Sekata

[Sekata]

GreatOne wrote:

Hmm why? xbow = 1 item. weapon+shield 2 items
and character can have 2 items on him and 2 items in bag so it should be ok
Ofc i am thinking about using fast hands perk to switch fast to melee+shield

Don’t get me wrong, that much works. It’s not a problem and quick hands helps. What I mean is that you can have a throwing weapon and a shield equipped at the same time, so that you can block ranged shots effectively while throwing them. The same can’t be done with the crossbow equipped since it takes the shield slot and the weapon slot. It’s not a long period of exposure with a shield in your inventory and quick hands, but it’s still a period of exposure to be aware of.

[Sekata]

GreatOne wrote:

Thank you for your opinion i need to test xbow vs orcs (i am new so never had a fight with them)
For me main problem is enemy archers who can kill my brothers without shields really fast and in this case i saw that +2 range really does matter besides Aimed Shot has even higher accuracy at max distance that xbow usual shot and that is what drives me mad that xbow is something more like mid range weapon.
Btw have you tried giving xbows/range weapons to your first row? how it works?

Crossbow is mostly useful against the Orc Warrior specifically, but honestly the first shot or two on a full health unit can still be underwhelming. It’s not a terrible idea to give throwing weapons to some of your frontline. Every now and again you’ll pick up a melee focused brother with a pretty good base ranged stat. Only issue with giving them crossbows is that they have to sacrifice their shield, which could be pretty dangerous if they have ranged soldiers.

[Sekata]

Crossbows are fairly powerful as they are in game. How much have you toyed around with them and the variations? I say they’re powerful for the following reasons.

The bow is fantastic and can stand well on it’s own early game, especially when you can get a brother up to 70 ranged skill. It’s not all that fantastic when it comes to fighting armored units though. A double tap on an orc warrior or a hedge knight does laughable damage even with a warbow. Overwhelm might be useful in this case, but you wind up bringing a longbow unit capable of laying down rapid but ineffective fire when you could have brought a crossbow/backline specialist who can utilize armor penetration.

There are also two variations above the mid tier crossbow that are very strong. The heavy crossbow has increased armor penetration, and the crossbow that you can get from the goblin overseer (I forget the name) even adds knock-back to the already powerful equation. Late game I’ve had crossbow units that can out right kill a unit and heavily wound another through strong armor in one turn once berserk and fearsome have been unlocked. Berserk on its own can very strongly increase damage output even if you have to spend the next turn with a reload.

The +15% increase to hit chance and the armor pen capability is what makes crossbows powerful. With the crossbow mastery perk, the armor pen value even jumps up to monstrous levels for the previously mentioned high tier crossbows.

The longbow is fantastic for lightly armored units, but the crossbow is a must for heavily armored unit types. Either way, a heavily trained ranged unit is easily an mvp. I know there’s a bit of debate on the forum about specialized range. I like them. I’ve had engagements with 2 longbow specialists where “plethera of orc young” don’t even make it to the shield line. When an orc warrior is a part of the equation though, I’d much prefer a crossbow.

[Sekata]

Only issue here is the suggestion that crossbows and normal bows require similar muscle strength to fire. The crossbow requires muscle strength to set the bolt, but firing is just pulling the mechanism. Crossbows were very accurate at short range and compared to training that a longbowmen had to undergo to utilize and maintain his/weapon crossbows were much easier to operate. Some career soldiers that operated the longbow show significant deformation of their shoulder/clavicle from extended use of the weapon. The crossbow removed the need for intense training to become an effective long-range soldier. The 15% accuracy makes sense in historical context, and bolts could punch through armor, but historically had a shorter range than bows, especially the longbow. As @hruza has stated, this is historically accurate.

The suggestion that they require the same muscle energy to fire is where I feel the urge to speak up. They also shined under different conditions and in that sense one was more powerful than the other under conditions suited to the weapon (longbow at extended ranges, crossbow in closer engagements). Even considering that, some bow designs allow for an extremely powerful shot at short range and the ability to puncture through armor as well. There is absolutely no way that all three (composite bow, longbow, crossbow) have the same velocity at the same points in their fire or have the same amount of power at the same point in their flight. Their “power” was not comparable, and definitely not the same.

And again this is not a history sim. I highly doubt all of the weapons abstracted into the game were at use during the same period in history. Anachronism is part and parcel to the fantasy genre as bits are often taken from varying parts of history, and often certain weapons and customs simply did not exist outside of a very specific context. The knight would not exist without the creation of the stirrup, which took place in the steppe’s farther east than the source material for this game. In short, no geographical equivalent to the steppes = no stirrups = no knights. It doesn’t stop there. No equivalent to ancient China & Korea + no avenue of trade and commerce to spread it = no crossbow. Beyond that, it’s anyone’s guess how technology and armor design would have changed if humans found themselves sharing the world with dangers like the ones in BB. Considering that armor changed with the time to adapt to different challenges, they would absolutely not look like the pieces in game, since those items look like items directly from our world. Different weapons were similarly adapted to contend with challenges presented by armor and other conditions. Games like this fall apart when subjected to that sort of historical scrutiny.

This game is fantasy, and is enjoyable as fantasy. It is also meant to be enjoyed as a game. Balance issues should not be sacrificed for a historical accuracy that could not exist given the context.

[Sekata]

@rydinhigh64

Don’t mean to speak for you here @hruza, so correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure he plays on Veteran/Expert possibly with Iron Man on.

My problem isn’t difficulty. From what little I understand, higher difficulties spawn more enemies in armies/contracts and things are more expensive, so someone playing on veteran or higher should be facing more marksmen. If he can get through them with 2 losses up to day 200+ then more power to him.

All that aside, I still think they should be toned down. Just because one player likes the balance does not mean that the balance is fine. On the converse, many hating it doesn’t mean that it’s broken. They are an enemy type made unpleasant by their frequency and the lack tools and effective counterplay in the early game before the player has had time to get established.

I expect to get rocked by undead legionaries. You see them en-masse mostly in the undead end-crisis. In the late game. Even with a fairly well trained army, I expect to and do take losses. The undead legionaries are amazing and fun to fight. They create a fun sense of tension, and the sieges in the undead invasion have an awesome atmosphere of a withering resistance holding out against an unstopping and uncaring professional force that has overcome death.

A bunch of guys that start showing up early game with hand-cannons before you have the means to really counter them is just…. Meh. If they’re left as they are, I’d be fine if they were just less common.

[Sekata]

@hruza

Let me clarify. They aren’t units I can’t handle. I’ve gotten to the point in-game where they aren’t a concern across different campaigns. I have started and restarted so many games that I’m perfectly happy with my merc band being generically named “Battle Brothers”. My issue again is risk vs reward. For the damage that they stand to cause to your group they are seldom involved in quests that give comparable rewards. They are the BB equivilent of stepping on a lego piece when you wake up at night to use the restroom. I don’t hate them because they’re difficult. I hate them because they make the game unpleasant with the frequency that they spawn. You’re not doing anything that I’m not doing. I’ve said it once, I’ll say it again. “Just because I disagree with you on their balance does not mean that I’m bad at the game or can’t handle them.”

Let me put this in perspective for you.

I’d rather fight the 5 necrosavants on day 39 of a bad playthrough.

I’d rather fight the mercs.

I’d rather fight the 22 strong noble house unit.

I’d rather 5 geists scream at me and send my front line running.

I’d rather a goblin skirmisher 2-shot my heavy with a dagger.

I’d rather a necromancer buff a fallen hero and smash my front line apart.

I’d rather an orc warrior plow through my front line and 1-shot my pikeman.

I’d rather get up at night and step on a lego.

Because these things are not every other encounter, and their unit designations actually tells you clearly what equipment they have. Bandit marksmen are not impossible to handle, but they make early/mid game an unpleasant slogfest. More frustrating is the suggestion that the only way to deal with them is to use a single perk on every brother and play my game EXACTLY the way another player does.

The spawning rate of bandit marksmen takes the game from play and manage well to “pray and manage irritation” when the beginning of every fight starts with 5 of them killing one of your units even when the unit is just some level 1 farmer.

There are dangerous things I love in this game for their style and the dimension that they add. The fact that necromancers now have bodyguards is amazing. Between that and the fact that they can now buff zombies, they are actually dangerous in game. I love the ghoul rework, they can actually kill your units if you aren’t careful where before the enemy type was just boring as hell. I love orc berzerkers. If they get close enough to you and obliterate your brothers plate and all, it’s entirely your fault. 4-5 units killing me on spawn from bad map generation is something I love one hell of a lot less. Especially when I see them. Every. Other. Fight.

And no, you haven’t only been going off of what I’ve said. Several times I have said that handling them itself not the problem. Several times I have said that taking loses and managing risk are part of the game, and you’ve repeated them back to me as though the thought never crossed my mind. My issue is the frequency with they spawn and the risk vs the reward. The AI is not on an even playing field with the player and the field is not in the player’s favor in my mind. This game is not a history sim. It is a game, something designed and coded for entertainment. If I was entertained by gambling, I’d download poker. If I wanted a romp through history, I’d pick up a book. I’m sure a detailed search would show plenty of anachronisms, least of all being the designation of “knights” without lands or horses. We won’t even get into the giant green men running around cutting horses that you never see in half and the little ones riding wolves.

The game could stand for reasonable tweaks. I’ve seen worlds spawn where the most common or valuable trade good is peat. I’ve seen worlds spawn where the most expensive trade good is amber but every other village sells the same thing and it’s hard to get rid of. If villages spawn in one biome more than others, you’ll get a very one sided list of contracts and potentially enemy types. Games do not release in a perfect state. Not in the age of indies, early access, 3 man teams, and and titles that live on after the initial development phase through patches.

The entire reason i joined this forum was because I was under the impression that devs wanted feedback on features and balance. That’s exactly what I’m doing, and exactly what I’ll continue to do. If they decide that marksmen are exactly where they want them, then fine. Their authorial intent on tone and challenge trump every preference I or any other player has. Otherwise I’ll agree to disagree with you. The game needs a balance patch. I stand by that.

[Sekata]

I think we’ll just have to shake and part on this one @hruza. Mid-late game most quest combat encounters with bandits include well over a 12 man cap. It’s painless for the AI to spawn any of its armies. It’s not uncommon to fight 2-3 bandit spawns with decent equipment back to back just wandering the world. When the player leaves an engagement and fights again quickly, it has to deal with damaged equipment and brothers with lower health if it doesn’t have replacements ready at all times. A bandit army can sack a caravan and attack your company with absolutely none of that hindrance. It doesn’t have to hire more brothers, it simply spawns them fully formed and adequately leveled from a bandit camp. Camps which respawn themselves. Units spawn with randomly generated equipment, there is no associated cost. I don’t see the advantage as the player’s here when the player has to replace gear and save up for decent equipment. That and perk points are precious. it’s quite a lot to have to invest 1 for every single brother regardless of role to counter a single enemy type. Wounded brothers have to sit out and the player doesn’t always have the luxury of healing up completely from encounter to encounter. I can concede the player’s cognitive advantage, but I’m still convinced that this games equipment scaling (not it’s AI) needs some extra work.

I respect your position. I don’t share it though. To me the whole point of forum engagement like this is feedback for the devs. Mine is strongly in favor of tweaks being made. BB saw a well executed development cycle. That doesn’t mean it’s perfect.

[Sekata]

hruza wrote:

Namespace wrote:

They are hidden unless they attack, which un-hides them for the remainder of the turn. You can also see them if they are engaged in melee.

So letting them wait to act at the very end of the turn would grant them impunity? Unless enemy made their ranged wait as well (but then with their high initiative they would still act before you). Or will they be still exposed at the beginning of the next turn?

Namespace wrote:

Anyways, you are talking about late-game and sekata is talking about early game if I understand that correctly.

No, I am talking about early to mid game. Raiders are meant to be challenging early on. You aren’t supposed to plow through hordes or raiders and marksmen without effort. At last that’s what I think. later there are other challenges.

We agree that they should be challenging. I’m not suggesting that they shouldn’t be. I am suggesting that one part of the bandit composition, marksmen with crossbow mastery, that can one shot level 6 brothers engagement after engagement given bad rng and effectively stunt the player’s growth/nullify all profits should be toned down since the AI does not have to work under the same restrictions. Or maybe don’t tone them down, but make them less common. I would be agreeable to that. Seeing “Bandit Marksmen” on the worldmap could mean fighting 3 guys with longbows, but it could just as easily mean 3 guys with mid tier crossbows and mastery perks.

Failing that there are other perfectly reasonable solutions. Make a separate classification so different ranged bandits are easier to identify from the world map, or make the risk when crossbowmen are involved worth the reward.

Overhype is absolutely amazing at what they do. They’re capable and the game is fairly decently balanced in its current state. Giant companies with insane budgets fail to balance triple A games properly and can spend years releasing incremental tweaks. I’m trying to understand why its so hard to believe that it’s at least possible that things should be tweaked in BB.

[Sekata]

@hruza

AI is fantastic, that I’ll agree with. Wouldn’t suggest changing it.

However the AI can field more units and does not have to worry about limited resources and time. Not only do these units spawn with their stats and gear, but they can easily show up 15+ strong to an engagement. An enemy spawning instantly with a perk is in no way similar to you having to get your guys through 6+ engagements to take the same perk. Lets say I take your suggestion and hire 3-4 brothers with decent ranged stats and give them very light armor with crossbows. Will they be at all comparable to enemy marksmen with crossbow mastery? I haven’t looked at the code myself. I can’t comment on what other advantages or disadvantages they may or may not have. To recap:

Greater Unit fielding capability + No logistical or resource cap means that it is not presented on an even field with the player.
The same rules do not in any way apply to the player. The marksmen you can field yourself are some of the most deadly units around if you can get them to the proper level, so the charge that the players marksmen aren’t any good isn’t true. What is true is that the player and the AI are in no way subject to the same rules. It is not an even field.

[Sekata]

hruza wrote:

rydinhigh64 wrote:

From a balancing perspective, a “normal” ranged enemy, i.e. marksman or poacher, should not be able to kill ur ranged with cover in 2 shots because of RNG in a game that wants you to play it on ironman.

What should game use instead or RNG in this case?

RNG is inherent in the combat. It can’t help but use RNG. It could spawn fewer crossbowmen, or tone down their initiative, or their perks. I’m with rydinhigh64.

[Sekata]

I didn’t say the archer was my only counter. I said he was the specialized counter, I bring crossbowmen as well. The counter archer is a specialist, and I find a well built one to be great for taking out marksmen as well as unarmored units.

Mercs are only ever encountered during missions with clear skull difficulty ratings. Tell me this @hruza: how often have you been attacked on the worldmap by a roaming band of mercenaries outside of any quest event? Does it happen often? By the time you’re righting mercs, you’re usually well equipped to handle them. When you aren’t the event option tells you that you can walk away. Missions that involve bandits are absolutely dependent on engagement. Missions that involve merc events do not. Even if I haven’t been, I’ve been pretty fine with it. They are not every other battle, and usually spawn with nets instead of shields.

We haven’t even talked about numbers yet. So @hruza, how often have you been able to field 15 soldiers instead of 12 to make up for the roles you replaced with crossbowmen? Crossbowmen who, are pretty likely to get 1-shotted by the enemy crossbowmen (perks and all) until they can get to a ripe old level? Never? Shame. This raider defense mission has protection target locations pretty close by, so you’re looking at a 12 vs 22 with 6+ crossbowmen. Damn you world gen rng. I know, you can walk away. The other issue just comes to the fore. On the spectrum of gaming vs gambling, I like video games that reward good play. There is no amount of good play to account for high initiative 6+ marksmen and unfortunate world gen in the early game.

The enemy can and does pick battles. Are you telling me that every single pack of direwolves/bandits/orcs runs straight for you? Absolutely not. Some do and some don’t. That suggestion is a bit silly.

I stand by every single point that I’ve made. My guy might get 1-shotted by a 2h or an orc. That’s fine, I accept and expect it. 2h are usually named enemy units or fallen heroes-high tier units. Berserkers are pure damage/no armor. They run straight at you and have to close to do anything. Marksmen are way more common. 2h and orcs actually have to close with you to do damage, and can very easily be focus fired themselves. Even then they start some distance away and you have a turn or two to stack odds in your favor with proper positioning. Maybe take the high ground. They don’t have ridiculously high initiative like marksmen do to move before anyone else does. Sometimes your soldier isn’t just wounded in that 1st round. Sometimes he’s outright killed. No time to move out of range. Raider frontline is not always unshielded either, so the “Pick off his frontline” is not always an option.

In the current build, enemy raiders usually move to cover exposed marksmen. Not every time, but often, so the claim that they often expose themselves needlessly is complete bunk. With the nerf to bullseye that makes it fairly difficult for your own backline marksmen to take out the priority units. When they don’t move into cover or have high ground they usually have allied cover. Maybe in 1-3 fights I’ll see an archer remain exposed for a few turns, but not too often.

I have argued the point you are making here on the forum. This game is about stacking the odds in your favor. It’s in my forum account history. I’ve also said that you will take losses, here and on other threads. The devs have stressed it. I have too. Again, not the issue. Stop assuming that because I dislike an enemy type that I can’t handle the game. It’s condescending as hell and will instantly turn me into a giant douche-bag. Most of the things in the game can be future proofed against. A shield brother with a shield wall has a heightened chance to at least hold the line against a 2h character. An unshielded character getting rapid fired by high initiative crossbowmen 1st round hardly allows for counterplay. I understand that the map can turn just as often in your favor, but are the stakes for the AI in terms of time spent recovering from an encounter the same for the player? Absolutely not. It is in no way satisfying to take a bandit mission for 900 gold only to lose a brother that took 400 gold to hire and 12 battles to train. Losses are a part of the game. That’s fine. It’s annoying that it comes from one of the most common enemies in the game with high tier perks and rewards that are in no way proportional to the losses.

You still assume great circumstances too. Does the game always allow you to have kite shields, enough crossbows for a full crossbow backline, enough money to buy or replace them? Tools to get the ones you have up to snuff? No. No it does not.

I’m finding it fairly difficult not to type profanities into the reply box. Stop. Assuming. That. I. Can’t. Play. The. Game. Or. Take. Losses. Those aren’t the issues. To be clear, the strategies you’re mentioning work. I’ve used them. Some more than others (marksmen are seldom without cover). The risk involved with fighting a frequently appearing enemy that starts showing up in the early game is not proportional to the reward. That is my issue.

[Sekata]

I get what you’re saying @hruza , but your counterplay requires perfect generation luck on a combat encounter. I’ll go down the list.

1. Mercenaries are not a common enemy. The player usually does not encounter them often over the course of the game. When I have, I see maybe 2 crossbowmen? They also seem to spawn much less frequently with shields, and in fewer numbers. Where a bandit engagement could be 12+, obstructing your ability to get to vulnerable crossbow units, Mercs tend to spawn in armies of 8-12 if you choose to engage them on the worldmap. I don’t often see them at all outside of that. Between the smaller unit count on the field and fewer units with crossbows. They aren’t much of an issue. Similarly, noble house units do not make up a bulk of engagements. When they are most commonly fought, during the end game crisis, the player has had at least 75 days to prepare. Even then, most noble units i’ve fought have had 3 arbalesters, 1 with the heavy crossbow. Not 4-5 shooting within the first few seconds of the first round.

2. I use a counter archer with anticipation, dodge, heavy points in initiative/ranged def and bow specialty. That role has frequently been killed by concentrated fire. More often, the counter archer in training gets killed before getting specced and the process starts all over again.

3. More on perfect generation, it’s not infrequent for maps to generate with the backline marksmen simply given the high ground. In the past this was counterable. It used to be that if you moved out of range, the markesmen would chase and expose themselves. I have not seen that in recent patches. So in a situation where by diceroll 3-4 marksmen are shooting you from high ground and your own ranged troops don’t have the range to counter, what are you proposing to do? Don’t get me wrong. Challenge is good. A fight like this every now and again is great, but not every other fight.

4. Bringing kite shields is fine in theory, but it also means that once your shields are engaged in melee combat (where your frontline spends most of its time) they have sacrificed a major stat to deal with the skirmish phase. So it basically boils down to pick your death, ranged or melee. In a scenario where your entire frontline has kite shields, but you don’t have a capable archer/marksmen with bullseye and a few more levels, you’re in for a slogfest with a high chance of losses one way or another.

5. Bandit marksmen lack armor, but I’ve mentioned that they have rotation. The AI is smart and crossbowmen usually take cover. When caught, they often rotate out. On top of that, any single brother attempting to close with backline marksmen is usually focus fired and rendered incapable of safely chasing. Bandit Marksmen have high initiative, so it’s extremely difficult for an armored brother with a kite shield to actually catch up before being intercepted. The lack of armor is only a factor if you can actually close the distance before heavy damage is done. That doesn’t happen too often, and again, untrained archers are often clusterlucked by 3-4 marksmen before developing skills to counter them.

Wardogs? Well yea, send him out. If you’re lucky, he’ll run after the enemy marksmen and not a shield brother. Another dice roll.

I’ve frequently been in engagements where the enemy raiders have a frontline with shields and chainmail. Raiders have a chance of spawning with leather armor, but they also have a chance of spawning with very good equipment. I build my essential ranged units with ranged defense and anticipation, but have still had some 1st round killed by 3-4 marksmen that were given high ground on spawn. This is a complete diceroll. It’s completely down to chance. A gamble.

I’ve also been in situations where i’ll move a unit into a brush for cover and an enemy archer will still target him. The last time there was no brother on any adjacent tile. He hadn’t made an active move after moving into the bush and so shouldn’t have been visible. He was still shot. Moving an archer into a bush isn’t a catch all solution if he plans on shooting at all either, since after exposing himself he could be focus fired after getting a single shot off.

Most of your counter play scenarios require time to implement (leveled brothers), or perfect generation circumstances i.e a poorly equipped bandit frontline. Bandit armies make up what, 40-60% of engagements in battle brothers? Losing a level 6 to a backline of marksmen that spawned on a hill within 5 seconds of the first turn doesn’t do much for me.. Especially when there’s a chance of that happening every few quests/encounters given how often you fight bandits. I’ve defended some of the game design decisions myself. I’ve said before, I want to believe it’s balanced, but when all of the counterplay for a given enemy requires perfect generation circumstances, unlikely given their frequency, you’re gambling and not gaming.

I take a bit of exception to the suggestion that I’m simply not developing ranged brothers properly or I don’t understand the game. We’re talking enemy units spawning en-masse with a tier 4 perk. These are units that just spawn frequently in armies over the course of a game whether you’re prepared to deal with them or not. Was your army just set back hard by a tough orc encounter? Tough luck, here’s a bandit party with 4 marksmen. What about your army? You as the player are constrained by time and by roster space. You have logistical concerns like gold/replacements for other roles/equipment/brothers currently injured/brothers that need to be replaced. The AI? Well they just spawn out of randomly generated camps with high tier perks and no need to waste time ramping up. In the future when I can hire several brothers with access to weapon mastery perks with no concern for gold in the space of 1 in-game day, I’ll consider it fair. When bandits constantly need to go back and spend their restricted pool of gold in the temple, conserve ammunition, take time to spec properly, manage equipment with a limited roster, and spend time leveling up marksmen, I’ll consider it fair.

I’ve survived Iron Man playthroughs and restarted out of boredom. Bandits have never ended my playthrough on their own. You don’t have to assume that I have no idea how to deal with this enemy type in order for me to have a problem with them. Believe it or not, it’s possible for someone to be capable of handling a challenge in the game consistently while acknowledging that it’s an unattractive part of the combat. It’s also possible for someone to disagree with you without just being a bad player. I don’t neglect stats like HP and ranged def. I’ve even killed goblins! I know right? There’s no way an idiot like me could manage something like that.

If I’m being perfectly blunt, a few of the enemy armies need tweaking. I have a bone to pick with bandit marksmen because they are common but just because they’re one tall blade of grass among many, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t some others that could use some trimming too. I’ve said it once, I’ll say it again. The game needs a balance patch. Some armies need to be toned down, some need to spawn much later. Some enemies could actually stand to be a bit harder. I know right? Blasphemy. There’s no way a crap player like me would suggest such a thing.

I’m a bit tweaked if it isn’t obvious. I can acknowledge different philosophies of game design. Some like RNG, some don’t. That’s fine. Having to assume the least of a player because he/she has a problem with the design crosses a line for me.

The frequency with which bandit marksmen spawn, their high lethality, the lack of logistical concerns from AI camps means that just by simple eventuality they’ll kill a high level brother and turn the game into a grindfest of attrition. That wouldn’t be so bad if it didn’t take hours to retrain brothers to be prepared for more dangerous enemies in the endgame.

[Sekata]

I second that. I’ve gotten more than one good laugh from the writing. It gives the game world a humorous dimension and personality that it otherwise wouldn’t have. The mushroom event is a perfect example.

It’s not just the humor. Just about every event, serious or otherwise is well written.

[Sekata]

@Namespace

I’m with you. Crossbows (especially the normal tier non-light crossbow) should either be much more uncommon or the weapon re-worked. With +15% to hit and good armor pen, it’s really frustrating that 4-5 crossbowmen will spawn at a time and annihilate your team. Solutions could be

1. Tone the weapon down.
2. Make them less common.
3. Or tweak the stats on the actual units.

They have such high initiative that it’s pretty hard to get the drop on them. Some of them even seem to have rotation, meaning they’ll just dance out of the way and shoot you from behind their buddy. Love the game, but it needs a dedicated balance patch.

[Sekata]

hruza wrote:

mrbunnyban wrote:

There is no penalty for not getting a balanced diet. You cannot really survive on only grain everyday, but the game doesn’t care. Managing the diet of your company is not the focus of the game.

Heh, just got event: “Your purchases of diverse foods has the men gleefully chowing down and feeling good about life” -all brothers have “in good spirit” morale. I ques there is some event for having monotonous food too with some negative consequences.

There is a penalty for only buying grain too btw. After buying nothing but grain since it’s so cheap for about 20 days I got an event with dissatisfied brothers and the gist of it was “Can we at least have a little meat every now and again?”

[Author]

Posts