mrbunnyban

[mrbunnyban]

Sarissofoi? Was wondering who wrote that, lol! Well done Sarissofoi!

[mrbunnyban]

Why was it removed? :(

[mrbunnyban]

Namespace wrote:

Well, I took resolve mostly to counter the morale checks when getting surrounded and not to counter this catstrophic snowball effect.
I just don’t like the idea of changig the fleeing-mechanic the way you proposed. It is true that in many cases Resolve is still not a good or necessary stat.

In my opinion, more positive morale checks would be better. Let a brother who is surrounded and gets support from an ally that moves right next to him (counter-surround) trigger a positive morale check, it would open up much more possibility for tactical play as well.
Or restore Rally’s function to buff to confident, but lower the chance and take the base Resolve of the buffed brother more into account.
Another option would be to lower the effects of “mood” and give a brother a base chance to start with confident morale based on his resolve.
I don’t think more morale checks would be bad just don’t like changing the fleeing mechanic.

I think Resolve should primarily have a positive function and not be a failsafe against catastrophic events.

A positive effect triggering more often is a very interesting suggestion! I like that idea! As long as folks see the effect of morale more consistently it would be good.

I’m thinking of various stages of confidence statuses. Would be a bit of a bitch to indicate graphically (maybe the same raised flag but blue instead of white?).

Another idea would be extra AP or stamina. Something that makes sense for folks with high morale.

Anyway resolve being primarily a positive effect sounds very sweet.

[mrbunnyban]

Namespace wrote:

RusBear wrote:

But same time make some backgrounds and traits “dead” for game.

Yeah, this is the biggest problem I see with the need for higher resolve. Deserters with 20 resolve, guys with bad traits etc.

@mrbunnyban I told you how much resolve I have on my troops becasue the morale system is not swingy for me anymore. Yes, if your guys are all around 30-40 resolve at best you might get a huge snowball effect. They already implemented a way to counter this by moving fleeing brothers to the end of the initiative queue so you may rally them before they recieve any free damage.
Generally, a snowball-effect will only occur if your guys are already Wavering and Breaking. If only one guy turns Fleeing and the rest is Steady, their morale will only drop to wavering, unless the first Fleeing guys triggers another Breaking guy to also turn fleeing, which then activates another morale check, etc.
You can also use the Hold Out perk which removes the morale check for when an ally turns fleeing though I have never used this before.

The developers introduced these morale mechanics to make Resolve not such a “dead” stat. I guess Veteran Levels are supposed to make up for the additional points required. For me this is ok because my campaigns usually last long, but if you like shorter games and maybe retire after the first crisis there is no way to get enough points to level up all the necessary stats (Fatigue, Attack skills, Defenses, HP, Resolve).

I never had any shame or remorse using the 4 free attacks to my advantage. On the contrary, successfully snowballing a fight through breaking the enemy’s morale feels pretty good to me.

I would suggest to increase the base resolve for new hires across the board. Right now it seems the base would be around 30-35 ±5. I think increasing that to ~40 would be appropriate – or simply increasing the minimum resolve and keeping the maximum value would work too.

Also, increase the success chance on Rally the Troops for Wavering and Breaking morale status. I like the effectiveness on Fleeing brothers but getting them back to steady is really, really hard. I Sometimes need 3 rounds of spamming rally with 100+ Resolve next to the guy to get him from Wavering to Steady – usually it is faster to get a kill which triggers a positive morale check instead.

Again, I think changing the fleeing mechanic in the way you suggested in your original post would hurt the player more than it would help. The way you describe it, 2% of the time the morale mechanic works against you but much more often you take advantage of it.

…erm. I feel like I’m a duck trying to talk to a chicken. I’m saying quack quack, you’re saying cluck cluck. To counter my arguments, you’re just saying something else entirely which isn’t wrong but completely misses the point I was making @.@

98% of battles, you do not need to have sunk a single point into resolve. Battles simply don’t require it often enough. So in 98% of battles it is a dead stat essentially. Sure, you’d want to sink points into resolve when you’re playing iron man just to make sure that 2% of the time when it snowballs out of control never happens. Sinking points into resolve removes the whole snowball effect. But resolve is needed SO infrequently that folks who do not play iron man never see the need to put points into it. The penalty for not sinking any points into resolve are so incredibly infrequent that there is an incredible incentive for non-ironman players and even some iron man players to ignore resolve entirely, in spite of the catastrophic snowball effects which happens very very infrequently. I’m trying to explain why some folks still recommend to ignore resolve completely and concentrate on melee, melee defence and fatigue only.

The 4 opportunity attacks have always felt weird to me. Hey, I play D&D/Pathfinder! Infinite out of turn actions in a turn-based game doesn’t make sense to me. but that’s just me.

[mrbunnyban]

RusBear wrote:

New moral check system( v 0.9 and later) – not ready for realesed game- that is fact. Yes, devs have maked so that players must spent level up points for resolve. . But same time make some backgrounds and traits “dead” for game. If it is all that they want – well, that’s ok. But is it working and looks like good? Not.

Whoa there, it isn’t that bad Rusbear! It more or less works, just could have been better. Overall I’d say the game was a pretty good first game from folks who’ve never done this before. In particular, the game’s writing and AI is excellent; even accomplished studies like Firaxis do not program their AI as well as Battle Brothers.

[mrbunnyban]

Namespace wrote:

I did not have a problem with that yet and I have played about 300 hrs on Expert Ironman since launch. I do spec in resolve though and pretty much always have a sargeant with rally unless I don’t need him and level new guys.
I usually try to get my guys to around 50-60 resolve (with veteran levels or +4 rolls) if they are going to be in melee, getting surrounded.
Even against Geists I hardly have my guys affected by an ally fleeing which happens pretty much all the time even with high resolve if i’m lucky they will resist the fear for maybe 2-3 rounds at most.
Geists with Wiedergangers are actually a big part of my fights in a late campaign when I roam the map and clear ruins and camps.

Removing this system would work both ways. If they change it fights against Direwolves or Nachzehrers might become much more difficult. New systems would require a lot of testing and coding probably so I expect we will see some tweaked numbers at most.

Remember, I don’t expect to see changes made into the game as is (see first sentence in my opening post). Just discussing how resolve was designed ended up being really “swingy” and the consequences of that. I’m not sure why you’re telling me how many points you put into resolve?…

Ironman, you’ll naturally spec into resolve due to those rare occasions resolve becomes a huge issue. But resolve isn’t necessary most of the time and feels like a dead stat most of the game. So it’s the perfect stat to dump if you are not playing iron man. Overhype has changed parts of the games to reduce save scumming before, specifically the way stat ups are chosen. If the effects of resolve were more consistently felt (but less extreme when it is felt for balance), we wouldn’t have so many folks advising to dump resolve and only sink points into Melee attack, melee defence and fatigue.

I always felt a the game was a little ‘off’ whenever anyone gets 4 free out-of-turn attacks from a fleeing enemy, worse still if he gets 4 free actions from another fleeing enemy right after. It’s just weird to me and breaks the illusion that the turn-based battle is an abstraction of a real battle.

[mrbunnyban]

I’m a big advocate of not playing iron man until you’ve encountersed every type of enemy and have devised strategies how to deal with them.

…that’s not the advise you wanted to hear I’m sure, but that’s all I got. Sorry!

—
In case you were interested, here are some anti-orc warrior tactics. I just realised after writing it that you’re not asking for it so just ignore it if you don’t want it.

Orc warriors have knockback attacks, yes. but they do not have footwork. So if your archers have footwork and the orc warriors are still engaged to a friendly after the knockback, you can easily save the archer. The orc will very likely do it AGAIN, but now you’re wasting the orc’s time. Footwork only costs 3 AP after all, so you can take a lot of effective actions.

Indomitable perk stops knockback attacks completely. Knockbacks will NOT work if the orc cannot push your guy into a space further away from him. So positioning matters. For example, I had a fight being ambushed in the forest and made it so there was no space to be knocked back into. At the very least, you can see which of your archers are vulnerable to being exposed after a frontliner is knocked back, and which ones are not.

[mrbunnyban]

Namespace wrote:

I believe that’s unique to orc warriors. I have taken damage without getting knocked down a height level before. I always thought it was working as intended though.

Bwah? They have a damaging knockback attack? I don’t remember that. Well devs are notified so job done anyway.

[mrbunnyban]

LasseFin wrote:

No. It only applies to HP, not helmet.

Thanks!

If I am not mistaken, 2H weapons (except polearms and longaxes) hit both head and body at the same time, so increasing head hit chance with them is pointless.

Not sure how their area attacks work however.

Eh? Pretty sure only the 2H axe does that with it’s primary attack. And for that primary attack, I was told that the damage is divided into ‘main’ damage with your roll and ‘bonus’ damage to the other body part. If the main damage rolls body the minor bonus damage defaults to body and vice versa. Only the ‘main’ damage can crit if you roll a head hit with it. The minor bonus damage cannot crit even if it defaults to head. So the head strike chance is not wasted.

I think in the end though, other perks kind of win out except for specific builds. Opportunity cost and all that.

[mrbunnyban]

Interesting question! I think your line of thinking is not wrong, but some counter points worth considering:

1. Some enemies are just being asked to be head-shotted. Up until you reach lategame, plenty of enemies wear little to no headgear. The weasel guy in the tutorial oddly is one of them – don’t think I’ve ever seen him wear head armor. In the late game though, only Sergeant, Berserkers and geists come to mind. All are very deadly though, geists die in one hit anyway.

2. Nazghoul thingies never have armor. Hitting the head is always better. Werewolf armor is arguably weak enough to make the same reasoning.

3. Sort of related, flails and axes are generally useful for the Ancient dead’s frontline troops. They have shield wall every turn, have infinite stamina and maybe even have shield expert. However, their shields are shockingly fragile for late-game troops so one greataxe specialist smash always breaks it. You’re meant to either break the shields, use flails to ignore the shield defense. I think it’s probably better to use reach weapons/greatswords to hit the priority targets behind them though.

4. Duelist builds. I wonder how much damage we’re looking at for an axe head hit from a duelist? What if the brother has the brute perk? The idea is to kill the enemy under the armor before the armor breaks, so head hits may be always welcome. Alternatively, 2H weapon may kill before armor is destroyed if you keep getting head hits with a brute, particularly 2H hammer.

I think 50% bonus to damage applies to both HP and armor.

[mrbunnyban]

Namespace wrote:

Hey. Would really like that back.

For me, noble war stretched out over 100 ingame days or so and the second crisis started around day 220 so I had enough time to prepare.

100 in-game days??? Seriously? My noble war felt like it ended so fast, maybe 40 days. I wanted it to last much longer as I didn’t get to experience all the contract types :( Was doing so well and was making huge profits, but ran out of tools to salvage all the stuff I to make more profits so I just sold without repairing. (expert/non-ironman)

[mrbunnyban]

Namespace wrote:

Yeah. Day 21 for roaming necrosavants is waay too early. I would just remove them as world spawns entirely unless it’s the undead crisis. Just spawn legionaires instead or give them different weapons for the early game.

I really don’t get this. The game doesn’t spawn Hedge Knights or Master Archers that early either. Same goes for Orc Warlords, Overseers/Shamans and pretty much all the late-game enemies in the game. Just Necrosavants are the exception.

Day 21? faced packs of them on day 2. T.T

[mrbunnyban]

I’m not sure why there is so much hate for enemy ranged weapon fire. Player ranged weapon fire is just as potent, it’s only fair enemy fire is a significant threat. With a little planning in my builds the only time I lose bros to ranged fire is when large amount of crossbows spawn on a hill or my own archers has a new recuit with poor stats in the late game. Previously folks used to not put points into ranged defense in most of their brothers at all in previous betas, which goes to show that enemy ranged fire back then was too weak.

[mrbunnyban]

In this case, I think the necrosavants were badly balanced. The devs clearly tried to make balance the early game appearance of Necrosavants by reducing their HP. This is not a good way of balancing end-game units because they still have the stats, powers and damage output of an end-game unit.

[mrbunnyban]

Was considering moving on to iron man, you’ve convinced me otherwise. Thank you!

[Author]

Posts