Incline Battle Brothers + Beasts & Exploration, Warriors of the North and Blazing Deserts DLC Thread

[Barbarian]

Having two straight crowded rolls of 9 bros is now "more possibilities and tactical options"?

I will tell you about tactical options: Having to administer/rotate your roster due to injuries, choosing the best builds for each fight and using the 18 available spots for the best 12 men formation to take to battle. Just increasing your employable group size in order to get around easier through strenght in numbers is not "tactical" at all.

The whole point of the game is about being outnumbered. You guys are going over that point for some reason. Maybe because you played it too much(someone mentioned 1000 hours). That just ain't healthy.

 

[Jimmious]

One thing that's true is that the limitation of 12 bros is a bit "arbitrary". Why is it 12 and not 15 or something? Because the combat was balanced like that probably but it feels a bit gamey is the truth.
Ideally some other gameplay mechanic should "enforce" such a limit

 

[Quatlo]

One thing that's true is that the limitation of 12 bros is a bit "arbitrary". Why is it 12 and not 15 or something? Because the combat was balanced like that probably but it feels a bit gamey is the truth.
Ideally some other gameplay mechanic should "enforce" such a limit

I guess it could be money, but when you get out of hobo mode and start wearing decent mail/plate with mostly 2H bros money stops being an issue because you can trade in bulk, you already have cities that adore you to buy and sell from etc.
Its harder to get tools than money in mid game.

 

[Barbarian]

Every single party-based rpg game has an active party size limit and I don't remember a single time where it wasn't "arbitrary" from the point of view of the player. It is always so. Developers pick a number according to their design idea and balance the game around that.

In fact, I don't remember a single time where the size party limit was explained in the game world/story. Why in Kotor 1 and 2 you can only take 3 companions with you out of the ship? Why in expeditions conquistador you can't use all your troops to defend camp? Why in Baldur's gate you can only travel in 6?

The point is moot. It is silly to even mention it. Just a crutch to justify you cheating the game I suppose.

 

[Reinhardt]

In fact, I don't remember a single time where the size party limit was explained in the game world/story.

Arcanum.

 

[Barbarian]

In fact, I don't remember a single time where the size party limit was explained in the game world/story.

Arcanum.

Wasn't there a charisma rule, such as in Fallout?

Still quite silly("lol dude, you can only take 3 guys with you if your personality is cool").

I will much rather go with "you only have these many guys with you because that was the developer's decision".

 

[Parabalus]

In fact, I don't remember a single time where the size party limit was explained in the game world/story.

Arcanum.

Wasn't there a charisma rule, such as in Fallout?

Still quite silly("lol dude, you can only take 3 guys with you if your personality is cool").

Yeah, the charisma stuff is a cool mechanic, but in no way a logical explanation.

 

[Quatlo]

Also, I disagree:

It's a feature. Not every character you play in Arcanum is supposed to have high charisma, and if you have it your PC is significantly weaker as an individual than designated solo builds. So, the strength of your character lies in other people that follow it and do the actual heavy lifting.

Except it isn't balanced, there are several occasions where you're outnumbered 3:1 by powerful enemies, and even if your party is high-level with best gear, due to the enemy numbers the soldiers will eventually run out of stamina and get their armors broken. I fail to see something bad in wider array of tactical options.

Arbitrary rules that are pulled out of someone's ass, that serve only as unjustified "balance" that cannot be realistically, practically explained often kill the fun of the game, at least for me.

In Arcanum getting to 20 Cha is 12 on average points, thats not really game changing for any character unless you are doing some kind of weird all-skills hybrid.
Big mobs of enemies in BB are manageable thanks to morale, you have to do the same thing as in total war, find a weak spot and push through it. Enemies that have no morale like undead are balanced by having weapons that do fuckall against armour or in case of zombies are just shitty combatants. But I guess we get to another mandatory must have perk - recover.

Honestly I feel like recover could be a standard action for everyone, I dont understand why there is no standard "rest" action, with maybe recover being the better, upgraded one. You can just do nothing and not waste any stamina, but if its your shieldbro for example he will be tired 24/7 just from tanking hits untill he gets shield expertise.

 

[Serus]

Barbarian is right, anyone who played Arcanum as charisma character knows that even a bunch of random shit-stated npcs with good enough equipement will swarm every enemy and faceroll it. Hell, meta for BB is to get 12 guys ASAP, even beggars.

It's a feature. Not every character you play in Arcanum is supposed to have high charisma, and if you have it your PC is significantly weaker as an individual than designated solo builds. So, the strength of your character lies in other people that follow it and do the actual heavy lifting.

The game is balanced for 12 characters, period.

Except it isn't balanced, there are several occasions where you're outnumbered 3:1 by powerful enemies, and even if your party is high-level with best gear, due to the enemy numbers the soldiers will eventually run out of stamina and get their armors broken. I fail to see something bad in wider array of tactical options.

That is specially true of rpgs, which traditionally needs a solid ruleset to even belong to the genre.

Arbitrary rules that are pulled out of someone's ass, that serve only as unjustified "balance" that cannot be realistically, practically explained often kill the fun of the game, at least for me.

And how exactly is 18 characters limit in the company any less "arbitrary" than 12 character limit on the battlefield? What in the game world prevents you from taking 19 people? or 20? Or being limited to only 17 instead of 18? I tell you what: because there is an "arbitrary rule pulled of of somone's ass" to prevent You from doing it. Just like very often such limits in almost any tactical game (CRPG or not) are. I really pity You because by your own admission You have Your "fun killed" anytime when trying to play most of CRPGs and tactical games when you command a squad-sized group of people as most of them have these "arbitrary" limitations.

 

[Barbarian]

I hope the new patch/dlc breaks the mod. Just so all of you popamole cheaters suffer.

 

[Modron]

I hope the new patch/dlc breaks the mod. Just so all of you popamole cheaters suffer.

Don't worry there is still one codexer out there with an alternative mod, I remember someone here posting a screenshot of their brothers with 21 ap and 200 base starting levels in all skills.

 

[Serus]

I hope the new patch/dlc breaks the mod. Just so all of you popamole cheaters suffer.

That was nasty. I know you said it in jest but still. If some people want such mod then let them use it. Having such option is good - though I would be against adding it into the game "officially" - there is no point as long as the mod works. I might try it myself one day. What I don't like about it is creating a whole narrative to convince (themselves mostly) that it's something else than it really is. A mod that changes the rules of the game to make said game easier and different than it was designed originally. Which - you know - mods often do.

 

[Teut Busnet]

Barbarian is right, anyone who played Arcanum as charisma character knows that even a bunch of random shit-stated npcs with good enough equipement will swarm every enemy and faceroll it. Hell, meta for BB is to get 12 guys ASAP, even beggars.

It's a feature. Not every character you play in Arcanum is supposed to have high charisma, and if you have it your PC is significantly weaker as an individual than designated solo builds. So, the strength of your character lies in other people that follow it and do the actual heavy lifting.

The game is balanced for 12 characters, period.

Except it isn't balanced, there are several occasions where you're outnumbered 3:1 by powerful enemies, and even if your party is high-level with best gear, due to the enemy numbers the soldiers will eventually run out of stamina and get their armors broken. I fail to see something bad in wider array of tactical options.

That is specially true of rpgs, which traditionally needs a solid ruleset to even belong to the genre.

Arbitrary rules that are pulled out of someone's ass, that serve only as unjustified "balance" that cannot be realistically, practically explained often kill the fun of the game, at least for me.

How does that prevent the game from beeing balanced? Can balance only be reached when 'Number of player units = Number of enemy units'?

Also, more Bros =/= 'wider array of tactical options'. It's only easier.

'Well done, Generalfeldmarschall Rommel, how did you achieve this victory?'
'I used a wider array of tactical options'
'By adding 50% more troops?'
'Exactly!'

 

[Bocian]

Also, more Bros =/= 'wider array of tactical options'. It's only easier.

I can have more archers or effectively employ skirmishers without weakening the shieldwall. If you'd knew shit about tactics you'd figure out that having more men doesn't always guarantee victory - and all I want here is a POSSIBILITY to have my reserves join combat at a given moment.

And how exactly is 18 characters limit in the company any less "arbitrary" than 12 character limit on the battlefield?

It's been decided that I can have 18 men under my command. But it's also been decided that only 12 of them can fight at once while the rest does nothing even if they're healthy. And here's the whole problem.

 

[Teut Busnet]

Also, more Bros =/= 'wider array of tactical options'. It's only easier.

I can have more archers or effectively employ skirmishers without weakening the shieldwall. If you'd knew shit about tactics you'd figure out that having more men doesn't always guarantee victory - and all I want here is a POSSIBILITY to have my reserves join combat at a given moment.

And how exactly is 18 characters limit in the company any less "arbitrary" than 12 character limit on the battlefield?

It's been decided that I can have 18 men under my command. But it's also been decided that only 12 of them can fight at once while the rest does nothing even if they're healthy. And here's the whole problem.

Well, I might 'not know shit' about tactics, but I imagine that if someone uses an army 1.5 times as big as normal it will get a lot easier.

Fighting in Gobbo City or Black Monolith with 12 Bros results in battles on the razor's edge. Every shot, every swing counts and you can barely watch the enemies attacks. Defeat is bitter, victory sweet.
Fighting those battles with 18 Bros makes them trivial.

Again though: it's a single player game, the only one you cheat on is yourself. Have fun.

 

[Bocian]

Well, I might 'not know shit' about tactics, but I imagine that if someone uses an army 1.5 times as big as normal it will get a lot easier.

Tough terrain, like forests in the game, can easily nullify the advantage of numbers.
The monolith would pose a challenge even having 18 men, unless you managed to power level everyone and manage to get top notch gear for everyone - which I haven't, ever. Even then, you would have casualties if you face more than 50 enemies, most of which are ancient juggernauts and 5 priests with AOE spells. Playing this game for 1000 hours is an exception, not a rule, being a masochist isn't a rule as well.

 

[jungl]

Black monolith u supposed to tackle 300 days or so which is not even close to 1000 hours played same deal with goblin city. Both encounters always have the same amount of enemies 40 something. You going to get slaughtered if you do it 150 days in unless you save scummed like a pro and have very good stat and gear on your bros otherwise you need a few vet levels like everyone else. Most people quit 150 days in cause the game ending event over but really the experience the whole game you want to least get 10 vet levels on ur bros so you can tackle monolith and goblin city. And actually see the knights, sword masters and master archers that can challenge vetted bros. Knights with unique gear can wreck your team worse then a orc warlord.

 

[Barbarian]

We will also now be getting 3 boss types and at least a couple of "unique enemies"(whatever the hell that means, probably normal enemies but with unique new gear and stats).

Late game should be more worthwhile now considering the challenge.

 

[Serus]

Well, I might 'not know shit' about tactics, but I imagine that if someone uses an army 1.5 times as big as normal it will get a lot easier.

Tough terrain, like forests in the game, can easily nullify the advantage of numbers.
The monolith would pose a challenge even having 18 men, unless you managed to power level everyone and manage to get top notch gear for everyone - which I haven't, ever. Even then, you would have casualties if you face more than 50 enemies, most of which are ancient juggernauts and 5 priests with AOE spells. Playing this game for 1000 hours is an exception, not a rule, being a masochist isn't a rule as well.

Yes, we got that. You want the game to be easier and perhaps to play slightly differently than the original. And that's completely OK. That's what mods are for. It's You playing Your game with any mods you want. What I don't get is the need to create this whole ideology around it. It's a game (and not one that tries hard to be a simulation of anything at that). The whole thing is literally made of "arbitrary" rules. That's what any game rules are by definition - a set of "arbitrary" limitations. They aren't meant to all make perfect sense in a simulationist or realistic sense*. They're there to challenge the player. To make a game - a GAME.
So why the need to rationalize the use of such mods? For what I know you might be playing it on easy (or any other difficulty) or with nude mods - doesn't make the slightest difference for anyone except yourself. If You for real wanted to use nude mods - would you also rationalize it? Let me guess: "The mercenaries wear an arbitrary amount of clothes!".


*Edit: Unless a game also tries to be a simulation or aims for realism for one reason or another.

 

[Bocian]

"The mercenaries wear an arbitrary amount of clothes!"

Seriously?
I spent a while explaining that it's not about being fucking easier, but it stil eludes you. Whatever.

 

[RNGsus]

There are battles where I'd like a full compliment of bros, but I'm still just fighting orc young and the vampire things atm, and bandits aren't too bad yet. It makes sense that some would have to guard the camp in reserve, but I think camp and surprise attacks should have that option. I mean, they're supposed to be riskier battles, but if camp's attacked I expect a bro to drop his cock and kill, and if there is no camp to guard while you travel, then waddayadoin bros?

 

[Zombra]

lol, cheaters changing the rules of a game to baby mode because "realism"

 

[Bocian]

lol, cheaters changing the rules of a game to baby mode because "realism"

Point me where the word "realism" was said, you fucking dweeb.

 

[Reinhardt]

nude mods

I need it. For research.

 

[Serus]

lol, cheaters changing the rules of a game to baby mode because "realism"

Point me where the word "realism' was said, you fucking dweeb.

You ask nicely, you get your answer:

Arbitrary rules that are pulled out of someone's ass, that serve only as unjustified "balance" that cannot be realistically, practically explained often kill the fun of the game, at least for me.

In before: "realistically" is not "realism", hurr durr.