I can't stand Battle Brothers. It is rpg-lite, has disposable units, bad itemization, and no real content. Just get a contract, go fight a simple, easy battle, go back, rinse, repeat. I don't understand how or why people liked that or Darkest Dungeon. Two overly simple, extremely rpg lite games focusing on disposable units and simple combat. I just don't get it.
What in God's name. If you like XCom, BB is the best similar game out there. There's a whole lot going on in BB. First of all, it's really really hard, and anyone calling it easy has 30 minutes in the game on beginner. It's much harder than Darkest Dungeon, for example. The different difficulty settings (economic and battle) are incredibly well-tuned. Second, there are a ton of different enemy and weapon types, including zombies, skeletons, necromancers, vampires, ghosts, wolves, ghouls, mounted goblins, various orcs, unmounted goblins, goblin shamans, dragons, and more. There are also named heroes and unique weapons. The different types of weapons and perk abilities really make combat at least as complex as XCom if not moreso (I'd say it's much more complex than XCom by a mile). Contracts are around 1/3 of the game, the rest being filled out by static areas (like raider hideouts, goblins cities, undead strongholds, etc.) that need to be uncovered by exploration and end-game crises that change the landscape of the world.
How you can enjoy XCom but find Battle Brothers "simple" is beyond me. I don't even think XCom comes close in terms of the complexity of the tactical combat. BB has too many perks, too many weapon types, too many special attack types, too many stats in play.
Battle Brothers is nothing like XCom. The combat was not difficult on whatever the standard settings were. It had a lite rpg system, simple combat, simple itemization, and nothing going on outside of combat. XCom had a ton going on outside of combat missions, and the missions were varied and not just kill everything. I don't know how long I played Battle brothers but it was way longer than the return window, and all their was was boring get a contract go kill X come back, rinse, repeat. It was boring as shit, repetitive as shit, and simple as shit, will shit lite rpg elements. If it added some actual gameplay stuff way later in the game, why would they expect any sane players to chug through all the simple, boring, repetitive stuff to get to it? The answer is - hipsters are fucking morons and will play and love what the hivemind says to play and love.
Around the same time a game called Godfall or something similar came out - I found that to be superior to Battle brothers in every possible way. Why was one popular and the other not? Inexplicable outside of hivemind hipsterism.
Outide of subjective talks on what is good or not lets look at objective criteria-
Did BB have disposable units that, mostly, were unimportant at least for the majority of the first 1/3rd of the game?
Did BB have a complex rpg system that could be considered complex when compared to ToEE or Blackguards 1?
Did BB have combat that can be considered complex compared to ToEE or Blackguards 1 or JA2?
Did BB have any content of traditional rpgs or something/anything to do between simple go kill x and come back like contracts for at least the first 1/3rd of the game?
Did BB have anything like the content of old of new XComs between its simple combats?
I answer no to all those. I think it is objectively true and is based on facts. Of course, people can say it is super complex it its simplicity or other nonsense like they do for Clicker Heroes or other child games.
I don't think the combat in any XCom is great - it is serviceable. I like all the XComs because they have decent combat and so much, much more outside of combat. I like the nuXComs more than the old because I like the active chardev and more complex rpg systems and the single consolidated base with more options, and do not have to care about shipping between bases and place and building new bases, etc.
People can disagree with me, but I think I have objectivity and facts on my side. People can have different taste than me, and I understand that. Most people enjoy simple and hate complex games where gimping characters is possible, or combat requires set-up and thinking and trying. Buts its silly to ask someone that clearly likes complex systems and combat and lots of shit to do outside of combat why the didn't like a simple game made to be understood and played by children.
