (gear and certain backgrounds being associated with particular traits), but there’s a always a risk factor. This keeps the player from spending too much time trying to figure out whether the gold is worth it or not, maintaining the pace of the game. It also makes for an important divide between the brothers that are yours and who you know, and the potential recruits who you don’t know yet. If you change that, you draw a lot of attention towards trying to get your money’s worth, while losing the flavour and killing the pace.

[GOD]

Of course you agree. You are my less coherent sockpuppet after all. :P

[GOD]

I think it stands for After Action Reports? Agree on the sticky bit, for symmetry with the other sections. :)

[GOD]

This seems more like an issue regarding enemy morale, rather than the zone of control system. Both the attacks always happening and getting hit meaning you stay put, are essential in making it so that neither you nor the opponent can move around at will once the fight has started. Limiting either would take away the need to be careful in how you place your units and take away a lot of the tactical depth the game has.

This is because without the attacks at max fatigue, a unit at max fatigue seizes to become a factor on the battlefield. They cannot influence the situation in any way until they regain fatigue and can safely be ignored, which takes away a lot of the danger that is currently always present in the combat and means that your choices have less risk to them, becoming less meaningful as a result. Same goes for limiting the amount of attacks, as after the first hit the unit can no longer affect the battlefield outside of its own turn.

In addition, being hit not cancelling movement means that it becomes trivial to move around in combat, as long as you can take the hit, meaning that you only ever need to worry about multiple attacks if you want to move somewhere. This makes not just the disengagement perks, but also abilities like shield bash much less important and reduces the weight of your decisions. No need to weigh the pros and cons of using shield bash or a regular attack on that unit that is tying down a mercenary needed elsewhere, just hit him and walk away with the other one if you happen to miss. A unit that has gotten surrounded by 4 enemies and starts to flee should also get ripped to shreds for it unless they get lucky, come to their senses or you manage to save them somehow. Getting surrounded is a major tactical blunder and correcting it should be difficult, not merely somewhat risky.

I think the zone of the control system itself is fine the way it is. It’s punishing in a way that encourages careful thinking, while giving you plenty of tools to deal with it. Softening it would take a way a lot of what makes the combat special and different from other games.

[GOD]

Yup, you won’t get the deployment phase if you are ambushed. :) We’ll probably see quite a few of those kind of interface tweaks, eventually. I’m curious how much different the finished product will look, compared to what we’re playing now.

[GOD]

Do you mean a deployment phase at the start of combat, or reorganising the order of your mercenaries in the company menu?

Both are planned.

[GOD]

Yo. :)

Did you start a new campaign when the latest patch was introduced? The patches don’t require starting a new game, but I always do when new content gets introduced to make sure I don’t miss it.

[GOD]

I expect the UI to get revamped when they find that UI programmer that they’re looking for, which will probably include easier ways to see what your current weapon durability is and a quicker way to switch weapons. Rap’s been doing the UI so far, but he ever so slightly dislikes having to work with JavaScript. :P

[GOD]

I adore this kind balancing. :D It’s a big relief to know that this is the approach you’re taking, rather than just looking at damage numbers. Tweaking the AI keeps spearwalls useful and makes the enemy feel more alive (when alive) because they actually react to you using it, rather than just jumping into the meatgrinder. It adds more tactical depth to the game as well since I can now use spears to either deny ground, funnel enemies in a direction or force them to fight on my terms, just like how real spears are used. Details like this really add a lot of life to combat and how you approach different enemies.

[Author]

Posts