RPGWatch Feature - Battle Brothers Review

forgottenlor said:

I think Pladio that you are a much more skilled player than me. I felt beginner was challenging enough. No wonder Age of Decadence is one of your favourites.

Click to expand...

Saying that, I just restarted, trying to go for an ironman on beginner and 15 days in 6 necrosavants ambush me... They kill 3 of my 9 units leaving me with nothing.
I have to restart.

Pladio said:

This is the type of game I'd love to play in ironman but if you end up with a bad battle that puts you against 5 orc warriors and 7 orc young you can lose half your squad in one battle.

Click to expand...

BB is a low casualty product. It is monolithic and once addressed methodically, the body count is close to zero.
Streamers go hundreds of days without losing a brother.

It is hardly possible to end in a battle with orcs as they are slow(it is also possible to buy time by releasing dogs) and retreat is always an option either by getting to the edges of the map and magically egressing out.

I can't imagine playing on the hardest difficulty in ironman without knowing how to min/max everything.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Actually there are four main builds, the values to min/max are always the same.
It is all about cloning party members.

Pladio said:

Saying that, I just restarted, trying to go for an ironman on beginner and 15 days in 6 necrosavants ambush me… They kill 3 of my 9 units leaving me with nothing.
I have to restart.

Click to expand...

At this stage, it is obvious the basics were not learned. There are streamers who have a pedagogic approach to explain how.

The review is full of shallow points and inaccuracies.

For example, elevation leading to more range and a better vision is nothing new and must be treated as a common feature.

Swords are fast means nothing. There is no reference to speed. The basic attack of a sword costs the same APs and fatigue as the basic attack of a spear or a mace.

The angle on weapons is misleading: weapon number is not that big compared to other products.
Weapons fall in two categories: common and exceptional (can be found by talking to patrons in the tavern)
Common weapons come in three categories: tiers one, two and three. The difference between them is a matter of fatigue and damage.

The point on the orcs resolve is also misleading. Orcs are only marginally more resolved (undead are immune to morale test)
A war dog unleased on a young orc or a berseker might get them broken (there is three levels of routing: wavering, breaking and fleeing)
Orcs warriors are no more resolved than a bandit leader. The big difference is they are covered in heavy armour that makes hard to test their resolve.

The bit on ambitions is misleading. The world scales up according to various parameters like days. The more days pass, the harder enemies get.
Ambitions are another parameter to trigger an upscaling. Each time an ambition is fulfilled, the world gets more dangerous.
Except for the late game, the ambitions are the same, the player decides in which order they are fulfilled. They do not set long term goals. They are a means to control the flow of the world growth.
By day 100, the player will face a major crisis, by then, a lot of ambitions are going to be fulfilled.

Armours being expensive is irrelevant as they are looted on the corpses on the enemy when they are not destroyed. Surrounding an enemy and puncturing him with daggers does the trick.

If involved in noble business, a company can be fast equipped with plate armours for cheap.

Resolving a crisis does not end a game.
The goal in a game is to retire in a good position. Depending on the success the company had (and the way it had it), there is going to be a little text summarizing what the company became after the player dropped the leadership.

What could force an early retirement is the destruction of the world. If the player does not get involved, the invasions destroy settlements, towns etc leaving the company with no places to resupply.

On weapons, their use is monolithic.
So much it is debated whether a weapon tiers one is better than a tiers three weapon.

For example, the main main purpose is to stun an enemy and buy one turn. Maces stun the same so in this regard, using a tiers one mace is better than a tiers three mace as tiers one weapons cost less fatigue.

ChienAboyeur said:

The review is full of shallow points and inaccuracies. . .

Click to expand...

Wow that's a lot of points. Well, I play the game, rather than watch streamers analyze it, so you might have studied it better than I have, but still I'd like to address some of your points.

When I say swords or fast, I mean a mercenary wielding a sword often got more attacks then one wielding an axe or similar weapon. I know my 2 handed always got one more attack than my great axe wielder.

The game asks you if you want to retire once you defeat a late game crisis. That is it gives you the opportunity to end the game without abandoning it. You can also play on and complete all 3 crises. I consider this an end game, perhaps you see it differently.

In my campaign, I rarely got good armour off of enemies. I could almost always buy significantly better armour than I looted. But, most of my fights against humans were against bandits.

I know ambitions play a major role in game scaling, but I won't deny that day count also plays a role. If you know all the variables, you've done more research then me. I played the game, and briefly looked through the Wiki.

I never said elevation is "something new," only that it plays a large part in combat. There are a number of srpgs where elevation is not included. In ones where it is included it plays a role, or why bother with it?

I'd also like to point out here, that I play a game for fun. And I play a lot of games. Normally I invest one playthrough worth of time (without studying walkthroughs, or watching profi streamers, or reading wikis) I also like to experiment with things myself rather than going into a game with foreknowledge of what is the "best build" and discarding everything else. I am sure there are techniques to play the game more efficiently than I do, but personally I'd rather not know them. Part of enjoying a game (at least for me) is figuring out things myself.

you said:

Still not on gog

Click to expand...

I'm hear you. GOG is my preferred platform. I wish more developers would see how important GOG's platform is becoming.

ChienAboyeur said:

BB is a low casualty product. It is monolithic and once addressed methodically, the body count is close to zero.
Streamers go hundreds of days without losing a brother.

It is hardly possible to end in a battle with orcs as they are slow(it is also possible to buy time by releasing dogs) and retreat is always an option either by getting to the edges of the map and magically egressing out.

Actually there are four main builds, the values to min/max are always the same.
It is all about cloning party members.

Click to expand...

I do not play games like you do apparently, I enjoy trying out new things and different things.
Most of my builds are different except for most having Gifted & Fast Adaptation, as I see no negatives from these two skills.

ChienAboyeur said:

At this stage, it is obvious the basics were not learned. There are streamers who have a pedagogic approach to explain how.

Click to expand...

That's a good explanation

Might want to explain what you are saying rather than simply say "the basics were not learned"... What does that mean ?

ChienAboyeur said:

On weapons, their use is monolithic.
So much it is debated whether a weapon tiers one is better than a tiers three weapon.

For example, the main main purpose is to stun an enemy and buy one turn. Maces stun the same so in this regard, using a tiers one mace is better than a tiers three mace as tiers one weapons cost less fatigue.

Click to expand...

That is an interesting point. I may have a look at that ...

For someone who seems to despise these kind of games Chien sure seems to watch alot of people play if… (I know I know, "Not much time was spent on the effort, it is possible to draw obvious conclusions when one has the superior intellect".)

Of course there are "Perfect" builds! Finding them is a huge part of what makes the game fun. Sure, if you go Ironman right away I can understand spending some time taking notes from others but don't read walkthroughs and then come complaining a game is too easy because all you have to do is play like the pros…

tomasp3n said:

luj1 said:

Great alternative to heroin albeit suffering somewhat from Sid Meieritis.

Click to expand...

Ok I'll bite. What's Sid Meieritis? (In my opinion that should mean it's excellent but somehow I doubt that was what you meant).

Click to expand...

When core gameplay is comprised off addictive but repetitive mechanics (i.e. not enough real content). It's like crack for awhile before monotony gives you brain cancer. This is most evident in Pirates!

Specifically what we have in BB is a fun, addictive 25-30 hour game. Then you hit a brick wall due to lack of variety, same encounters, same enemies, flat level design etc. But then again 3 people made this game which is still kind of impressive.

Without a doubt battles are the apex of BB.

luj1 said:

When core gameplay is comprised off addictive but repetitive mechanics (i.e. not enough real content). It's like crack for awhile before monotony gives you brain cancer. This is most evident in Pirates!

Specifically what we have in BB is a fun, addictive 25-30 hour game. Then you hit a brick wall due to lack of variety, same encounters, same enemies, flat level design etc. But then again 3 people made this game which is still kind of impressive.

Click to expand...

The Codex review of BB, which came out last week, covered this pretty well.... Said the game is fun for about 20 hours then you realize how repetitive it is and how there's really nothing there, and then you're best off quitting. Not sure why we didn't get a news post here about the Codex review - probably someone decided it was too negative. I'd suggest reading it as a counterpoint to this review, for anyone still trying to decide whether this game is worth checking out.

Thanks for the great review, forgottenlor. Really appreciate the time and effort you put into these articles. I wish more people will write their own review too especially if they have differing view.

BB is in my wish list - what's keeping me away from this game is the difficulty!! I'm not sure if I am up for the challenge.

purpleblob said:

Thanks for the great review, forgottenlor. Really appreciate the time and effort you put into these articles. I wish more people will write their own review too especially if they have differing view.

BB is in my wish list - what's keeping me away from this game is the difficulty!! I'm not sure if I am up for the challenge.

Click to expand...

If you play on beginner, don't play iron man, you can also reload any battle that goes very poorly. Battles take about 10-15 minutes, so you lose about 15 minutes of time maximum, if things go poorly. Quests also vary in difficulty, and except the first two quests of the game, none of them are mandatory, so you could also theoretically save before accepting a quest, and then not do it if it is brutal. So I think there are ways to avoid the game being too hard, if that's what you want to do.

Stingray said:

The Codex review of BB, which came out last week, covered this pretty well…. Said the game is fun for about 20 hours then you realize how repetitive it is and how there's really nothing there, and then you're best off quitting. Not sure why we didn't get a news post here about the Codex review - probably someone decided it was too negative. I'd suggest reading it as a counterpoint to this review, for anyone still trying to decide whether this game is worth checking out.

Click to expand...

I haven't read or seen it either, but I'd also suggest reading it. I think its often useful to read both positive and negative articles of a game to find out what features people like, and what ones bother them. That way you can figure out if the good features appeal to you or the negative ones are too off putting. I do this when buying indie games on steam that aren't covered on rpgwatch.

luj1 said:

When core gameplay is comprised off addictive but repetitive mechanics (i.e. not enough real content).

Click to expand...

First point: enemies are not the same as they differ by hidden perks. Fielding the same enemy does mean the same encounters.

Repetitive mechanics are the core of any gameplay. It provides the necessary framework to support sensible decision making.
This disdain for anything gameplay related is brought to higher levels when it involves lethal threats. In that context, it is vital for players to be able to size up how big the threat is, if they can defeat it or 'd better flee it.


In this regard, BB rely on inaccurate information. The player is given brackets on the number of enemies (a few, many, lots, plethoras) which allows to size up the enemy threats with a margin of error that is can be damaging (one orc warrior more than expected, two wolf riders more than expected etc make differences in the way of dealing with an encounter)

Stingray said:

The Codex review of BB, which came out last week, covered this pretty well…. Said the game is fun for about 20 hours then you realize how repetitive it is and how there's really nothing there, and then you're best off quitting. Not sure why we didn't get a news post here about the Codex review - probably someone decided it was too negative. I'd suggest reading it as a counterpoint to this review, for anyone still trying to decide whether this game is worth checking out.

Click to expand...

I hardly ever visit the Codex, so unless someone points me to them having a review, I wouldn't know they had one most of the time.

Pladio said:

I do not play games like you do apparently, I enjoy trying out new things and different things.

Click to expand...

The point was made: BB is very monolithic, it is all about fetching the same builds.
There is nothing different to try.

Most of my builds are different except for most having Gifted & Fast Adaptation, as I see no negatives from these two skills.

Click to expand...

That is part of the issue (and shows that the basics were not learned)

Gifted and fast adaptation are perks that must be reserved to party members who are expendable and wont make it.

Perks are distributed one per level up to level 11.
Gifted is redundant with the training hall that does a similar job for cheap(especially when coupled with scholar that is one of the mandatory perks)
Fast adaptation does not pay itself off in a product in which controlling turns is compulsory.
Strikes per turn are limited to two (with no perk boost) and you cant afford building up the skill benefit over several turns. To keep controlling a turn, targets assigned to one turn must be dealt with during the said turn, not the next turn or the next to the next turn.

forgottenlor said:

When I say swords or fast, I mean a mercenary wielding a sword often got more attacks then one wielding an axe or similar weapon. I know my 2 handed always got one more attack than my great axe wielder.

Click to expand...

Misleading. As stated, other weapons bear the same costs. Second, all weapons can be wielded two handed to get a hefty increase in hitting chances. It is part of the gameplay (perk quick hands)

The game asks you if you want to retire once you defeat a late game crisis. That is it gives you the opportunity to end the game without abandoning it. You can also play on and complete all 3 crises. I consider this an end game, perhaps you see it differently.

Click to expand...

Retirement is available at any moment in a game.

In my campaign, I rarely got good armour off of enemies. I could almost always buy significantly better armour than I looted. But, most of my fights against humans were against bandits.

Click to expand...

Obviously, since armour hit points are damaged before health points. In other words, body attacks destroy the armour first before. Using flails (that allows to aim for head) or the dagger puncture attack that ignores the armour allows to feed on the enemy, which is a big part of the game.

I know ambitions play a major role in game scaling, but I won't deny that day count also plays a role. If you know all the variables, you've done more research then me. I played the game, and briefly looked through the Wiki.

Click to expand...

The point was that fulfilling ambitions has no storytelling value.

I never said elevation is "something new," only that it plays a large part in combat. There are a number of srpgs where elevation is not included. In ones where it is included it plays a role, or why bother with it?

Click to expand...

This feature was given a lot of space considering it is nothing new.

I'd also like to point out here, that I play a game for fun. And I play a lot of games. Normally I invest one playthrough worth of time (without studying walkthroughs, or watching profi streamers, or reading wikis) I also like to experiment with things myself rather than going into a game with foreknowledge of what is the "best build" and discarding everything else. I am sure there are techniques to play the game more efficiently than I do, but personally I'd rather not know them. Part of enjoying a game (at least for me) is figuring out things myself.

Click to expand...

BB is very monolithic. There is not much to figure out.