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

[Ezeekiel]

Noice. With a bit of lucky rolls, he can achieve the same proficiency in melee and defense as a sellsword or even swordmaster at level 11. Just dont let him die.
I've decided to not play ironman, until i've try every possible build that i can imagine.Then with the right knowledge i can devise a good tactics to throw at this game. Still i expect a lot of frustration on expert ironman

A talent star is just a +5 EV at lvl 11 in that skill, so that miller is worse (in melee) than e.g. a guy with 2 stars and 55 starting skill. They really aren't that impactful compared to initial skill.

For skills that give you +1-3 per level with no stars such as melee it's:
lvl 1 48 melee skill, 3 stars = 78-88 melee skill at lvl 11 if you always take the melee upgrade. (at 3 stars it's +3-4 every level). Add gifted if you use that for another 3 = 81-91 melee skill.
lvl 1 55 + 2 stars = 75-85 melee skill at lvl 11 if same as above (at 2 stars it's 2-3 every level). Add 3 for gifted = 78-88.

Hope I didn't mess up the calculations like I did in first grade...

Edit: And no, they're very important. No stars in melee means 1-3 per level. Get a few 1's and 2's and your guy will suck at lvl 11 unless it's a sellsword or some such with very high starting skill and maybe a +5 melee trait.

Cheap bros with 50 starting melee skill get 80-90 at 3 stars for lvl 11 without gifted. With 60 starting skill it's 90-100 without gifted... At 60 starting skill and 2 stars you get 90 guaranteed (+3 every level up), totally fine front-liner for a pittance, then maybe +3 with gifted.
So it's more accurate to say that 3 stars is not that important, but 2 stars in melee skill unless you have very high starting skill (over 60 + 1 star) is imo recommended for permanent bros in the frontline.

 

[Stavrophore]

Exactly this. Wounds are very punitive -its not so much the money, but the time. Even treated wounds will heal by 2-3 days. Having too many wounds will spell doom onto company in the early game -where you dont have money cushion, and when you have to level up fast in order to prepare for first crisis, and new mobs that will follow in third week. Sure devs could make complex algorithm to apply probability of hits when retreating for example: check for each BB if every enemy is in range of 9 tiles, if it is, then check if it can catchup with the BB in 4 or 5 AP[depend on weapon] and then roll a standard attack. If it hit roll for injury. That would be the best solution, but very code intensive. Your solution is simple, elegant and wouldnt do much slowdown or code work.

Yeah, it'll cost about 2000 crowns just to treat the wounds, on top of that you have to fix the gear and wait until they heal (while keeping your men fed and paid). With a midgame company it'll easily go into 3000-4000 crowns. If a contract has a 50-50 chance of succeeding, it ought to pay 6000-8000 crowns to make it worth taking. Prolly more because if you're retreating you've likely already taken fatalities.

Yep. Thus the game inevitably leads to a grind. You can do something "fun" on expert ironman very rarily -only if you grind enough money to have the backup in case of a fuckup.

 

[Stavrophore]

For skills that give you +1-3 per level with no stars such as melee it's:
lvl 1 48 melee skill, 3 stars = 78-88 melee skill at lvl 11 if you always take the melee upgrade. (at 3 stars it's +3-4 every level). Add gifted if you use that for another 3 = 81-91 melee skill.
lvl 1 55 + 2 stars = 75-85 melee skill at lvl 11 if same as above (at 2 stars it's 2-3 every level). Add 3 for gifted = 78-88.

Hope I didn't mess up the calculations like I did in first grade...

Basically a sellsword without stars but with 65 melee skill on lvl 11 is equal to a scrub with 48 melee and 3 stars on lvl11, if you leveled up melee on each levelup for both characters.

 

[Kuattro]

Retreat should have not been modified. If you rout (press retreat without getting to the edge of the map), half your company should die, like in the old betas. Most of the kills were made during routs.

Footwork, rotation, shield bash, stun... they're there so that you can retreat safely.

Right now, you press that button, and something awesome happens. You get out of certain death's way with no permanent consequences. Just some money lost.


Says the savescummer who always plays on veteran.

 

[Ezeekiel]

For skills that give you +1-3 per level with no stars such as melee it's:
lvl 1 48 melee skill, 3 stars = 78-88 melee skill at lvl 11 if you always take the melee upgrade. (at 3 stars it's +3-4 every level). Add gifted if you use that for another 3 = 81-91 melee skill.
lvl 1 55 + 2 stars = 75-85 melee skill at lvl 11 if same as above (at 2 stars it's 2-3 every level). Add 3 for gifted = 78-88.

Hope I didn't mess up the calculations like I did in first grade...

Basically a sellsword without stars but with 65 melee skill on lvl 11 is equal to a scrub with 48 melee and 3 stars on lvl11, if you leveled up melee on each levelup for both characters.

Mh. It's more accurate to say that he could be equal (or worse, or better) but you have to rely on the dice more. Your sellsword costs a lot more to purchase (risky if you get a guy with no stars and low skill/bad traits), and takes like 4 times (or what was it?) the amount of money per day. That's no joke in ironman for what may end up being a weakling.

 

[RK47]

After getting burned by 4000 gold bastard who has 26 resolve and only 61 melee with 3 level ups...I still think it's OK to gamble on newbies..as long they have 55+ melee skill at the start.

 

[AlpineMarv]

The RNG in this game seems really fucking chaotic.

I know the usual arguments about playing to mitigate bad rolls and not assuming successful hits. But damn its bullshit when you lose a battle because all your best damage dealers whiff 3+ hits in a row.

 

[Ezeekiel]

After getting burned by 4000 gold bastard who has 26 resolve and only 61 melee with 3 level ups...I still think it's OK to gamble on newbies..as long they have 55+ melee skill at the start.

Oh yeah, the resolve thing happened to me as well. Oftentimes a sellsword won't end up as good as a cheaper brother because you have to invest in a weak stat like that. I've so often gotten hedge knights and sellswords with shit resolve.
How can a hedge knight have crap resolve anyway (he had no bad traits btw)? Bizarre. The stat ranges need some adjustment imo.

Even if the end result matches a cheaper bro, you pay much more in daily wages...

 

[Trash]

First Week
Battle Brothers finally graduated from Early Access and was released a finished game last Friday, one week ago. It’s been a very busy week for us, but also a satisfying one, as the game was received very favorably and is still performing decently in terms of sales.

Our focus for the next few weeks is finishing the Art & Lore Book for the Supporter Edition, and taking care of any remaining bugs and technical issues that are coming to light now that so many more people are playing the game at once. We’ll all be taking a break from development later in April to recharge our batteries, as working on the game for so long has been taxing for everyone, and really, we could all use a vacation.

And then? Based on how the game has performed so far, and will continue to perform in the coming weeks, we’ll determine if and how we can continue to develop Battle Brothers, both with free updates for everyone, and a potential sizable DLC that would add new content and mechanics. At the same time, we’ll also determine whether adding support for different languages, and some kind of modding, is viable. We’ll keep you updated!

Selling decently doesn't sound like it's exactly flying out of the shop. Hope they sell enough for them to make extra content in any way a feasible option. I do want to see some of their earlier ideas expanded upon and put into the game.

 

[Parabalus]

For skills that give you +1-3 per level with no stars such as melee it's:
lvl 1 48 melee skill, 3 stars = 78-88 melee skill at lvl 11 if you always take the melee upgrade. (at 3 stars it's +3-4 every level). Add gifted if you use that for another 3 = 81-91 melee skill.
lvl 1 55 + 2 stars = 75-85 melee skill at lvl 11 if same as above (at 2 stars it's 2-3 every level). Add 3 for gifted = 78-88.

Hope I didn't mess up the calculations like I did in first grade...

Edit: And no, they're very important. No stars in melee means 1-3 per level. Get a few 1's and 2's and your guy will suck at lvl 11 unless it's a sellsword or some such with very high starting skill and maybe a +5 melee trait.

Cheap bros with 50 starting melee skill get 80-90 at 3 stars for lvl 11 without gifted. With 60 starting skill it's 90-100 without gifted... At 60 starting skill and 2 stars you get 90 guaranteed (+3 every level up), totally fine front-liner for a pittance, then maybe +3 with gifted.
So it's more accurate to say that 3 stars is not that important, but 2 stars in melee skill unless you have very high starting skill (over 60 + 1 star) is imo recommended for permanent bros in the frontline.

A talent star is simply +5 to the expected value over 10 levels, it adds 0.5 to the average dice roll per level, this is regardless of the dice in play. That's way worse than simply having +5 on the starting skill since you have to get to 11 first. My comment was to point out that the miller will not only have a (expected) worse melee than e.g. a milita with 1 star but starting 59, but also a much worse early and mid game. Obviously you take what you can get, but it's worth having in mind.

Oh yeah, the resolve thing happened to me as well. Oftentimes a sellsword won't end up as good as a cheaper brother because you have to invest in a weak stat like that. I've so often gotten hedge knights and sellswords with shit resolve.
How can a hedge knight have crap resolve anyway (he had no bad traits btw)? Bizarre. The stat ranges need some adjustment imo.

Even if the end result matches a cheaper bro, you pay much more in daily wages...

Haven't gotten a decent high level recruit ever, I mostly buy them then feed them to the wolves the next combat, like expansive beggars...

I'd just like a high tier ranged recruit, they are a pain to get.

 

[Prime Junta]

Says the savescummer who always plays on veteran.

Yeah that.

I dunno, perhaps 3-skull contracts are intended for savescummers. Another option, then, would be to create more variety for one- and two-skull ones.

Seriously, I think there is a bit of an issue here: I won't take caravan runs because they're a total coin-toss. I won't take orc contracts because they're too high-risk. I won't take gobbo contracts because they don't pay enough. Which means I'll only do bandit contracts, item recovery contracts, artefact recovery contracts, bandit defence, hunts, and patrols, and those only if they're one or two skulls. That's it.

Point being, I think Ironman needs different balancing than non-Ironman, since in non-Ironman cost of failure is zero (you just reload).

 

[Stavrophore]

For skills that give you +1-3 per level with no stars such as melee it's:
lvl 1 48 melee skill, 3 stars = 78-88 melee skill at lvl 11 if you always take the melee upgrade. (at 3 stars it's +3-4 every level). Add gifted if you use that for another 3 = 81-91 melee skill.
lvl 1 55 + 2 stars = 75-85 melee skill at lvl 11 if same as above (at 2 stars it's 2-3 every level). Add 3 for gifted = 78-88.

Hope I didn't mess up the calculations like I did in first grade...

Basically a sellsword without stars but with 65 melee skill on lvl 11 is equal to a scrub with 48 melee and 3 stars on lvl11, if you leveled up melee on each levelup for both characters.

Mh. It's more accurate to say that he could be equal (or worse, or better) but you have to rely on the dice more. Your sellsword costs a lot more to purchase (risky if you get a guy with no stars and low skill/bad traits), and takes like 4 times (or what was it?) the amount of money per day. That's no joke in ironman for what may end up being a weakling.

I've made a little function for anyone who want to check how many points the guy will have after 11 level ups in particular skill, depending on how many stars he has in that skill and his starting skill.
Check the header of the code, for reference to BB wiki on talents.
https://jsfiddle.net/vstgosst/

 

[Ezeekiel]

Says the savescummer who always plays on veteran.

Yeah that.

I dunno, perhaps 3-skull contracts are intended for savescummers. Another option, then, would be to create more variety for one- and two-skull ones.

Seriously, I think there is a bit of an issue here: I won't take caravan runs because they're a total coin-toss. I won't take orc contracts because they're too high-risk. I won't take gobbo contracts because they don't pay enough. Which means I'll only do bandit contracts, item recovery contracts, artefact recovery contracts, bandit defence, hunts, and patrols, and those only if they're one or two skulls. That's it.

Point being, I think Ironman needs different balancing than non-Ironman, since in non-Ironman cost of failure is zero (you just reload).

I think considering that this is a fairly "high risk" game, the rewards should also be fairly high. But the economy in general is kind of whacky. Finding an expensive treasure after a hard fight is kind of... Nice but not really reflected in the amount the item is worth. Sure it's more than others, but all things considered? Pretty meh. Maybe special shops could be added that pay more for these... Or you have to sell them to nobles or something.
Some of the item production can also be painfully slow, like tools. Repairing things in the shop is too expensive imo, so I never use that function. The second you use it to repair your busted armor during a town defense mission against orks or so, you basically lose all your profits at the very least.

 

[Ezeekiel]

For skills that give you +1-3 per level with no stars such as melee it's:
lvl 1 48 melee skill, 3 stars = 78-88 melee skill at lvl 11 if you always take the melee upgrade. (at 3 stars it's +3-4 every level). Add gifted if you use that for another 3 = 81-91 melee skill.
lvl 1 55 + 2 stars = 75-85 melee skill at lvl 11 if same as above (at 2 stars it's 2-3 every level). Add 3 for gifted = 78-88.

Hope I didn't mess up the calculations like I did in first grade...

Edit: And no, they're very important. No stars in melee means 1-3 per level. Get a few 1's and 2's and your guy will suck at lvl 11 unless it's a sellsword or some such with very high starting skill and maybe a +5 melee trait.

Cheap bros with 50 starting melee skill get 80-90 at 3 stars for lvl 11 without gifted. With 60 starting skill it's 90-100 without gifted... At 60 starting skill and 2 stars you get 90 guaranteed (+3 every level up), totally fine front-liner for a pittance, then maybe +3 with gifted.
So it's more accurate to say that 3 stars is not that important, but 2 stars in melee skill unless you have very high starting skill (over 60 + 1 star) is imo recommended for permanent bros in the frontline.

A talent star is simply +5 to the expected value over 10 levels, it adds 0.5 to the average dice roll per level, this is regardless of the dice in play. That's way worse than simply having +5 on the starting skill since you have to get to 11 first. My comment was to point out that the miller will not only have a (expected) worse melee than e.g. a milita with 1 star but starting 59, but also a much worse early and mid game. Obviously you take what you can get, but it's worth having in mind.

Oh yeah, the resolve thing happened to me as well. Oftentimes a sellsword won't end up as good as a cheaper brother because you have to invest in a weak stat like that. I've so often gotten hedge knights and sellswords with shit resolve.
How can a hedge knight have crap resolve anyway (he had no bad traits btw)? Bizarre. The stat ranges need some adjustment imo.

Even if the end result matches a cheaper bro, you pay much more in daily wages...

Haven't gotten a decent high level recruit ever, I mostly buy them then feed them to the wolves the next combat, like expansive beggars...

I'd just like a high tier ranged recruit, they are a pain to get.

Yeah, ranged guys have become a gigantic pain to acquire... I believe settlements with hunters cabins and trappers have more... Or maybe forest villages in general? Map gen thing then.
I used to have a much easier time getting decent ranged recruits in the past.

That being said, ranged skill goes up to 4 per level up instead of 3, so... 2 stars gets you more here than it does for melee. 2-3 stars and if you play the long game you don't really need 60 starting skill. Even mid 40's is sort of ok if you get your guy up to lvl 11 eventually.
During the beta I had a backline of all ranged/melee hybrids, but now I rarely get someone who is able to be good enough at both. Wonder if something changed during the patches or if it's really just RNG again.

 

[Stavrophore]

During the beta I had a backline of all ranged/melee hybrids, but now I rarely get someone who is able to be good enough at both. Wonder if something changed during the patches or if it's really just RNG again.

Well of course it has changed -now you can shoot with your archers standing right after the frontline. Orcs are decimated by a good 4-6 archer team, that shoots twice per turn, and with berserk skill sometimes even three times.

 

[rezaf]

Gave this one a go over the weekend ... do missions eventualls stop being so dull and repetive?
Early on it was cool, but now I'm grinding the same mission over and over - these things have no speech or distinct graphics, so it's kinda hard to understand why they didn't bother to make more kinds of missions - or more kinds of briefings, I guess, as the missions are extremely samey anyways.
Maybe it's intentional (mercenary chess), but two rows of dudes standing next to each other EVERY SINGLE TIME?
The only exception to this I've seen was when I joined an already ongoing battle.

I've played until I could get missions from the houses directly, but orcs (anything > young orcs) tend to mop the floor with me.
The difficulty shoud be displayed in a more granular fashion, say 1-5 stars or even a ten point scale. As it stands, fighting a group of 10 bandits with average equipment is 3 stars, fighting a group of 14 orcs with top-gear is 3 stars as well. One of these is easily doable, the other ... not so much.
I came to judge missions strictly on the reward offered, and this appears to work most of the time. Which is also kinda weird, since it implies a certain level of knowledge on behalf of the questgiver...

Also, does it make any sense to explore the unknown lands when you don't have to (i.e. no mission to send you there)?

 

[Stavrophore]

Gave this one a go over the weekend ... do missions eventualls stop being so dull and repetive?
Early on it was cool, but now I'm grinding the same mission over and over - these things have no speech or distinct graphics, so it's kinda hard to understand why they didn't bother to make more kinds of missions - or more kinds of briefings, I guess, as the missions are extremely samey anyways.
Maybe it's intentional (mercenary chess), but two rows of dudes standing next to each other EVERY SINGLE TIME?
The only exception to this I've seen was when I joined an already ongoing battle.

Well it will stay that way. Sometimes you will get a map to a place with treasure, obtained from surrendering bandits, or some quests from noble houses during a crisis, that are different, but otherwise its the same dull grind.

 

[Ezeekiel]

During the beta I had a backline of all ranged/melee hybrids, but now I rarely get someone who is able to be good enough at both. Wonder if something changed during the patches or if it's really just RNG again.

Well of course it has changed -now you can shoot with your archers standing right after the frontline. Orcs are decimated by a good 4-6 archer team, that shoots twice per turn, and with berserk skill sometimes even three times.

Orc warriors?

But no, I don't mean the obvious frontline bypass change... Just the seeming lack of good ranged starting skill bros and lack of stars in both ranged and melee simultaneously. I'd love to know if the base stats or the seeding of bro backgrounds or whatever were maybe changed.

 

[Parabalus]

That being said, ranged skill goes up to 4 per level up instead of 3, so... 2 stars gets you more here than it does for melee. 2-3 stars and if you play the long game you don't really need 60 starting skill. Even mid 40's is sort of ok if you get your guy up to lvl 11 eventually.
During the beta I had a backline of all ranged/melee hybrids, but now I rarely get someone who is able to be good enough at both. Wonder if something changed during the patches or if it's really just RNG again.

No, that's plain wrong. Stars are worth the same for ranged and for melee. Anyone with a 45 starting skill and 3 talent stars will be worse than just a hunter with starting 60 skill with no talents until they even out only at 11.
It's even worse because you need a higher skill to shoot compared to melee, making leveling up those guys a huge chore. They need to buff witchunters and poachers so you have more options rather than just hunters.

Never really saw the point of hybrids, easier to just shoot/rotation all the time and swap them out or give them reach when you get skellies.

 

[Ezeekiel]

Gave this one a go over the weekend ... do missions eventualls stop being so dull and repetive?
Early on it was cool, but now I'm grinding the same mission over and over - these things have no speech or distinct graphics, so it's kinda hard to understand why they didn't bother to make more kinds of missions - or more kinds of briefings, I guess, as the missions are extremely samey anyways.
Maybe it's intentional (mercenary chess), but two rows of dudes standing next to each other EVERY SINGLE TIME?
The only exception to this I've seen was when I joined an already ongoing battle.

I've played until I could get missions from the houses directly, but orcs (anything > young orcs) tend to mop the floor with me.
The difficulty shoud be displayed in a more granular fashion, say 1-5 stars or even a ten point scale. As it stands, fighting a group of 10 bandits with average equipment is 3 stars, fighting a group of 14 orcs with top-gear is 3 stars as well. One of these is easily doable, the other ... not so much.
I came to judge missions strictly on the reward offered, and this appears to work most of the time. Which is also kinda weird, since it implies a certain level of knowledge on behalf of the questgiver...

Also, does it make any sense to explore the unknown lands when you don't have to (i.e. no mission to send you there)?

I always take time out once I have max tools etc and go explore the unknown. I usually avoid the big enemy cities during my first attempt at this, but everything else esp close to the map edge gets killed (unless there are enemies in there that I don't like). That way you can farm some for uniques. Helps to have unique helmets with low vision penalty but high defense for your backline archers/crossbowmen.

Sometimes this can be better than doing contracts... You just want to make sure you have some big city with ambushed trade-routes to sell to afterwards. Your relations with everyone in the settled world will decay due to not doing missions for them so long afterall.

If you get lucky, you can find enough tools off patrols or locations to actually keep you going haha.

I'm always paranoid about the orc meat though and never take it :D Just hope I find food from bandits and such. Plus keep some 12-13(?) day expiration date food of course.


I find doing this very useful before the first crisis hits (esp if it is noble war and you want to participate. Without good helmets for backline, you can get decimated by their arbalest guys.

 

[Darth Roxor]

It's even worse because you need a higher skill to shoot compared to melee

On the contrary, you can get a lot of accidental hits on dudes adjacent to your target from missed shots.

 

[Ezeekiel]

That being said, ranged skill goes up to 4 per level up instead of 3, so... 2 stars gets you more here than it does for melee. 2-3 stars and if you play the long game you don't really need 60 starting skill. Even mid 40's is sort of ok if you get your guy up to lvl 11 eventually.
During the beta I had a backline of all ranged/melee hybrids, but now I rarely get someone who is able to be good enough at both. Wonder if something changed during the patches or if it's really just RNG again.

No, that's plain wrong. Stars are worth the same for ranged and for melee. Anyone with a 45 starting skill and 3 talent stars will be worse than just a hunter with starting 60 skill with no talents until they even out only at 11.
It's even worse because you need a higher skill to shoot compared to melee, making leveling up those guys a huge chore. They need to buff witchunters and poachers so you have more options rather than just hunters.

Never really saw the point of hybrids, easier to just shoot/rotation all the time and swap them out or give them reach when you get skellies.

What I meant is that for example 3 stars for archery = 4-5 pts vs. 3 stars for melee = 3-4 pts. You are of course correct that star behaviour itself is the same and early on low starting skill sucks.

I 'd like to see a lot of the starting skill ranges for various backgrounds changed tbh. A hedge knight should have higher minimum melee skill for example, and definitely higher minimum resolve.

Hybrids worked fine then, now it's a bit different. I never liked to use rotation/footwork, but I'll have to change that maybe as polearms are kind of weak-ish relative to other weapons. Maybe I'll add throwing mastery and the duelist perk for fighting ancient honor guard/legionaries and orc warriors... But that'd be 4 perks total with rotation + footwork. Mh.

Edit: Oh, and maybe bags and belts for throwing? 5 perks blah.

 

[Prime Junta]

The bros on Twitter said they think the retreat function is fine.

Which is okay. But that means the economy needs work: the rewards for high-risk missions have to be high enough for them to be worth taking.

I still think the fundamental problem is the difference between regular and ironman. In regular the cost of failure isn't much of an issue because you can always reload, so the only thing that matters is (reward - cost of success). With Ironman cost of failure most definitely is an issue, so the equation is (reward - cost of success - risk of failure * cost of failure). I.e. if you balanced the rewards so they make sense in ironman, it'd make regular mode a Monty Haul, where you'd just be going after insanely lucrative coin-tosses and reloading until you win.

I honestly don't see any way around it that doesn't involve tuning either rewards or penalties.

 

[Cosmo]

I.e. if you balanced the rewards so they make sense in ironman, it'd make regular mode a Monty Haul, where you'd just be going after insanely lucrative coin-tosses and reloading until you win.

I honestly don't see any way around it that doesn't involve tuning either rewards or penalties.

Ironman is a marginal and self-imposed challenge (for better or worse). You don't balance a game around its ironman mode, it's just the way it is.

 

[Jimmious]

I.e. if you balanced the rewards so they make sense in ironman, it'd make regular mode a Monty Haul, where you'd just be going after insanely lucrative coin-tosses and reloading until you win.

I honestly don't see any way around it that doesn't involve tuning either rewards or penalties.

Ironman is marginal a self-imposed challenge (for better or worse). You don't balance a game around its ironman mode, it's just the way it is.

They do say Veteran-Ironman is "the way the game is supposed to be played" though.