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

[k0syak]

Give everyone on the frontline a crossbow and learn quick hands, raise RA to 45(or is it 46?), so the AI considers you a ranged threat. Shoot on the first turn, on the second turn they run up to you, shoot again and switch to a 2-hander of choice.

 

[Eyestabber]

Give everyone on the frontline a crossbow and learn quick hands, raise RA to 45(or is it 46?), so the AI considers you a ranged threat. Shoot on the first turn, on the second turn they run up to you, shoot again and switch to a 2-hander of choice.

Don't even need to invest anything, just having a bundle of javelins in your pocket is enough to make the AI think it can't defeat you in a ranged battle, thus charging forward. But I'm pretty sure actual damage is also considered since I've seen enemies change tactics many times against me when I had a decent archer landing kill shots. Raiders would stop shieldwalling and advance.

 

[FreshCorpse]

Is the general consensus that if I have the cash (and inclination) to get only one of the DLCs, I should get Warriors of the North?

Already had a fairly successful campaign on the base game some time ago, now want to have another go interested to try a different region/start/etc.

 

[Eyestabber]

Is the general consensus that if I have the cash (and inclination) to get only one of the DLCs, I should get Warriors of the North?

Already had a fairly successful campaign on the base game some time ago, now want to have another go interested to try a different region/start/etc.

Blazing Deserts is also very good, but I can tell your for sure if you're gonna pick ONE it's not gonna be Beasts & Bullshit.

 

[Strange Fellow]

I recommend Beasts and Exploration

 

[Strange Fellow]

I've played some more, and I have to say I am seriously impressed with the tweaks to enemies that have happened since last I played. Right now, there isn't a single enemy type that's not fun to fight. Not one. Not even alps! That's why I recommended Beasts and Exploration above, since that expansion adds the most new and unique enemies, while the others are just more humans. I used to think it was the weakest for that very reason, but not anymore.

Annoyingly, while all fights are now fun, some are still unappealing to take on. Schrats and Unhold simply cause too many injuries to be worthwhile. Still, a massive improvement overall. What a great game this is.

 

[Payd Shell]

Has anyone tried mass guns? At least in my head the idea sounds plausible. Give your gunners two guns and quick hands, swap to the empty one and reload on the first round, unleash two volleys in the second. Yeah, the damage guns do is kinda mediocre but having 12 (or 16 if peasant militia) shots blasting through enemies should account for something. The potential damage is insane considering you can hit up to 5 targets under ideal circumstances per shot.

 

[Teut Busnet]

Has anyone tried mass guns? At least in my head the idea sounds plausible. Give your gunners two guns and quick hands, swap to the empty one and reload on the first round, unleash two volleys in the second. Yeah, the damage guns do is kinda mediocre but having 12 (or 16 if peasant militia) shots blasting through enemies should account for something. The potential damage is insane considering you can hit up to 5 targets under ideal circumstances per shot.

I tried it with 'Fearsome' gunners, because I heard many people loved it.

The results where underwhelming and the micromanagement annoyed me. Nevermind that 'Fearsome' is of course useless in many fights, including 3 of the 4 toughest legendary ones - if not all of them.

It wasn't without its moments though, so try it if you want to have a different experience - just don't expect great efficiency.

 

[jungl]

guns are bad design. Its clearly something meant to fuck up the player rather then have the player use them. Its like playing those games were some unit types are useless and made to be used by the computer.

 

[Payd Shell]

I tried it with 'Fearsome' gunners, because I heard many people loved it.

The results where underwhelming and the micromanagement annoyed me. Nevermind that 'Fearsome' is of course useless in many fights, including 3 of the 4 toughest legendary ones - if not all of them.

It wasn't without its moments though, so try it if you want to have a different experience - just don't expect great efficiency.

How was your setup? I was just thinking that 6 backliners with 2 guns each could carpet bomb the entire enemy line at round 2 which should have some effect. It would need a specific setup to make it work, just having one or two gunners wouldn't be enough. The problem would obviously be the cost since you kinda need to buy guns unless you want to fuck with one of the southern cities and available ranged bros which are hard to find as is. It's definitely not something you can do early.

 

[Serus]

guns are bad design. Its clearly something meant to fuck up the player rather then have the player use them. Its like playing those games were some unit types are useless and made to be used by the computer.

You don't even know what you don't know. It's not something that works against all enemies but when it works, it works well. The amount of damage a gunner does is very high, it's just spread among many targets so it looks poor. Same with morale. And it's better in pairs or more.
In addition, a second weapon + quick hands is, as with other range weapon user builds, a very good idea.
IMO it's a well balanced weapon, very well designed, though tricky to use. That's a plus rather than a drawback in my book. Some people find it OP though.


I don't know in what universe is an archer/thrower not a good, valuable bro.
A "pure" archer - that's different, i don't use them, so i really can't say. Need to try one some time. But on paper it seems too limited, too specialised for my taste.


As to which DLC is best, I'd say unlike most people, the Southern one. At least this the one i find adding the most to my game but then i prefer fighting sandni... southerners than barbarians. Personal preference i suppose. Except when in the crisis, southern armies are the ultimate challenge on ironman for me. A propos, why no crisis with barbarians as the main "villain"?

 

[Strange Fellow]

I gotta go get me one of those handgonnes, give them a proper test drive. I'd forgotten all about them.

 

[Teut Busnet]

I tried it with 'Fearsome' gunners, because I heard many people loved it.

The results where underwhelming and the micromanagement annoyed me. Nevermind that 'Fearsome' is of course useless in many fights, including 3 of the 4 toughest legendary ones - if not all of them.

It wasn't without its moments though, so try it if you want to have a different experience - just don't expect great efficiency.

How was your setup? I was just thinking that 6 backliners with 2 guns each could carpet bomb the entire enemy line at round 2 which should have some effect. It would need a specific setup to make it work, just having one or two gunners wouldn't be enough. The problem would obviously be the cost since you kinda need to buy guns unless you want to fuck with one of the southern cities and available ranged bros which are hard to find as is. It's definitely not something you can do early.

I think I had 4 or 5 of them, behind the usual 2H/Polearm+Quickhands frontline flanked by tanks.

You just will not find a lot of shots that really profit from the big AOE. The angle is awkward and I often found myself holding back, so that the gunners had someone to shoot instead of mowing them down with swordlances beforehand. Often I wished for my usual Crossbow/Throwers, who could deal more pinpoint damage and are less of a hinderance when it came to positioning the frontline for maximum effectiveness.

A horde of enemies advancing towards you in a big block just doesn't happen often enough.

Maybe if you make the gunners your primary damage dealers, you'll have more fun? It wasn't for me.

 

[Payd Shell]

You don't even know what you don't know. It's not something that works against all enemies but when it works, it works well. The amount of damage a gunner does is very high, it's just spread among many targets so it looks poor. Same with morale. And it's better in pairs or more.
In addition, a second weapon + quick hands is, as with other range weapon user builds, a very good idea.
IMO it's a well balanced weapon, very well designed, though tricky to use. That's a plus rather than a drawback in my book. Some people find it OP though.


I don't know in what universe is an archer/thrower not a good, valuable bro.
A "pure" archer - that's different, i don't use them, so i really can't say. Need to try one some time. But on paper it seems too limited, too specialised for my taste.


As to which DLC is best, I'd say unlike most people, the Southern one. At least this the one i find adding the most to my game but then i prefer fighting sandni... southerners than barbarians. Personal preference i suppose. Except when in the crisis, southern armies are the ultimate challenge on ironman for me. A propos, why no crisis with barbarians as the main "villain"?

Archers were very strong from vanilla up until the release of the barbarian DLC. Having 4 archers allowed you to bruteforce fights against raiders, noble armies, necros and goblins by sniping the squishy backline. The only enemies where archers weren't useful were orcs and ancient undead but for those you'd swap out your 4 archers with 4 polearm users. Nowadays it's mostly a melee blob with 2handers, one or two tanks + one or two throwers.

 

[Ibn Sina]

I stopped caring about the Meta and started "roleplaying" the company with different themes and I find that I enjoy the game much more immensely, and I still managed to survive and complete the first crises without crunching numbers or abusing game mechanics. For example, I am doing a beast hunters company where most of my recruits are beast hunters or hunters and poachers, and I specced most of them with "themed weapons" for a beast hunter company like septum, spears, nets, crowsbows and its vert effective against beasts (human enemies and the like so-so) most of my brothers are wearing beast trophies with beast attachments. It's great

 

[k0syak]

Has anyone tried mass guns? At least in my head the idea sounds plausible. Give your gunners two guns and quick hands, swap to the empty one and reload on the first round, unleash two volleys in the second. Yeah, the damage guns do is kinda mediocre but having 12 (or 16 if peasant militia) shots blasting through enemies should account for something. The potential damage is insane considering you can hit up to 5 targets under ideal circumstances per shot.

I tried it with 'Fearsome' gunners, because I heard many people loved it.

The results where underwhelming and the micromanagement annoyed me. Nevermind that 'Fearsome' is of course useless in many fights, including 3 of the 4 toughest legendary ones - if not all of them.

It wasn't without its moments though, so try it if you want to have a different experience - just don't expect great efficiency.

Fearsome is one of the strongest perks (even after the nerf) and rightfully belongs to the final row of perks. Useless against the undead, who are the weakest faction anyway.
If there isn't a good shot to take with the handgonne, switch to javelins and chuck.
Also, overwhelm and to a lesser extent crippling strikes.

 

[HumanTotemPole]

You don't even know what you don't know. It's not something that works against all enemies but when it works, it works well. The amount of damage a gunner does is very high, it's just spread among many targets so it looks poor. Same with morale. And it's better in pairs or more.
In addition, a second weapon + quick hands is, as with other range weapon user builds, a very good idea.
IMO it's a well balanced weapon, very well designed, though tricky to use. That's a plus rather than a drawback in my book. Some people find it OP though.


I don't know in what universe is an archer/thrower not a good, valuable bro.
A "pure" archer - that's different, i don't use them, so i really can't say. Need to try one some time. But on paper it seems too limited, too specialised for my taste.


As to which DLC is best, I'd say unlike most people, the Southern one. At least this the one i find adding the most to my game but then i prefer fighting sandni... southerners than barbarians. Personal preference i suppose. Except when in the crisis, southern armies are the ultimate challenge on ironman for me. A propos, why no crisis with barbarians as the main "villain"?

Archers were very strong from vanilla up until the release of the barbarian DLC. Having 4 archers allowed you to bruteforce fights against raiders, noble armies, necros and goblins by sniping the squishy backline. The only enemies where archers weren't useful were orcs and ancient undead but for those you'd swap out your 4 archers with 4 polearm users. Nowadays it's mostly a melee blob with 2handers, one or two tanks + one or two throwers.

Pre warbow armor damage nerf (used to be 95% remember) pure archers were effective against orcs too. Usage was to armor strip and hopefully spam down the Zerks before contact then provide DPS support vs the horde of Young + kill the badly injured ones.

 

[Teut Busnet]

Has anyone tried mass guns? At least in my head the idea sounds plausible. Give your gunners two guns and quick hands, swap to the empty one and reload on the first round, unleash two volleys in the second. Yeah, the damage guns do is kinda mediocre but having 12 (or 16 if peasant militia) shots blasting through enemies should account for something. The potential damage is insane considering you can hit up to 5 targets under ideal circumstances per shot.

I tried it with 'Fearsome' gunners, because I heard many people loved it.

The results where underwhelming and the micromanagement annoyed me. Nevermind that 'Fearsome' is of course useless in many fights, including 3 of the 4 toughest legendary ones - if not all of them.

It wasn't without its moments though, so try it if you want to have a different experience - just don't expect great efficiency.

Fearsome is one of the strongest perks (even after the nerf) and rightfully belongs to the final row of perks. Useless against the undead, who are the weakest faction anyway.
If there isn't a good shot to take with the handgonne, switch to javelins and chuck.
Also, overwhelm and to a lesser extent crippling strikes.

The Black Monolith is the hardest fight in BB - Fearsome is useless.
Gobbo City next, goblins already break en masse without help - Fearsome is questionable.
Sunken Library, again against undead - Fearsome useless.
Kraken can break, but it has no effect - Fearsome useless.
Windmill, more undead - Fearsome useless.

Same list with Crippling Strikes, btw.

You can make an argument for fights in big barbarian and 'Sea of Tents' camps, but there positioning is even more difficult because of Unholds and Orc Warriors breaking through your line.

Why would I build Bros for run-of-the-mill fights?

 

[Serus]

Because some "run-of-the-mill" fights are among the most dangerous? And you fight those kind more than once per game? It clearly seems that you don't play ironman.

 

[Teut Busnet]

Because some "run-of-the-mill" fights are among the most dangerous? And you fight those kind more than once per game? It clearly seems that you don't play ironman.

What fights would that be?

Also 'lol' @ you being snarky all over this thread.

 

[Serus]

Because some "run-of-the-mill" fights are among the most dangerous? And you fight those kind more than once per game? It clearly seems that you don't play ironman.

What fights would that be?

Also 'lol' @ you being snarky all over this thread.

What? I might be if you claim so, in fact i have a tendency to be "snarky" or whatever sometime but why would decide to claim that after my last post? There wasn't anything "snarky" at all in this one. Are you the one being "snarky" here, or perhaps too sensitive?

All the dangerous fights that happen, many times per game. Attacking a big camp, fights during a crisis, especially against a noble/southern army, wurms, possibly hexes with some strong bodyguards, some late(r) game undead armies, hell even a large group of Nachos with the big ones can be very dangerous if you don't pay attention. Fights where you can loose one bro are bad even if you win the battle. And you fight tons of those. The reason I mentioned ironman is because to me ironman is a game of attrition. You can be at your best during a few battles but you can't be (or precisely, I can't) during every battle. You mostly make mistakes during those regular but dangerous battles and bros die. Those battles are the ones that matter most in the long run, even if they aren't hardest per se.
In addition perhaps its a different way to play not just ironman? I never play past ~2nd crisis or so. Perhaps i never become so OP to treat many battles as trivial which comes later.

 

[k0syak]

I agree with Serus, legendary locations aside, big fights can be deadly. Even late-game, every group often contains one or two champions which are no joke.

 

[Payd Shell]

The Black Monolith is the hardest fight in BB - Fearsome is useless.
Gobbo City next, goblins already break en masse without help - Fearsome is questionable.
Sunken Library, again against undead - Fearsome useless.
Kraken can break, but it has no effect - Fearsome useless.
Windmill, more undead - Fearsome useless.

Same list with Crippling Strikes, btw.

You can make an argument for fights in big barbarian and 'Sea of Tents' camps, but there positioning is even more difficult because of Unholds and Orc Warriors breaking through your line.

Why would I build Bros for run-of-the-mill fights?

I don't think that having one perk more or less makes or breaks these fights, especially now with consumables.

 

[Teut Busnet]

Because some "run-of-the-mill" fights are among the most dangerous? And you fight those kind more than once per game? It clearly seems that you don't play ironman.

What fights would that be?

Also 'lol' @ you being snarky all over this thread.

What? I might be if you claim so, in fact i have a tendency to be "snarky" or whatever sometime but why would decide to claim that after my last post? There wasn't anything "snarky" at all in this one. Are you the one being "snarky" here, or perhaps too sensitive?

All the dangerous fights that happen, many times per game. Attacking a big camp, fights during a crisis, especially against a noble/southern army, wurms, possibly hexes with some strong bodyguards, some late(r) game undead armies, hell even a large group of Nachos with the big ones can be very dangerous if you don't pay attention. Fights where you can loose one bro are bad even if you win the battle. And you fight tons of those. The reason I mentioned ironman is because to me ironman is a game of attrition. You can be at your best during a few battles but you can't be (or precisely, I can't) during every battle. You mostly make mistakes during those regular but dangerous battles and bros die. Those battles are the ones that matter most in the long run, even if they aren't hardest per se.
In addition perhaps its a different way to play not just ironman? I never play past ~2nd crisis or so. Perhaps i never become so OP to treat many battles as trivial which comes later.

'It clearly seems that you don't play ironman' in combination with your posts on the previous pages seemed snarky. Nevermind then.

Anyway, I play ironman on Expert and clearing every legendary location doesn't take longer than 'past the 2nd crisis'. Probably helps I play poachers and always know what I fight. *shrug*

 

[Serus]

Because some "run-of-the-mill" fights are among the most dangerous? And you fight those kind more than once per game? It clearly seems that you don't play ironman.

What fights would that be?

Also 'lol' @ you being snarky all over this thread.

What? I might be if you claim so, in fact i have a tendency to be "snarky" or whatever sometime but why would decide to claim that after my last post? There wasn't anything "snarky" at all in this one. Are you the one being "snarky" here, or perhaps too sensitive?

All the dangerous fights that happen, many times per game. Attacking a big camp, fights during a crisis, especially against a noble/southern army, wurms, possibly hexes with some strong bodyguards, some late(r) game undead armies, hell even a large group of Nachos with the big ones can be very dangerous if you don't pay attention. Fights where you can loose one bro are bad even if you win the battle. And you fight tons of those. The reason I mentioned ironman is because to me ironman is a game of attrition. You can be at your best during a few battles but you can't be (or precisely, I can't) during every battle. You mostly make mistakes during those regular but dangerous battles and bros die. Those battles are the ones that matter most in the long run, even if they aren't hardest per se.
In addition perhaps its a different way to play not just ironman? I never play past ~2nd crisis or so. Perhaps i never become so OP to treat many battles as trivial which comes later.

'It clearly seems that you don't play ironman' in combination with your posts on the previous pages seemed snarky. Nevermind then.

Anyway, I play ironman on Expert and clearing every legendary location doesn't take longer than 'past the 2nd crisis'. Probably helps I play poachers and always know what I fight. *shrug*

You play ironman and you really find the unique fights the biggest issue? They are hard but they are also few (and not even obligatory). Interesting. I believe you but it is different for me. This is why I, wrongly, assumed you don't play ironman. Perhaps you are capable of maximum concentration in every or most fights which i'm lacking, I only play at my best in the biggest fights. I brute force through many smaller fights which leads to dangerous situations. Or you are simply a better player than me.