Malthus

[Malthus]

Hmm I do remember beheading a bandid raider wearing a helmet. But maybe it was already at 0 durability and just not destroyed completely.

"I am a Paladin!"
>OMG, Malthus, there are no damn paladins in Battle Brothers...<
"OK, OK! Then I´m a wrecked down minstrel drunkard pretending to be a paladin, singing so wrong in the midst of battle that even the undead run in fear... Better?!"

[Malthus]

Difficulty has no effect on anything else than starting money, item availability, prices and if leaving mercs take their equipment with them.

"I am a Paladin!"
>OMG, Malthus, there are no damn paladins in Battle Brothers...<
"OK, OK! Then I´m a wrecked down minstrel drunkard pretending to be a paladin, singing so wrong in the midst of battle that even the undead run in fear... Better?!"

[Malthus]

Alesch wrote:

Orcish Wieder… Fleshy Undead (German is a hard language to spell!) seems like it must ultimately be a necessity.

Wiedergänger is the german word for the living dead. Though they could have just used the english word revenant. It also hurts my eyes when I see english speaking people writing words like wiederg a nger or zweih a nder (which simply does mean two-handed sword nothing fancy so why bother with a word they can´t even spell right?). I know your keyboard does not have ä, ö and ü. They would be simply written this way ae, oe and ue.

"I am a Paladin!"
>OMG, Malthus, there are no damn paladins in Battle Brothers...<
"OK, OK! Then I´m a wrecked down minstrel drunkard pretending to be a paladin, singing so wrong in the midst of battle that even the undead run in fear... Better?!"

[Malthus]

This has been stated various times by now, but as there are many topics popping up it gets lost very fast.

For now there won´t be a translation. This game is in english though the devs are german because english is a much more common language. They have a tight budget so finishing the game first is their priority.

They do want to do a translation, but if and when this will happen is still open. Many texts are generated which makes a translation not easier. If there will be a translation it will most likely be a german one first as they stated.

"I am a Paladin!"
>OMG, Malthus, there are no damn paladins in Battle Brothers...<
"OK, OK! Then I´m a wrecked down minstrel drunkard pretending to be a paladin, singing so wrong in the midst of battle that even the undead run in fear... Better?!"

[Malthus]

Do you plan to also introduce a tileset for battlemaps in the tundra region? No trees lots of small and big rocks and so on.

"I am a Paladin!"
>OMG, Malthus, there are no damn paladins in Battle Brothers...<
"OK, OK! Then I´m a wrecked down minstrel drunkard pretending to be a paladin, singing so wrong in the midst of battle that even the undead run in fear... Better?!"

[Malthus]

But you did not have limited savegames in the first place. You can save as much as you want… on the strategic map. Even without the ability to save inside of combat it will not hurt you that much. Fights don´t last that long. If you don´t have the time to play half an hour without running away from your pc you will hardly find any game that works for you. This is not the game´s fault but your inablility to manage your time properly.

Yes a save on exit would be nice in case you have to go, but if implementing this would mean leaving out more important features it would be a bad trade.

"I am a Paladin!"
>OMG, Malthus, there are no damn paladins in Battle Brothers...<
"OK, OK! Then I´m a wrecked down minstrel drunkard pretending to be a paladin, singing so wrong in the midst of battle that even the undead run in fear... Better?!"

[Malthus]

Jago wrote:

Malthus wrote:

Lets say there is a pack of werewolfs following you ok, that is fine they are hungry so ok they hunt you til they get you, but when you cross an easier target, they should just take *insert random puny caravan here* for example.

Isn’t that already the case? I think I managed to outrun a group of werewolves because they choose a caravan as new target.

Atleast I did not see it by now. I do not often cross werewolfs but when I do they usually get me before I have a chance to test this ;)

"I am a Paladin!"
>OMG, Malthus, there are no damn paladins in Battle Brothers...<
"OK, OK! Then I´m a wrecked down minstrel drunkard pretending to be a paladin, singing so wrong in the midst of battle that even the undead run in fear... Better?!"

[Malthus]

To me it seems to work like the stun of a mace. (if you hit you have a 75% chance to stun)
The only difference seems to be, that the charge never misses. The stun still can.

Please correct me if I´m wrong.

"I am a Paladin!"
>OMG, Malthus, there are no damn paladins in Battle Brothers...<
"OK, OK! Then I´m a wrecked down minstrel drunkard pretending to be a paladin, singing so wrong in the midst of battle that even the undead run in fear... Better?!"

[Malthus]

But maybe there should be a bit of reworking of this.

Lets say there is a pack of werewolfs following you ok, that is fine they are hungry so ok they hunt you til they get you, but when you cross an easier target, they should just take *insert random puny caravan here* for example.

Now lets look for some more intelligent enemies. Raiders want to loot get rich and have a lazy life then. They don´t fight because the love to fight, but because they have to in order to make their living. So they should not follow you for so long that they have to travel half the map back to their camp. They would just turn away and find someone elso to rob. They are lazy scum that don´t want to work that is why they rob people in the first place. And hunting a group of possible dangerous and insane cultists around the world does sound like WORK^^. They would also ever take the easier target. Atleast if I was a raider I would.

Undead, ok they are really mindless unless directed by a necromancer. They would follow you forever. Though I also think they shouldn´t be fast enough to catch tha player and if they don´t see you anymore should loose interest. You know loosing limps and such things does slow you down a bit^^ Of course there could be exceptions. Maybe ghoul hunting packs, a group of vampires and such things.

Orcs, ok they do love to fight. Thats granted. But even they should not run after some mercs forever. You know they have to raid and eat longpigs and so on. So their following radius should be much bigger than that of a raider group but not unlimited.

So when a group follows you for too long or too far they should go back to their daily buisness.

"I am a Paladin!"
>OMG, Malthus, there are no damn paladins in Battle Brothers...<
"OK, OK! Then I´m a wrecked down minstrel drunkard pretending to be a paladin, singing so wrong in the midst of battle that even the undead run in fear... Better?!"

[Malthus]

^ THIS

Also if anyone might have gotten it wrong. I am not against saving on exit. I would even support that. But getting in more than this would be counterproductively.

"I am a Paladin!"
>OMG, Malthus, there are no damn paladins in Battle Brothers...<
"OK, OK! Then I´m a wrecked down minstrel drunkard pretending to be a paladin, singing so wrong in the midst of battle that even the undead run in fear... Better?!"

[Malthus]

Holy.Death wrote:

I didn’t see people asking for save and load in a traditional sense, just for a way to save when they have to go away from computer during battle. Auto-save on exit could work even in combat and solve the entire issue. I can’t see a way to cheat the system and it’d still be consistent with what developers had in mind.

That is what was already suggested by GOD and many others. Then the whining about freedom began.

"I am a Paladin!"
>OMG, Malthus, there are no damn paladins in Battle Brothers...<
"OK, OK! Then I´m a wrecked down minstrel drunkard pretending to be a paladin, singing so wrong in the midst of battle that even the undead run in fear... Better?!"

[Malthus]

Alesch wrote:

drew1988west wrote:

To be fair, I defy you to find a game that lets you save mid combat. I really cannot think of many (some, but certainly not many).

…I get the whole wasting my time argument… but hey, welcome to the world of gaming!?!?! F*** I don’t even wish to dwell upon the amount of minutes, hours, days and years I’ve wasted playing video games. But do I care? NO!

From personal experience you can either have a life, or play video games, theres not much room for both

Jokes aside, I wouldn’t have a problem with saving during battles; so long as Ironman mode saved after each and every combat turn.

In the TBS genre? It depends largely on how the battle systems work, but of the games that I know of and have separate battle/campaign portions the way Battle Brothers has I can think of a few. I may be wrong about a few, as some of these games I haven’t played in some time, so feel free to call me out on any that I mistakenly put up.

Jagged Alliance I believe had in battle saves, but I don’t recall for certain.
X-Com Had in battle saves, but not in battle loading.
X-Com: Terror from the Deep In battle saves, no in battle loading.
X-Com: Apocalypse I’m pretty sure had the same sort of set up as its precursors, but I am admittedly less certain.
Jagged Alliance 2 This one I might be wrong about actually, but I’m sure that someone can correct me about it.
Silent Storm
XCOM: Enemy Unknown Although people around here seem to dislike it for some reason.

You’re right in that the list isn’t large, but it is hardly unprecedented. It’s also a pretty short list of games that spend a substantial amount of time in both a battle map and a world map though, so it’s a short list all around. I don’t think that “Other games don’t allow saving mid battle” is the strongest argument to be made against it though :P.

Yes, JA2 and XCOM EU had that mechanic. I never played Silent Storm so this is the only one I cannot even say anything about. But the other games could be exploited like hell because of their free in-battle save and reload mechanic. Why do I know that? Because I did. It was not the way these games were meant to be played. And while I loved all these games – especially xcom and jagged alliance 2 – sooner or later playing a game in a way like this lets you loose interest in it. This is why I don´t want to be tempted to do this in the first place.

You might see it from a different perspective, but I assume the devs DID indeed think a lot about when the player should and shouldn´t be able to save and load. And I also do hope they won´t just change their mind because of people who are whining about the dev´s “disrespectful” actions against “their” time…

"I am a Paladin!"
>OMG, Malthus, there are no damn paladins in Battle Brothers...<
"OK, OK! Then I´m a wrecked down minstrel drunkard pretending to be a paladin, singing so wrong in the midst of battle that even the undead run in fear... Better?!"

[Malthus]

Alesch wrote:

Malthus wrote:

If there is a save mechanic inside of combat it will end like every not-ironman xcom game. It ends in uncounted reloads until every strike you do hits and your guys don´t get hurt. This is neither intended nor should it ever be possible in my opinion.
Though the save on exit seems like a very good idea and would deal with the no-time-issue.

First of all, I can personally attest to having never spammed the reload feature in a game of XCOM until “every strike <em class=”d4pbbc-italic”> do hits and [my] guys don’t get hurt”. I wasn’t even aware that this was possible in XCOM. It doesn’t need to be. Lots of games spawn a randomization seed at the beginning of each game that determines the outcome of actions, and a good many games save this seed as part of the save file. This means that save/load spamming would accomplish very little, because the outcome of an attack, let’s say, is predetermined. The only possible influence is that it might allow you to move a character to a different position to strike, or to know in advance that a strike will fail and so take a different action instead. Again though, it seems to me that the fault here (if indeed there is a fault at all, and no one has put forth any convincing arguments that there is) must lie with the player, and not with the software.

Again, my apologies if this isn’t what you meant to say, but it seems to be your argument. If it is, then it makes little sense, and I must disagree.

There is no need for an apology. I have to confess. I hate loosing my men, in Xcom, BB wherever and I am easily tempted to reload and save them if possible. Even without the second wave savescum feature introduced with xcom ew you could already save and reload and get totally different results in just changing the order of your attacks. In the end you may not loose men but damn much time. This is nothing I am proud of.

The devs have a clear vision how the feeling of their game should be. I respect it and hope they stay true to what they have already, as I am less tempted to have to restart the whole battle in order to not loose someone than I would be if I simply had to restart one turn.

We suggested a good solution for handling the need to leave the game. Saving on exiting the game. More would neither be neccesary nor good for the game.

And sorry, but I never ate a pizza worth 20 or even 40 €. Must be a golden one I guess. I just want to say you are comparing two totally different things.

And to our fireman. Respect has to be earned. This starts with respecting others. And your first post was disrespectul to say the least.

"I am a Paladin!"
>OMG, Malthus, there are no damn paladins in Battle Brothers...<
"OK, OK! Then I´m a wrecked down minstrel drunkard pretending to be a paladin, singing so wrong in the midst of battle that even the undead run in fear... Better?!"

[Malthus]

madmansam wrote:

You realise that without constant automatic saving inside of combat, if something bad were to happen I could just hit alt+f4 and reload the ironman save from before combat started and play it again? And if you’re going to implement constant automatic saving inside of combat for the sake of ironman mode, you may as well implement manual saving. You may as well also include periodic autosaving in non-ironman mode so you don’t have to replay a whole battle for because of a crash. Save on exit is ok but it doesn’t really satisfy either ironman mode as you could manually terminate the program and doesn’t account for crashes in non-ironman mode.

Good point, but autodeleting that save after you have loaded the game would solve this problem. You realize it is not a big issue ;) Atleast inside the combat. And in a normal game, as I said I support saving and reloading out of combat if you do want to. You would still have to fight the whole battle again, so doing this is not without drawback.
As there is no real IRONMAN at the moment. I would say no save but when you exit the game. If it crashes, you are screwed, but you would have known before ;) Thats something for when the game itself is stable.
+ I do not get where you might have read about automatic saving. I spoke about 1 save that is made when you exit the game midst battle.

"I am a Paladin!"
>OMG, Malthus, there are no damn paladins in Battle Brothers...<
"OK, OK! Then I´m a wrecked down minstrel drunkard pretending to be a paladin, singing so wrong in the midst of battle that even the undead run in fear... Better?!"

[Malthus]

Sky wrote:

It so doesn’t matter imo it’s the decision everyone has to make for themselves. A game should be fun. If your definition of fun is ironman, well very good so is mine, but there are circumstances and people in general who like to have an opportunity to save for various reasons. Players who don’t want to save reload all the time won’t do it anyway. It’s realy just a design decision, what the devs think will suit the game more.
But if you have constant crashes freezes and other stuff in games that makes you zealous for save everywhere, perhaps you should rethink your gaming setup and change stuff around to stop being frustrated all the time when a game has no meaning of correcting your own mistakes.
The save on quit as only save works the best for me. Tho we are in EA so it will do only harm.

I do not say you have to play the game in ironman mode. This is why I support the option of saving and reloading out of combat. But as the combat is the main feature of this game an option to save and reload inside it would totally change the feeling of this game. So I for my part say NO.

Your second last sentence resembled what I said before so I don´t get your point of arguing in the first place. If you don´t have the time to finish the fight, save on closing only is the best option as it prevents savescamming which would seriously hurt the game inside combat.

And you are right about the devs and it beeing a design decision. And I would go one step further and say it is one of their fundamental design decisions. They always stated your decisions good or bad have to matter. Savescamming would undermine this.

"I am a Paladin!"
>OMG, Malthus, there are no damn paladins in Battle Brothers...<
"OK, OK! Then I´m a wrecked down minstrel drunkard pretending to be a paladin, singing so wrong in the midst of battle that even the undead run in fear... Better?!"

[Author]

Posts