Forum Replies Created
I think the Quick Hands issue could be remedied by cancelling weapon specials when switching the weapon after activating the special attack. Of course, the game is turn-based, so one could argue in favour of quick-changing during the same turn because actions would happen simultaneously in the real world, but I think that’s a minor issue compared to the gameplay that arises from being able to spearwall, then presto changing to sword for retaliation. I probably wouldn’t call it a balance issue, because both alternatives have something going for them (think superfast fighter who basically juggles sword and spear while mowing down orcs left and right, the way it is now), but a matter of taste and of fluidity/granularity of combat. Too high a “resolution” with regards to what actions can be taken at certain time points makes the combat play clunkier, I think.
I’m going to hijack this thread for a moment, since my question is also related to helmets.
Does anyone know if there is a feature planned to turn off the visualisation of helmets ingame?
I mean, don’t get me wrong.
They look awesome and I really like the aspect that they wittle down visibly when they have to endure much damage.
But the beards and hair of the characters is plain awesome, too.
It is a shame that I never see it again after the start, because it is quite a bit risky to go into battle without any headwear.
Therefore, an option to turn the visualisation of the helmets manually off and on would be neat.
And to answer the original post:
Nope. Even after more than sixty ingame hours, I have not seen a helmet with an armour of more than 300.
Either that, or change how “headshots” work, or incentivize going without a helmet more. Right now, going without headgear is probably the worst mistake you can make, and there’s no real trade-off for wearing it. Vision hasn’t been an issue for me so far, and fatigue loss isn’t that bad either. Now, in and of itself the “helmet standard” isn’t a problem, but it really takes away from the great character visualization, and IMHO also hampers unit identification (which is more of an UI issue, which’ll get tackled later on anyway).
I hope this will be alleviated with a possibility of retreating from combat for the AI.
Surrendering and taking prisoners should definitely implemented. I could see this even for enemy factions, e.g. bandits taking high-ranking opponents for ransom, a necromancer needing live strong specimen for experiments or maybe even the odd orc wanting to gather a little intelligence. Gives a lot of room for emerging gameplay and quests.
Also, it’s way more realistic. Surrendering and POW is rarely featured in strategy games. Most of the time, you can be happy if they even implement a morale system and a possibility for retreating without automatically losing the game. In videogames, it’s basically always fighting to the death, which is neither fun nor realistic nor very rich in variety. Actual combat, in medieval times or modern, has never been like that. You can of course abstract somewhat, think Unity of Command, but in Battle Brothers I would really like to see alternatives to mortal combat done on a small scale. It just lends itself very well to that kind of features. I would love to have bandits surrender or take a necromancer prisoner and drag him back into the village he threatened in chains, for raising morale among the peasants. Extra pay, anyone? :) Tactical retreats, both on the strategic and tactical map, enemies not even engaging you when you’re clearly stronger, and the possibility of different outcomes than just “win” or “dead” for both sides are what I want to see as well.
I’d actually love to see a feature of “knocking out” combattants in the game. It would work for both sides, but take for example a Battle Brother being hit in the head with a mace by an orc. Maybe his helmet holds, he isn’t dead, but he’s out cold for the rest of the combat. If his side wins, they’ll just wake him back up and give his helmet to the blacksmith, but if not there’s still more than just “dead”: a Brother could be coup-de-grace’d by the opposition after the combat when they notice him still being alive, he could be taken prisoner, be simply declared “missing” after both sides quit the field of battle (new possibilities arise from that unclear state!), or even be mistaken for a corpse by the enemy and be able to flee after the battle and possibly re-join you two days later on. I think that would really make the combat in Battle Brothers three-dimensional, so to say. A mechanism where combattants are too wounded to carry on fighting, but are not dead (and not exactly unconscious), could probably be subsumed under this umbrella, so basically an enhanced “casualty mechanic”, where casualty doesn’t equal dead (just as it doesn’t in real life).
Ledger ASAP! :D It really is the thing I’m missing the most right now.
Horses came to my mind right away after playing a first round of Battle Brothers. I do however fear they would not really fit in the game, as fun as mounted combat would be. In any case, they would probably need bigger and differently laid-out maps, and should be rare and expensive.
What I still would like to see, though, is multi-hex units, like big beasts (say, ogres, or a Lindwurm?) or movable machines of war (think some sort of medieval tank, or siege engines). I think they would spice up the combat, which at the moment is just single units on foot. Man, I would love to move forward in the cover of some sort of slowly rumbling battering ram/catapult, being pelted with arrows that never make it to my men, all the while fighting off attacking orcs with huge woodcutter axes on the flanks. I don’t know if this is too far removed from the tone of the game, but imagine a cross of World War II urban tank fighting and the Battle of Helm’s Deep :D20. May 2015 at 14:41 in reply to: Abuse Or Intended – A discussion about possible exploits. #4239
I noticed that. Luring to many enemies into the militia is shooting yourself in the foot in the long term. I don’t think it should be changed, however, except for notably smart and strategic enemy groups. Why would undead or orc warriors bent on glory care if a dozen more “fleshbags” get in their way? Luring could work differently for bandits, for example. Maybe for werewolves, but even there I think “bloodlust” is a valid explanation of why they won’t stop their hour-long pursuit only because a few caravan hands showed up.
Regarding save-scumming, I am strongly in favour of implementing an optional Ironman mode. It shouldn’t be forced on anyone, but it would be great if those as weak-willed as me could have it to limit themselves. I don’t think it makes much sense at this point of development, however, since it would very much impede bug-hunting and balance testing.
I feel engagement is too strong at the moment. At least in the early game, once you’re locked, you’re locked. I understand the rationale, but I just witnessed Pillars of Eternity facing issues with this very feature. In that game, battles are essentially “tank and spank” (lock the enemy with one or two “engagers”, then pelt from behind without the enemy being able to do anything about it), and many players seem unhappy about this.
I personally would tone down disengagement attacks a little. Probably put up some limit on how many such attacks one unit can make in one turn. I understand the notion that at the moment, “memorable moments” happen, and I’m the last one who wants to whittle them down, but I find the engagement rules to be too static, and also I believe it doesn’t really make sense that one warrior is able to stab four fleeing werewolves in the back at the same time. He isn’t Shiva, the multi-armed god of destruction… With a new system, we would get other types of memorable moments, for instance one Brother sacrificing himself to the disengagement axe of an orc just so his friend at his side can make a run for it while the orc is distracted.
In general, I think engaging, disengaging and fleeing (especially for enemies!) need to be a little more fluid. At the moment, enemies will basically never do a tactical retreat, and a single enemy bandit will still head for close combat with four Brothers even if he just saw three of his comrades being cut down. This doesn’t make sense, every bandit in his right mind would turn and never look back, but that’s a different topic (which I do think overlaps with this one, however).
Yes please. Something like that.
I had problems with not being able to pause as well. I can’t describe specific circumstances, however. Entering/leaving towns might have had to do with it.
I was able to fix it by pressing “Esc” twice to bring up the menu and closing it. This isn’t working as intended either, the first press should already bring up the menu, but doesn’t register. Pausing was possible after that, however.
Spears! Polearms are generally poorly done in RPGs, Battle Brothers is a notable exception. :)18. May 2015 at 16:18 in reply to: Would the devs or members of this community be interested in a comparative… #4111
I’d find it interesting. Don’t think it can hurt the development.
I have pikes to, even in old savegames. They’re rare, though, I’ve seen only one.
Yay for noncombat companions and (non-)combat animals!
Nay for undead and werewolf party members. I like the design of mere humans against the darkness, it is what made X-COM strong. Had you been able to field psionic Greys and recruit Chryssalids, the game would’ve been powertrippy 90s shit.
I was thinking about vampirism and lycanthropy, but I’d implement them as very rare events that basically cost you a Brother. Think “Organ Trail”, you’d basically be forced to decide whether to a) keep them along until they transform and attack you, b) put them down, c) let them go (in the knowledge you’ve released a dangerous monster into the world) or d) subdue them and try to find a cure, which if I were the game designer would probably never happen, but could lead to interesting events, e.g. villagers finding out one of your men isn’t what he seems to be.