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

[Parabalus]

Is it only the noble factions that have patrolling soldiers and mercs guarding their castles? I kited bandits to a large trading city a couple times and only the first time did the city militia come out to play. I'm fine fighting bandits on my own but it was a little disappointing when nobody showed up.

I've seen villages hire their own guys.

Yeap I just got BRUTALLY RAPED by a group of necrosavants. I hate these assholes with passion

My go to strategy vs necrosavants is to have 1 more ranged than savants, all with rotation perk. Surround them in with 1 free hex each, the savants will teleport between them 95%, then focus them down. When you kill one, ditch a ranged weapon to maintain +1 count. Seemed to work out well so far, nets help too. Oh, and if you don't reveal them, they will sit the first round out doing nothing, ghosts do that too.

I really want to be over the moon with this game but I am getting slowly pushed into meh and "good for what it is" territory. It is nice to have a tool-tip saying "losing is fun" but that actually requires wise design decisions to make work. It was fun at first but now I feel like I am grasping in the dark for some First Order Optimal Strategy and after that it is smooth sailing relatively. It feels like most battles turn around those 60% chance to hit strikes in the first and second turn. Hard West decidedly spoiled me in this regard but I know not every game can be semi-deterministic. That being said, having for 4-5 guys wail on a single direwolf and mostly missing then having the wolfie do 3 attacks that kill 2 people makes me just want to take a break.

Also it feels like more of a framework than a full experience which means there is plenty of room for expansions but 27 euros breh. I still like it though but I am at the 15 hour mark and I don't know if I will get to the 40 hour mark.

I wouldn't play on ironman without doing several normal runs first. The game's mechanics are REALLY REALLY REALLY poorly explained, you have no choice but to learn by failing.

The early game is really RNGish, it gets better afterwards (reminds me of low lvl DnD). Bullshit events still happen (ie. your backline getting sniped before you can act), but you can always reload if you think you'll lose over that.

 

[Sarissofoi]

I spend more than 900 hours but to be honest this game have some terrible design choices.
Like:
>only one contract at time
Why? Why you can not take few deliveries or escort contract and delivery or slay roaming and near xxx and delivery to xxx?
>need to backtrack to contract giver(sometimes it have sense but sometimes its just pain)
Why you cannot turn destroy/kill contract in other faction settlement? If you could take other contracts it would be fine but now its like :
-village is attacked by orcs go and kill them, you go kill them and you see that they have some bad events and two contract and you can not even check them, adn when you go back its kill wolves and bring delivery to the xx where you just come back to report success
Just...
Game is build to play on Ironman but:
>you cannot switch troops or weapons before battles
>you do not know what you facing, not exactly numbers but even general info like there are brigands
>scouting locations is pain in the ass, you ca not even send one guy because reserve is just to small
Mind that its less problem if you save scum - just retreat on 1st turn and reload or alt f4 and reload and before fight you can change formation, troops and weapons.

Leveling troops and gaining perks is pain. Replacing losses is pain.
There is no safe enemies to level up which is fine but newbies later on are just enemy magnet. And losing 11lv brother is a big setback.
"Oh just hire high level mercenary"
Well they come with max few levels and its not really enough for any late decent build. There is also no way to get exp outside combat.
-no training sessions
-no passive gain
-no instructors who mentor newbies(there are so events but they not give exp)
-no exp from contracts

Payment for contracts and overall contracts are just not fair.
-pay sometimes scale with enemy strength sometimes not
-you have little idea what you will be facing
-usually its hardly pay for upkeep, repairs and you need sell loot to get some bonus money
-loot/drop system is too rather painful. See this guy have great sword? Kill him and he do not drop it.
-the trade goods/loot items are usually rare in enemy loot and not worth much
"Signet or some silverware or furs ~200-400 coins where you sell 2 arming swords for 300 each. Armors also get really cheap to sell.

There is plenty of stuff that is just annoying.
-no reusable/resupplied form medical supplies bandages and antidotes, the same for nets
-small inventory space
"I have no problem now" - sure but wait for late game where you need to carry spare armor/weapons, nets and other stuff, rares etc and suddenly after 1-2 fights you cannot even take more loot

Specific enemies demand specific builds but reserve space is limited and even then guys in it get pissed.
Amount of temples and inns is really small. Its like 2 temples per map.
You do not get/can not buy info about map locations, areas so you do not walk and look for them. It would make sense that friendly towns would tell you nearby enemy locations in hopes that you will destroy them for free.
Lack of contracts connected with current events in settlements.
Enemy moving all the time - not even camping.
Lack fortifications or possibility to rest behind walls.
Limit on tools amount.
Plenty of other stuff.

 

[LizardWizard]

Afaik caravan runs are completely up to luck... You just were really unlucky and a lot of enemy groups were roaming around your route simultaneously. It could even be that they were chasing each other when your caravan passed by..

Yeah, I wouldn't pick caravan runs on ironman (if given a choice). You can get super lucky (I got 500 gold for free, once, basically) or face one battle after the next.

They are worth it if they're going to a weaponsmith/armorer/fletcher. Adds the well-supplied modifier and usually 1-4 unique items for discount. You can get nasty equip early game like a Greatswords/2hammers with increased damage/headshot chance.

 

[JudasIscariot]

Clocked 22 hours on normal/veteran and I'm getting burnt out. The game feels repetitive and barebones as fuck to me.

Idk, guess imma restart on ironman and see where that takes me, because the lure of savescumming is 2strong for me, even though I realise it's not really the way it's meant to be played.

I hope the developers manage to expand the game's content more towards a Darklands-like experience. I mean it's got the basics down, just needs some fleshing out.

 

[Prime Junta]

I think the trick is to use spearwall at the ends to encourage them to come at you straight up the middle where you can shieldwall and backrow attack. Not sure if you can do this in an ambush situation though. And the worst scenario is to be ambushed in a forest where you don't have the mobility or even space to fight properly.

Doesn't even have to be an ambush. Damn things move so quick a couple will reach your frontline every time, just about. No time to set up a spearwall or shieldwall, except through blind luck. Perfectly fine in a normal game where you can just reload if it goes pear-shaped, but a definite no-go on ironman.

And I don't like blind luck. The trick to beating this game is to find ways to outwit the RNG. I.e., figure out how to get out of trouble when it tries to mug you.

 

[Sarissofoi]

I think the trick is to use spearwall at the ends to encourage them to come at you straight up the middle where you can shieldwall and backrow attack. Not sure if you can do this in an ambush situation though. And the worst scenario is to be ambushed in a forest where you don't have the mobility or even space to fight properly.

Doesn't even have to be an ambush. Damn things move so quick a couple will reach your frontline every time, just about. No time to set up a spearwall or shieldwall, except through blind luck. Perfectly fine in a normal game where you can just reload if it goes pear-shaped, but a definite no-go on ironman.

And I don't like blind luck. The trick to beating this game is to find ways to outwit the RNG. I.e., figure out how to get out of trouble when it tries to mug you.

Use shields and pikes to push them back.
It not always work and sometimes there is no space but it helps.

 

[Jimmious]

On the topic of how bare bones the game is: It does indeed lack depth in some departments, that's for sure. There is a lot under the hood and the mechanics are very solid but yes, it does feel like a really solid base for many things to come.
I do hope the developers also look at it that way. Initially I would go for some proper end game and some unique enemies/entities in the world, to create some more concrete goals later in the game.
Maybe apart from the big events that already exist there should be "the big evil" of the generated map which eventually would be the "end boss". Like a dragon that wreaks havoc in all the land or something similar.

Also I agree with a comment of Sarissofoi earlier about the levels of new recruits. They should definitely be upped so that you can cover losses faster.

Cities should rebuild and develop, maybe new settlements could even appear, the companies should have non-combat personnel to make them feel more alive, there could be more involved "camping" mechanics... There are a lot of things like that.

But even as it is, the game is seriously addictive. There is just something that makes me want to go back in and play a couple more battles, search for some better loot etc

I really really hope there is more content in the future, I will gladly pay for it anytime.

*The old "world gen" system sser described sounds really cool actually. I would also love it if they would gradually go back to something like that.

 

[Kayerts]

It is nice to have a tool-tip saying "losing is fun" but that actually requires wise design decisions to make work.

I appreciate a lot of things about the game, but I'd agree. Sarissofoi did a great job of covering some of the bad design decisions; this is the big one for me. I can appreciate a game where life is cheap and combat is brutal, but for that to actually be fun, you probably need some of the following features to change:

a) long leveling crawl for replacement bros, in which you don't even have a real build (or weapon spec) until level 5 (trainers suggest a solution without messing with the pacing of the early-mid game, but they aren't near enough in their current form)
b) late game, your replacements can't even carry the same gear as their predecessors (further aggravated by the inventory whose size is annoyingly restrictive even under optimal circumstances)
c) due to a) and b), late game replacement bros encourage you to go quite a long time playing it safe to grind up XP, i.e. fighting the sorts of enemies you've already beaten, which is boring
d) recruitment is handled in this inane stat-blind fashion, making the hunt for replacements even longer and more resource-intensive
e) progression is handled slowly and gradually; you need many battles to gain levels, and most contracts have low margins on rewards versus costs. There are no all-in plays to be made, when you're desperate.

So the optimal response to a setback is to spend a few hours recovering, the optimal path to which is by sticking to encounters that are easier than the ones you were fighting, which amounts to replaying earlier parts of the game in a less challenging and less fun way, while praying that RNGesus favors you with good recruits. That isn't fun. Dying in a glorious last stand can be fun, but it's overshadowed by the fact that after 1-2 deaths, you know that even winning the battle isn't going to be very rewarding, i.e. there aren't good outcomes available here.

Losing is fun in a game like FTL because if you've been playing intelligently, you've at least got a chance of turning it around, and there's a short amount of time between the setback and knowing if you will or won't overcome it. The game's difficulty is also scaled such that you can have sustained such losses while heading into the late game--did you lose half your men and have to replace them with green recruits? It'll be harder, but it'll be doable. The struggle to regain control (or at least make a cool last stand) in a game where you've had a setback is one of the best feelings in any game, particularly when it makes you take riskier and more interesting moves. Battle Brothers does a great job of creating it at the tactical layer (via enemies that have a lot of ways to fuck you up, and giving you tools to mitigate that and recover), but at the strategic layer, it punishes mistakes by encouraging you to seek out less interesting gameplay, not more. This is not very good design. Ideally, setbacks in games force you to make hard choices and take potentially game-losing risks to correct, but the reward scaling in Battle Brothers doesn't enable that.

The most fun in the game comes from near-death extractions or triumphs, or cool last stands; actually recovering from the deaths is a grind. The designers say the game's meant to be played on Ironman, but their design is that of a game that's meant to be savescummed.

 

[Jimmious]

rapsdjff you better be taking notes!! Also I hope you guys are selling as well as possible

 

[Teut Busnet]

It is nice to have a tool-tip saying "losing is fun" but that actually requires wise design decisions to make work.

I appreciate a lot of things about the game, but I'd agree. Sarissofoi did a great job of covering some of the bad design decisions; this is the big one for me. I can appreciate a game where life is cheap and combat is brutal, but for that to actually be fun, you probably need some of the following features to change:

a) long leveling crawl for replacement bros, in which you don't even have a real build (or weapon spec) until level 5 (trainers suggest a solution without messing with the pacing of the early-mid game, but they aren't near enough in their current form)
b) late game, your replacements can't even carry the same gear as their predecessors (further aggravated by the inventory whose size is annoyingly restrictive even under optimal circumstances)
c) due to a) and b), late game replacement bros encourage you to go quite a long time playing it safe to grind up XP, i.e. fighting the sorts of enemies you've already beaten, which is boring
d) recruitment is handled in this inane stat-blind fashion, making the hunt for replacements even longer and more resource-intensive
e) progression is handled slowly and gradually; you need many battles to gain levels, and most contracts have low margins on rewards versus costs. There are no all-in plays to be made, when you're desperate.

So the optimal response to a setback is to spend a few hours recovering, the optimal path to which is by sticking to encounters that are easier than the ones you were fighting, which amounts to replaying earlier parts of the game in a less challenging and less fun way, while praying that RNGesus favors you with good recruits. That isn't fun. Dying in a glorious last stand can be fun, but it's overshadowed by the fact that after 1-2 deaths, you know that even winning the battle isn't going to be very rewarding, i.e. there aren't good outcomes available here.

Losing is fun in a game like FTL because if you've been playing intelligently, you've at least got a chance of turning it around, and there's a short amount of time between when you know if you will or won't. The game's difficulty is also scaled such that you can have sustained such losses while heading into the late game--did you lose half your men and have to replace them with green recruits? It'll be harder, but it'll be doable. The struggle to regain control (or at least make a cool last stand) in a game where you've had a setback is one of the best feelings in any game, particularly when it makes you take riskier and more interesting moves. Battle Brothers does a great job of creating it at the tactical layer (via enemies that have a lot of ways to fuck you up, and giving you tools to mitigate that and recover), but at the strategic layer, it punishes mistakes by encouraging you to seek out less interesting gameplay, not more. This is not very good design. Ideally, setbacks in game force you to make hard choices and take potentially game-losing moves to correct, but the reward scaling in Battle Brothers doesn't enable that.

The most fun in the game comes from near-death extractions or triumphs, or cool last stands; actually recovering from the deaths is a grind. The designers say the game's meant to be played on Ironman, but their design is that of a game that's meant to be savescummed.

I agree with most of your post, but FTL is far more luck based than BB. You can play as 'intelligent' as you like, if you don't find the right weapons you're pretty much fucked. Same when you don't win almost every fight, because otherwise you can't afford to upgrade your ship properly, so I don't think you can afford heavy losses. (I do love FTL, but sometimes it's unwinnable, not sure if the same can be said of BB)

The lack of info about recruits is the reason I don't play ironman anymore, maybe Overhype finds a compromise between 100% info and the 'Cat in the Bag' thing we have now.

 

[Alienman]

Not every mercenary company will reach legendary status, that is just something people will have to accept. To retire as a legendary mercenary company is something you have to work for, and get lucky with I guess. I mean there is even an achievement that counts the amount of failed companies. Not everyone can be the Black Company. I have had some games that just lasted a couple of days. I role-play it in my head that they were not suited for this brutal world. I do really like that you are not the chosen one, and that you have to work to become noticed and even then you just one among many.

 

[Sarissofoi]

It is nice to have a tool-tip saying "losing is fun" but that actually requires wise design decisions to make work.

I appreciate a lot of things about the game, but I'd agree. Sarissofoi did a great job of covering some of the bad design decisions; this is the big one for me. I can appreciate a game where life is cheap and combat is brutal, but for that to actually be fun, you probably need some of the following features to change:

a) long leveling crawl for replacement bros, in which you don't even have a real build (or weapon spec) until level 5 (trainers suggest a solution without messing with the pacing of the early-mid game, but they aren't near enough in their current form)
b) late game, your replacements can't even carry the same gear as their predecessors (further aggravated by the inventory whose size is annoyingly restrictive even under optimal circumstances)
c) due to a) and b), late game replacement bros encourage you to go quite a long time playing it safe to grind up XP, i.e. fighting the sorts of enemies you've already beaten, which is boring
d) recruitment is handled in this inane stat-blind fashion, making the hunt for replacements even longer and more resource-intensive
e) progression is handled slowly and gradually; you need many battles to gain levels, and most contracts have low margins on rewards versus costs. There are no all-in plays to be made, when you're desperate.

So the optimal response to a setback is to spend a few hours recovering, the optimal path to which is by sticking to encounters that are easier than the ones you were fighting, which amounts to replaying earlier parts of the game in a less challenging and less fun way, while praying that RNGesus favors you with good recruits. That isn't fun. Dying in a glorious last stand can be fun, but it's overshadowed by the fact that after 1-2 deaths, you know that even winning the battle isn't going to be very rewarding, i.e. there aren't good outcomes available here.

Losing is fun in a game like FTL because if you've been playing intelligently, you've at least got a chance of turning it around, and there's a short amount of time between when you know if you will or won't. The game's difficulty is also scaled such that you can have sustained such losses while heading into the late game--did you lose half your men and have to replace them with green recruits? It'll be harder, but it'll be doable. The struggle to regain control (or at least make a cool last stand) in a game where you've had a setback is one of the best feelings in any game, particularly when it makes you take riskier and more interesting moves. Battle Brothers does a great job of creating it at the tactical layer (via enemies that have a lot of ways to fuck you up, and giving you tools to mitigate that and recover), but at the strategic layer, it punishes mistakes by encouraging you to seek out less interesting gameplay, not more. This is not very good design. Ideally, setbacks in game force you to make hard choices and take potentially game-losing moves to correct, but the reward scaling in Battle Brothers doesn't enable that.

The most fun in the game comes from near-death extractions or triumphs, or cool last stands; actually recovering from the deaths is a grind. The designers say the game's meant to be played on Ironman, but their design is that of a game that's meant to be savescummed.

Well written.
The problem is grind. Because you need fights completely. No losses. This is not a X-Com(the old one) where you could throw dozens fresh soldiers at the problem and still gain even if the one guys survive. Nope, not here.
You lose experienced guy - no fast replacement. The recruiting system is just way to burn cash and artificially make game longer. Or poor design. Whatever.
You lose half team and win - you are in deep shit. Its instant downgrade. You better have cash and supplies because pay will not cover 1/10 cost.
You lose half the team and fail? Then its even worse as you also lose weapons and armors and all of it cost arm and leg.
Problem is that combat instead being rare encounters(compared to current situation which its more like constant WAR and I am not even kidding battle sites are everywhere) but challenging and rewarding(so you can fight, lose men and even lose battle but you can replace guys more easily and basic equipment is relatively cheapo and abundant).
Now its
>kill six raiders for 300 gold
or
>run from 6 orc warriors
or
>kill 6 orc warriors and lose half company and be setback 10 hours if you are lucky

The global war state and incompetence of faction troops in keeping order even around their castles do not help either. Whole global map is really the weakest part(even if its look good).

There is also problem with current combat mechanics. Fatigue management is painful as there is little you can do(recovery help but mostly guys who have plenty fatigue already).
15 recovery/per turn attack cost from 10 to 13, specials, s-walls much more, getting hit or even missed add fatigue, walking also add
Its not fun seeing your guys after 3 turns to exhausted to walk or swing a sword
Not even mention that combat is less fun that it was early as enemy get buffed but player soldiers get nerfed.

 

[Sarissofoi]

Recent losses in my last campaign.
Sadly it lack plenty of info.

 

[Sarissofoi]

Sounds a lot like Darkest Dungeon's issues - we need to summon Celerity. Wonder if these balance/grind issues could be modded away? Maybe renown could apply a discount to recruitment, which kinda makes sense, the better recruits will want to go with a famous mercenary squad.

Probably it could be done but all text files are compiled.
Audio and gfx are just in plain format but txt? All compiled.
So no modding other than replacing graphics or sound can be done.
And guessing from devs response it will probably either long time or never.

 

[Murk]

Spent about 20 hours so far and loving it, but I agree with much of what Sarissofoi and others have expressed in terms of functionality and depth.

The server was down at work, and so I had some spare time to dick around and came up with the following lists of things that I think would be very nice.

Quality of Life changes that shouldn't be an issue:

• Make it so you can check or otherwise be informed of the distance needed to travel for any fetch/caravan contracts without having to stop, go to world map, and go back to negotiation (or, conversely, just have a world map you can access during negotiation without having to hold off on it.) -- it's a pain to take a caravan contract, stop, check the map, realize it's 123412341234 miles away, then leave the negotiation half done.
• Give quick-swap/equip buttons and hotkeys so you don't have to go to inventory every time (particularly annoying with archers who have multiple quivers; just have a "refill for 4ap" option.
• Give explanation on some of the mechanics that don't need to be obtuse (what does having 2 or 3 stars on a skill mean?); others I'm ok with being vague (cowardly, "working in a mine is bad for health") etc

Minor changes that shouldn't be too difficult:

• Allow high level bros or unique bros with high-skill backgrounds (knights, nobles, etc.) to train any bros that are a much lower level than them (perhaps at a cost for time, many injuries, or they are out of commission for a while, etc.); this would really help relieve the pain of losing a high level bro and having to then find a decent rat-catcher who can one day become the head-chopping master.
• Do not force constant backtracking for contracts; no reason you can't have a "messenger pop up with payment" at the arriving town.
• Allow people to take 1 of each type of contract that doesn't conflict with others (so taking guard/patrol duty obviously conflicts with escorting a caravan, but there's no reason you can't be on the look for the hidden artifact while also delivering some cargo.)
• Create some maps that are unique; it's bizarre to go into a 3v2 company siege and fight on... grass. Perhaps it could just be that the defenders start on elevated stone tiles -- but give them something to add more flavor to the game.

I have no real requests for major changes other than adding more, more, more. The game has a great emergent quality of multiple groups fighting it out, running for help, etc. I like that the story is also just sort of told through your own exploits -- so give us some more.

• After sufficient renown, allow the company to commission unique equipment
• Create possible events where you can go from being a transient group of fighting men to having some potential for investment/rooting
• Have more options for interaction with different backgrounds (what's there is already pretty cool, but more and more complex ones would be great

Oh, and check your script for %fortification%'s errors ;D

 

[Alienman]

Sounds a lot like Darkest Dungeon's issues - we need to summon Celerity. Wonder if these balance/grind issues could be modded away? Maybe renown could apply a discount to recruitment, which kinda makes sense, the better recruits will want to go with a famous mercenary squad.

Looks like we already have one

 

[Sarissofoi]

Spent about 20 hours so far and loving it, but I agree with much of what Sarissofoi and others have expressed in terms of functionality and depth.

Check this.
http://battlebrothersgame.com/forums/topic/ideas-sorry-english/

 

[Alienman]

It was going so well for my company, but decided to take on a cemetery with some zombies, a necromancer and 2 geists. Biggest mistake ever for that company, but I learned a valuable lesson. Never ever take any risks in Battle Brothers. EVER!

It started fairly well, even killed the necromancer, but couldn't get the last geist down. With the ghost scaring my men half to death, making them flee and die to zombies, their corpses started to bolster the zombie army. Half the team became armored walking zombies, and it quickly spiraled out of control. With the banshee screaming and the line breaking... The Wild Boar is no more. One guy survived that had been put in reserve but there was no way to recover after that defeat.

If there is one enemy I hate it is geists. They are like mind-control in X-com which I also hate with a passion.

 

[Prime Junta]

Use shields and pikes to push them back.
It not always work and sometimes there is no space but it helps.

Pikes? Wish I had pikes. Surely you mean pitchforks. Early game, bro.

Anyway I know all about that. I was just bitching about the advice of wolf contracts as easy money early-game. Problem isn't beating the wolves. Problem is beating them without taking casualties. They usually mob one bro, and because they have a ton of attacks that's a lot of die rolls for crits, even if they only get two rounds of it.

Fact is, the only easy money early-game contracts are courier jobs as you can deal with the encounters on the strategic map. You have a small group, which means you move fast, which means you can avoid them or draw them into fights with patrols. And for early game fights I'd take a bunch of bandit thugs over even three dire wolves any day of the week, as that'll usually net some equipment as well. (Wiedergangers too but with them there's a risk of a necro tagging along which turns a pushover into a deadly fight.)

 

[Prime Junta]

If there is one enemy I hate it is geists. They are like mind-control in X-com which I also hate with a passion.

This is why I pump Resolve, have a banner, and a sergeant. Toot toot bitches!

 

[Alienman]

My bannerman got scared, shit his pants and died.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

My bannerman got scared, shit his pants and died.

Man, this game should have commissars to improve morale.

 

[gestalt11]

My bannerman got scared, shit his pants and died.

Man, this game should have commissars to improve morale.

 

[Sarissofoi]

Use shields and pikes to push them back.
It not always work and sometimes there is no space but it helps.

Pikes? Wish I had pikes. Surely you mean pitchforks. Early game, bro.

Anyway I know all about that. I was just bitching about the advice of wolf contracts as easy money early-game. Problem isn't beating the wolves. Problem is beating them without taking casualties. They usually mob one bro, and because they have a ton of attacks that's a lot of die rolls for crits, even if they only get two rounds of it.

Fact is, the only easy money early-game contracts are courier jobs as you can deal with the encounters on the strategic map. You have a small group, which means you move fast, which means you can avoid them or draw them into fights with patrols. And for early game fights I'd take a bunch of bandit thugs over even three dire wolves any day of the week, as that'll usually net some equipment as well. (Wiedergangers too but with them there's a risk of a necro tagging along which turns a pushover into a deadly fight.)

The reclaim relics contracts are easy cash as you DO NOT NEED defeat enemy forces just walk away.
Free cash - unless there are some necrosavants who will catch up to you and fuck your shit - still early you can just put your guys in reserve and send one guy and retreat by flag if tehy catch you.
Too bad that exploration contracts are gone.
Also wolves(and before werewolves) were and are early team killers. fast, multi attacks and high initiative. Dunno who sell you that info, you should demand cash back. Wolves were easy cash late when you could just massacre them with few swings of 2 handers.

 

[thesheeep]

Yeah, I wouldn't pick caravan runs on ironman (if given a choice). You can get super lucky (I got 500 gold for free, once, basically) or face one battle after the next.

They are worth it if they're going to a weaponsmith/armorer/fletcher. Adds the well-supplied modifier and usually 1-4 unique items for discount. You can get nasty equip early game like a Greatswords/2hammers with increased damage/headshot chance.

Eh... No.
What's the worth of getting some great items if you don't survive the trip? Or so bruised or short on men that you'll have to spend your precious on days resting and recruiting?
Maybe if it is a 1 or 2 skull contract and you feel very positive about your band's capabilities.