Destroyed towns get restored?

[Fzhek]

Do towns destroyed by invasions get restored later on?

[Pringles™]

I dont think is a feature yet, and it may leave your maps a little barren on the long run. I wish they would give us some way to repair towns :(

[Fzhek]

Can any developer clarify this? So if my only town with a Fletcher gets destroyed, I will never be able to buy bows and crossbows again? This is kind of absurd, at least make the Fletcher to appear in another town.

[Decepticron]

They talked about how greenskins destroying a town is permanent

[Kinja]

Originally posted by Kehzf:

Can any developer clarify this? So if my only town with a Fletcher gets destroyed, I will never be able to buy bows and crossbows again? This is kind of absurd, at least make the Fletcher to appear in another town.

Yeah iirc they're never coming back if destroyed. Basically defend what's important to you or it's lost forever. It's why i'm going to select the noble houses war as the starting crisis every single time. The other 2 both destroy towns.

[Fzhek]

Originally posted by Kinja:

Originally posted by Kehzf:

Can any developer clarify this? So if my only town with a Fletcher gets destroyed, I will never be able to buy bows and crossbows again? This is kind of absurd, at least make the Fletcher to appear in another town.

Yeah iirc they're never coming back if destroyed. Basically defend what's important to you or it's lost forever. It's why i'm going to select the noble houses war as the starting crisis every single time. The other 2 both destroy towns.

How do you know that the noble houses war doesn't destroy towns?

[That One Guy]

Originally posted by Kehzf:

Originally posted by Kinja:

Yeah iirc they're never coming back if destroyed. Basically defend what's important to you or it's lost forever. It's why i'm going to select the noble houses war as the starting crisis every single time. The other 2 both destroy towns.

How do you know that the noble houses war doesn't destroy towns?

"In the event of a war between noble houses, regiments will be sent forth from fortifications not to destroy settlements, but to capture them in the name of their lords."

See the information on late game crises on the BB dev blog
here[battlebrothersgame.com].

P.S.
Touché steven.aus, you were a little quicker than me.

[Sir Clavius]

Originally posted by Kehzf:

Can any developer clarify this? So if my only town with a Fletcher gets destroyed, I will never be able to buy bows and crossbows again? This is kind of absurd, at least make the Fletcher to appear in another town.

Until crisis starts, you have enough time to prepare and decide which towns are worthy to be defended. You failed that, so you got punished for that.

[markdienekes]

I think this should be looked at, a way not to lose important buildings permanently. Perhaps settlements can rise again over time.

[That One Guy]

Originally posted by markdienekes:

I think this should be looked at, a way not to lose important buildings permanently. Perhaps settlements can rise again over time.

As it's stated in the link I provided above,
"Attached locations act as hitpoints for settlements – only after every single such location has been destroyed, can the settlement itself be destroyed. Burned-down locations will eventually be rebuilt, if you defend a settlement for long enough, but settlements destroyed entirely will remain so permanently."

So, with this kind of warning, I don't think it's that bad that one can lose settlements permanently.

[Bantak Kor]

Well my map had only 1 Kennel... that town was far in the north close to the greenskins... it was, because it got destroyed, now there is noone left selling dogs. ;)
Which is a pitty because using dogs as cheap cannon fodder / distraction was key to my tactics.

[markdienekes]

I still think new settlements should come about, I don't mind a settlement being destroyed and even for good, only that i think people would rebuild stuff if there are survivors.

[Pringles™]

I dream of a playthrough which I will never have to restart. A save file that will take me years to get bored of. Im going to implement a serious cr*p-ton of backstory onto it, and perhaps base a semi-fictional historical book on it later, as I like writing.

That super-game will take much practice, getting used to and preceeding runs and saves, before Im ready for that, but I cannot head towards it with these two things: Dissatisfaction and settlement destruction.

The aforementioned features really bother me, because they limit the playability of very long runs, either by making your brothers grumpy over time, or by making the map barren and clearing it of settlements, one by one, crisis by crisis. Yes, this can be prevented with very good planning (I think?), but it can lead to a lot of savescumming, because with every small mistake there can be horrid, settlement-wiping consequences, and with each settlement that goes down, the map gets a little less interactivity and questing.

Please, change these. Turn the dissatisfaction around, and give us some, rare or costly, chance to restore a town, but still a way that can happen to a ravaged player world reliably.
Otherwise this game is a perfect long-time timewaster.

Drop us a lifeline here

[Bantak Kor]

Anyone an idea how long it takes to defeat the greenskin invasion? Do we need to take out ALL the Warchiefs?

[Teut]

Originally posted by Puttiis:

I dream of a playthrough which I will never have to restart. A save file that will take me years to get bored of. Im going to implement a serious cr*p-ton of backstory onto it, and perhaps base a semi-fictional historical book on it later, as I like writing.

That super-game will take much practice, getting used to and preceeding runs and saves, before Im ready for that, but I cannot head towards it with these two things: Dissatisfaction and settlement destruction.

The aforementioned features really bother me, because they limit the playability of very long runs, either by making your brothers grumpy over time, or by making the map barren and clearing it of settlements, one by one, crisis by crisis. Yes, this can be prevented with very good planning (I think?), but it can lead to a lot of savescumming, because with every small mistake there can be horrid, settlement-wiping consequences, and with each settlement that goes down, the map gets a little less interactivity and questing.

Please, change these. Turn the dissatisfaction around, and give us some, rare or costly, chance to restore a town, but still a way that can happen to a ravaged player world reliably.
Otherwise this game is a perfect long-time timewaster.

Drop us a lifeline here

I really want to 2nd this. I haven't experienced Orc or Undead crisis yet so I don't know how bad it gets but please no permadeath to settlements. :(

[Pontiac Jones]

Originally posted by Puttiis:

Please, change these. Turn the dissatisfaction around, and give us some, rare or costly, chance to restore a town, but still a way that can happen to a ravaged player world reliably.

After the war, assuming you win, something like a slowly and/or costly rebuilding of lost territory would be great. Otherwise, if you end up with a pyrrhic victory you'd pretty much have to retire and start a new game.