Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[wereboar]

I'm always triggered by players who rag on a game because they can't handle its highest difficulty.
The game is great, you're just bad at it. Play on medium difficulty until you're really good at it. Then move on to higher difficulty.
But no, you need to claim instead that there's something wrong with game design because you just can't accept that you're not a pro at every game.

I hope the devs understand this and they won't dumb the high difficulties down just to stroke some people's ego who believe that they are entitled to acing the game on every difficulty without getting good at it.

[Greenbane]

I've did some memory editing (in other words, cheats) to screw with the game couple of times. Once I edited the reputation to be in hundreds of thousands and a crisis triggered very quickly, maybe 10-20 days in. Haven't played enough since it was mostly screwing around, but it was a war and I've seen a lot of military units and cities switching sides in few days. Also, every contract had insane payment and pretty much every encounter was with best units and highest numbers once I got past the stuff that was presumably already in place before I changed the reputation. I don't know how advanced the mechanics are, but there is certainly relationship between how well you're doing and how dangerous the world is. Notably some encounters look for more specific stuff like number of people in the party, which easily can get broken with things like mods that allow you to have higher number of mercenaries (or at least they did before, with Peasant Militia being a thing it might be fixed now), so if you used those mods and went to fight Webknechts, you could easily get something like 20 of them and then 100-200 eggs. So, yeah.

Oh, that's interesting to hear. We'll see then!

I'm always triggered by players who rag on a game because they can't handle its highest difficulty.
The game is great, you're just bad at it. Play on medium difficulty until you're really good at it. Then move on to higher difficulty.
But no, you need to claim instead that there's something wrong with game design because you just can't accept that you're not a pro at every game.

I hope the devs understand this and they won't dumb the high difficulties down just to stroke some people's ego who believe that they are entitled to acing the game on every difficulty without getting good at it.

I don't know if this was indirectly aimed at me: the difficulty I'm playing on is economic Beginner, combat Veteran. A below average combination (if pure Veteran can be considered the real average for players).

I don't presume to bring Expert down to my level. Nor Veteran nor anything, really: I was just skeptical the game scaled certain things correctly, that's all.

[wereboar]

Yeah, I was responding to your message.
I do think that Veteran (combat)/Beginner (economy) is an average difficulty setup. It really is not supposed to be challenging so the fact that you are encountering problems could mean that you misunderstand the game's goals.

The game is really about maintaining and improving your mercenary company. Not about winning global crises, chasing highest reputation with everyone or whatnot.
So to succeed at the start concentrate on making money and building the initial core of your company. Regardless of which starting scenario you choose you will have at least 2-3 mercs which will have good enough stats to be relevant later in the game. Loot or buy some decent armours for them (90-100 should be enough at the beginning). Always use shields (no two-handers until way later in the game). Level them with long-term goals in mind (student, colossus, rotation). At the same time hire some cheap guys (under 200gp) to slowly fill in the roster. Equip them reasonably well, you will quickly find enough loot to dress up everyone. Don't buy extra equipment for throwaway mercs. Level those mercs with short-term goals in mind (fast adaptation, gifted, backstabber). Sometimes you will hire a throwaway merc and see that he's got surprisingly good stats and traits: in that case treat him as a core merc instead. Always pick up single skull missions. Take some two-skulls missions depending on what they are (i.e. "chase whatever terrorises the village", "patrol the 3 settlements" or "package deliveries" should be simple enough, "clear out a cemetery", "escort caravan" could be way too challenging). After a few weeks you will have a lot of money and at least half a dozen decent mercs and half a dozen disposable but strong throwaways. This should be a strong starting strategy, imo.

[AzyWng]

The game is really about maintaining and improving your mercenary company. Not about winning global crises, chasing highest reputation with everyone or whatnot.

This I completely agree with.

Hell, one of the in-game tips explicitly reminds you that you’re not heroes.

Doing things like using people as meat shields or betraying your employers will have consequences, but they can (and sometimes should) still be done.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

What if you're a Company of Heroes?

[Play: Jimmy Hendrix' Star-Spangled Banner]

In all seriousness though it is PRETTY DARN TOUGH to survive as a mercenary company in Battle Brothers, in my best run I rarely had more than a week's pay on hand, and that's with really good trading routes. Battle Brothers is a hard game.

Also I just had an idea. I think I will go for a Roman legion themed company in this new update. Now the only question is what era?

[Mephansteras]

Survival tip #1: Try not to be too greedy. If you need to run, run. If you need to sacrifice a few men to get the rest to safety, do it. If a job is too hard, take the reputation hit over losing some of your best soldiers.


Me being too greedy is probably the #1 downfall of my games. #2 is me being disheartened by a bad loss and forgetting that just because things got bad doesn't mean you can't rebuild. You just have to step back and take easier jobs for a bit while you get back in proper fighting shape.

[Knave]

Yeah, I'm nearing day 50 with my peasants and I'm not anywhere close to having a well-kitted company. We have some decent hats, but I really need to use some of the enemy armour-saving tactics posted with daggers/flails. Even my front-line boys still are all rocking less-than-100 armour.

I find my biggest hang-up is realizing that a bunch of your mercs are going to be scrub fillers. i try to keep everyone alive and happy, but instead I should be focusing on the people who don't have 0 stars and 40 melee skill 

It's gonna be interesting to see how they fare once the late-game crisis starts popping off. We've been running lots of caravans, and I feel like it's led to my boys being underdeveloped (nobody over level 5 yet  ) as no brigands want to take on 13 battle bros (if only they knew we were middling at best)

And OH MAN! Those barbarian groups hit like a truck. I've never seen so many 1-hit kills. Even when I think I have the battle in the bag, BAM! a beardy dude with a spiky skull stick brains one of my full-health boys. Gotta kite-em with ranged attacks.

[Mephansteras]

I had the most tragic one-hit-kill last night.

Picked up a begger because I needed someone to hold a shield on the line, and managed to get the best begger ever. 3 * in melee attack, 2* in defense, and something else decent. Fatigue stars, maybe? I don't remember. Anyway, guy had great potential (for a begger), so I gave him a weapon and shield and hoped he'd live. I'd have given him a polearm if I'd had a spare, but I think I only had 2 at that point and those were being used by actual dudes with good potential and at least a level or 2.

We fight some zombies. No big deal, right? We're taking them down, everything is going fine.

This poor begger gets one-shot by an unarmed zombie! One bite and BAM, dead guy. I mean, sure, he had no armor. But...man, I've never seen those guys deal any sort of real damage at all before. I didn't know they could even do that.

[Urist McScoopbeard]

For a while I ran a system where the most veteran guys just slid down the line to the left, worked great most of the time but every once and a while they'd just get totally destroyed by webknechts surrounding them. It made it okay to lose the shittiest guys, but man oh man when you're vet from the start dies, ugh--total loss of motivation. Maybe if I gravitate the most veteran guys towards the middle it'll be better?

[wereboar]

I think that if you get attached to specific mercs so much you'll really enjoy the Lone Wolf scenario. You'll have the one powerful merc that matters and the game will just end if he ever dies.

[Man of Paper]

I keep my highest morale dudes on the flanks, with one flank being a static spearwall and the other being brawlers while the center is meant to hold or split the enemy as the situation requires. I rarely have more than 2 rangebros and 2 polebros, with one polebro built up to be Sergeant/Bannerbro. Enemies also love to charge rangebros and polebros, often overexerting themselves so they can't attack, leaving them wide open. You can take advantage of that by intentionally leaving an opening in your line. This is especially good when your center has some less-than-remarkable hit%s for that surround bonus, but it's a gamble.

Everything's a gamble. I love this game.

[Greenbane]

Yeah, I was responding to your message.
I do think that Veteran (combat)/Beginner (economy) is an average difficulty setup. It really is not supposed to be challenging so the fact that you are encountering problems could mean that you misunderstand the game's goals.

The game is really about maintaining and improving your mercenary company. Not about winning global crises, chasing highest reputation with everyone or whatnot.

I get what you're saying, I really do. And while I recognize my own flaws, at the same time I don't enshrine the game's design nor consider it perfectly balanced.

Here's another objection: recruiting people is still a crapshoot. The Tryout option is underused, only revealing traits (strictly secondary in importance) when it should at least show where the guy has his stars. There's nothing quite like shelling out 3,000 coin for a dude with lackluster stats (for his price) and stars in all the wrong places.

Am I really supposed to take that hit in the early-mid game? Could it be considered an acceptable part of the game's general difficulty? Is it an interesting or reasonable application of RNG? Or is it just an unnecessary slot machine which can very well waste a lot of the player's time?

[EuchreJack]

Yeah, I was responding to your message.
I do think that Veteran (combat)/Beginner (economy) is an average difficulty setup. It really is not supposed to be challenging so the fact that you are encountering problems could mean that you misunderstand the game's goals.

The game is really about maintaining and improving your mercenary company. Not about winning global crises, chasing highest reputation with everyone or whatnot.

I get what you're saying, I really do. And while I recognize my own flaws, at the same time I don't enshrine the game's design nor consider it perfectly balanced.

Here's another objection: recruiting people is still a crapshoot. The Tryout option is underused, only revealing traits (strictly secondary in importance) when it should at least show where the guy has his stars. There's nothing quite like shelling out 3,000 coin for a dude with lackluster stats (for his price) and stars in all the wrong places.

Am I really supposed to take that hit in the early-mid game? Could it be considered an acceptable part of the game's general difficulty? Is it an interesting or reasonable application of RNG? Or is it just an unnecessary slot machine which can very well waste a lot of the player's time?

You shouldn't be recruiting 3000 coin guys in the early-mid game.  Personally, I find the most important value in a new recruit is price during the early-mid game.  Enough of them will be decent enough to transition into the middle game.  I've never gotten to the later game, but it seems that the 3000 coin dudes are only for the late game, when they're replacing dead veterans in the line.

You have a good point on the tryout though.  I agree that the game probably should give some indication of the stats/stars, like "You notice Timmy has some natural talent with a blade" as a cryptic way of saying "2 stars in melee attack".  Especially considering the cost of tryout.  It's not cheap.

[Majestic7]

I'll admit it - the only savescumming I do is when hiring new dudes. It is just too annoying to get a completely useless one. I don't have the heart to get them killed on purpose.

Have any of you tried fighting alps again, have they been fixed or are they still a snorefest (heh)? I don't mind difficulty, but I mind pointless battles that take a lot of time.

[Mephansteras]

Early to mid-game, you don't shell out big bucks for anyone. At least, not unless you really want some gear they have (which is most of the cost, actually). I have totally bought a hunter a few weeks in for 1500 coins, but that was with the knowledge that not only is even a bad hunter at least a passable archer, I was also buying a Hunting Bow that I could use on someone else.

But, overall, you should be limiting yourself to the good quality low-tier recruits in the early mid-game. Farmers, Fishers, cheap Militia, Poachers, guys like that. Preferably ones where you're not buying much equipment you don't need as part of the package. Generally nothing over 500. And knowing traits can be quite helpful. A farmer, even one with stars in bad spots, is going to be an ok shield grunt with good HP and Stamina, provided they don't have bad traits. And a Farmer with good stars and decent starting stats? That's someone who can hold up as a vet even in the late game. For 200-300, plus maybe 50 for the try-out, it's really not that much.

Look at the Wiki page on backgrounds and get used to what stats each background normally has. In there you can find out the ones that are a complete toss-up (like day laborers) vs ones that even with bad stars and rolls could be useful. Hunters, for example, get a Ranged attack of 52-59. Even if they have a 52 and no stars in Ranged attack, that's still several levels up on a guy with 3 stars in Ranged attack but a starting value of 42 (max for most cheap backgrounds). So, yeah, it sucks you didn't get a superstar, but you pay more to get someone you is useful from the start and hopefully has potential to be quite good.