Battle Brothers - Warriors of the North DLC Released

They made a real cool special encounter where you pick 1 brother to fight one bad ass barbarian. Since I'm playing a Lone Wolf origin, I picked my avatar. I won't spoil it but if you win you get a real nice weapon.

On the screen where you choose Ironman and all that stuff each checkbox will tell you if it's the recommended difficulty: choose those.

Players got their ways for sure.
Watched streamers, past the first crisis, the possibility of thriving by farming unmatched enemies is. Like 20 zombies equipped with tiers one weapons, one fourth being bare handed. Losing that fight takes engineering. It pays more than enough to meet the upkeep. No penalties.

Originally Posted by TomRon
Yeah, I know what you mean. Honestman is harder than Ironman sometimes. But I figure if I only use predetermined saves and not the autosaves, I would often lose hours of playtime if I reload. That probably means I will at least have to think hard about reloading…

Don't have to worry about it quite yet though, I'll savescum some more first.

Will also start a new game at Beginner difficulty, like many others I always have a problem with picking the easiest choice, but it seems warranted with this game.

EDIT: Just bought both the DLC's as well. Time to get cracking…or dying. Probably dying.

For some of the new players that got the game, what are your thoughts on BB and the new DLC? Would love to hear some comments, good and bad.

Originally Posted by Hastar
For some of the new players that got the game, what are your thoughts on BB and the new DLC? Would love to hear some comments, good and bad.

I didn't get to the game yet. For me, my passion for gaming comes and goes for a few months, so right now I'm not really playing much and more doing other hobbies I enjoy. Once I get back into full gaming mode, BB is top on my list to play.

Originally Posted by Hastar
For some of the new players that got the game, what are your thoughts on BB and the new DLC? Would love to hear some comments, good and bad.

I have 14h with the original game and the first DLC, probably 3h with this DLC.. can't say i notice much overall change apart from the beginning where you can select various scenarios to start with.

I don't know.. i'm not a fan. there are many other games which does this but just way better - with more stuff going on, better map, better characters, deeper gameplay..

i get it that not everyone wants to play Total War and might enjoy something like this because it's less complex.. but i think its a pretty weak game i must say.. there's also heroes of might and magic and king's bounty, quite similar (though this is not a clone). Those i had more fun with, just overall better map, more interesting units (and combat, imo), better presentation. But I'm not a big fan of those games either, i get tired of it after those first 15-20h.. BB has the advantage that it has a grimmer tone.

I think this game would have worked better with more fleshed out characters, that would have made it different to e.g HoMM, e.g you have a group that have quite deep personalities etc, similar to a RPG. Here's it's just cannon fodder.

I would agree with the idea that the DLC does not fundamentally change the game, though I disagree with some of your choices for comparison, Vurt.

I think you have to fundamentally enjoy tactical squad-based, turn-based combat for itself to truly enjoy Battle Brothers. I get that you're talking about a lack of an overland strategic layer to the game in bringing up Total War, but I'm not sure that's the best to compare with overall. King's Bounty and HoMM are a bit better. I think to enjoy Battle Brothers, one should also probably appreciate a more sandbox approach to gaming. To my mind, Mount & Blade is a better comparison to Battle Brothers…just with turn-based squad combat.

I think the combat is a little too simplistic to compare it to most other tactical games.

More sandboxy, not really, it just lacks overall depth, even in comparison to something quite simplistic like HoMM, in terms of story and NPC's, map, units.. you're pretty free to explore and hire units/people how you want in either of these games.

Isn't Total War real time combat with turn based empire building?

yeah like i said, it's far less complex (or deep) than something like TW.. I'm sure there are people who might enjoy BB and not TW, and the other way around… for me personally, i'd probably stick with something like TW if i'm really gonna spend time with "this type of game" (but that's just how i feel about it, other people maybe don't make the connection).

HoMM is overall a better comparison, but again, not a clone but very similar gameplay wise. BB does some tricks that at first makes it feel like something else (most of all the tone, and that it has characters, not units, more sandbox), but i'd argue that in the end its quite similar.

Throw Total War out because real time strategy games are awful in my humble opinion. I stopped playing them after Warcraft 2 and one of the early Red Alerts.

HoMM 3, one of my favorite games, is a 4x strategy game. So I would not compare it to any Heroes game either.

I guess that's one of the reasons I love BB. It's very hard to compare to other games and is very unique. I've been playing games since Pong and I would not compare BB to anything I've played.

This is where I'd have to agree with you, I'd struggle to compare the game to anything else, though I would be able to give it a definite category, that of roguelike, and if someone asked something like "I liked Darkest Dungeon are there any similar games out there" I'd probably mention Battle Brothers with lots of caveats as it's definitely in that sort of bundle of similar design goals.

Originally Posted by Capt. Huggy Face
I think you have to fundamentally enjoy tactical squad-based, turn-based combat for itself to truly enjoy Battle Brothers.

Really truly then.
It means nothing.

Comparison between Thea and Battle Brothers.

Party composition:

Thea: stemming from the map, available resources (populations included)
Options were large: going for light/heavy armoured predominantly, property based load outs, different classes ( a party of witches, a party of hunters/gatherers, a party of soldiers/tacticians etc), largeness (whether going for one larger party or several smaller parties), organization ( a party could be built on inequally important members, a star member supported by lesser members or on equally important members) and more

Battle brothers: pre planned, players come with their ideas of the right party and keep cloning it from game to game.

Party recruitment:

Thea: party members are scarce and valuable. Recruitment is directed: gameplay events provide certain characters( a map mostly populated by orcs provide events to recruit orcs etc )

Battle brothers: recruitment happens blindly,touring the map looking for candidates fitting a pre determined templates, players hit the pot until they grab the jackpot (brothers dismissed as soon as recruited) brothers might be expendable

Tactics, strategy or whatever stuff it is called on this site

Thea: the simple card game allows extensive control on outcomes, that allows minute sequences.
For examples, retreats: a sequence that players are led to take. Every member life matters, players are actively engaged into it, trying to figure out how to save the party, maybe at the cost of a few members (that could be chosen, willing sacrifice and stuff)

Battle Brothers: the simple probability base combat allows a player to pray his 11th level members do not miss their 95pc hit chance strikes thrice, four, five times in a row, letting him cursing, calling shenanigans etc
Retreats are made after checking on an enemy to reset it (resetting an enemy changes its composition) and is executed by pressing the retreat button, letting the player lay back on his chair, hands crossed over his head.

Originally Posted by Hastar
It's very hard to compare to other games and is very unique.

BB is not hard, it is tedious. Succeeding requires stacking simple to execute tasks.

Players are more or less inclined to do so. They prefer to play something else than BB, they reject simple ways of succeeding. They do not stick to the design.

Opening a door as it is designed is simple. Yet when people figure out that there is an empty space at the bottom of a door and decide it is a better way of trying to crawl under it, then what is meant to be simple turns suddenly difficult.

Originally Posted by Hastar
Throw Total War out because real time strategy games are awful in my humble opinion. I stopped playing them after Warcraft 2 and one of the early Red Alerts.

HoMM 3, one of my favorite games, is a 4x strategy game. So I would not compare it to any Heroes game either.

I guess that's one of the reasons I love BB. It's very hard to compare to other games and is very unique. I've been playing games since Pong and I would not compare BB to anything I've played.

TW isn't exactly real time since you can (and will…) pause to give orders etc and not comparable to something like Warcraft 2.. BB is only unique on a surface level, but i do agree that it's not a complete clone of e.g HoMM, but not far from it. Almost everything in it can be translated over to existing mechanics / gameplay elements in something like HoMM or King's Bounty. Its lacking a few things and might be adding perhaps 1 or 2 elements that they don't have.

Originally Posted by ChienAboyeur
BB is not hard, it is tedious. Succeeding requires stacking simple to execute tasks.

Players are more or less inclined to do so. They prefer to play something else than BB, they reject simple ways of succeeding. They do not stick to the design.

Opening a door as it is designed is simple. Yet when people figure out that there is an empty space at the bottom of a door and decide it is a better way of trying to crawl under it, then what is meant to be simple turns suddenly difficult.

I said it's hard to compare not that the game is hard. Let's see if Chien will ever admit he's wrong I still say he won't even though what he stated is 100% wrong.

Playing the game on hardest setting and ironman with no alt-f4 would be very hard in my opinion. You can get jumped by very hard groups early on and game can be over in a second. Most of the YouTube videos won't show you when they alt-f4 out or when their favorite brother gets one shot to the head. Even later in the game certain groups like hexes or alps could do a number on you with a little bad luck.

Originally Posted by Hastar
I said it's hard to compare not that the game is hard. Let's see if Chien will ever admit he's wrong I still say he won't even though what he stated is 100% wrong.

It is quoted. The quotation is key.

What happened: a post is being written comparing BB to a game. During that time, another post is sent, claiming that it is very hard to compare BB to another game.
Post that is read just after the post comparing BB to another game.

Filling the gap since it did not come across

Sure, comparing BB to a game is hard, as hard as BB is hard.

Instead of thinking that somebody might be wrong, maybe taking into account that a comparison to a game had just been written could have helped.
It took minutes to write, but hard. Just done a few minutes before reading that comparing BB to a game is hard.
The past is the past but still.

Playing the game on hardest setting and ironman with no alt-f4 would be very hard in my opinion.

Sure, BB is just as hard as it is to compare it to a game. Which is very hard, was not done in the thread, no.

Isn't this a gaming website? Aren't you suppose to be on a watching website. Why do I give myself headaches trying to understand him.

Originally Posted by Hastar
Isn't this a gaming website? Aren't you suppose to be on a watching website.

Relevant question when considering the unabated love shown on this site for products meant to cater for streamers'needs.

Why do I give myself headaches trying to understand him.

Just like playing stuff like TW3 has a cost, playing stuff like BB has a cost.

Originally Posted by vurt
TW isn't exactly real time since you can (and will…) pause to give orders etc and not comparable to something like Warcraft 2.. BB is only unique on a surface level, but i do agree that it's not a complete clone of e.g HoMM, but not far from it. Almost everything in it can be translated over to existing mechanics / gameplay elements in something like HoMM or King's Bounty. Its lacking a few things and might be adding perhaps 1 or 2 elements that they don't have.

I think I understand where you're coming from, but like Hastar, I think a closer comparison would be Mount & Blade rather than HoMM.

HoMM is scenario based and although some mechanics are similar HoMM has too many features that Battle Brothers does not have (incl. Base building, heroes, unit stacks).

I think Mount & Blade fits more as you are building a small-ish warband. The main difference is Turn-based versus real-time. Questing works in similar ways, exploring does too. Even the overland map is essentially a reskin of M&B.