Should I buy this game or...

[poleece]

I'm trying to choose one of these 2 games to buy: Legends of Eisenwald or Battle Brothers. They seem pretty close in terms of genre/gameplay.
I'm also a big fan of Mount & Blade series. So, which one of these 2 games will be more appealing you think guys?

[Sheytanaslan]

Well I have both and look at my play time :P. Im not saying LOE is a bad game. It just didnt grab me like Battle Brothers did.
Best bet is to look at the customer review section and go from there.
I would also add my biggest turn off with the game while i played it was that you dont keep the same party, when you advance to other maps you end up with other characters etc. Just really not the same game from that standpoint, unless that changed that aspect.

[raythr]

Battle Brothers has bodyless moving heads !!
tbh they had me right there

[Sir Clavius]

They are both good. Just Battle Brothers is EA. But as EA is pretty funny game. Legends of Eisenwald is more story campaign game, i played this game about 50 hours and i liked this game a lot. But Battle Brothers is sandbox game and i have allready over 110 hours in this game, because im really enjoying with tactical battles in Battle Brothers. So, if you want campaign with story, take Eisenwald. If you are more interested in the sandbox and hard tactical battles - take Battle Brothers.

P.S. Also, you should check this game - Expeditions: conquistador

[Sheytanaslan]

Originally posted by 33rdUlrich:

They are both good. Just Battle Brothers is EA. But as EA is pretty funny game. Legends of Eisenwald is more story campaign game, i played this game about 50 hours and i liked this game a lot. But Battle Brothers is sandbox game and i have allready over 110 hours in this game, because im really enjoying with tactical battles in Battle Brothers. So, if you want campaign with story, take Eisenwald. If you are more interested in the sandbox and hard tactical battles - take Battle Brothers.

P.S. Also, you should check this game - Expeditions: conquistador

Yep EC gets alot of good comments.

[poleece]

I got EC ;)
And like it.

[Statue]

Originally posted by poleece:

I'm trying to choose one of these 2 games to buy: Legends of Eisenwald or Battle Brothers. They seem pretty close in terms of genre/gameplay.
I'm also a big fan of Mount & Blade series. So, which one of these 2 games will be more appealing you think guys?

I own both LoE and BB. BB is easily more enjoyable for me, and has more potential, replayability, and longevity. Check out the demo, play some scenarios for free, and if you're a fan of TB combat, it will convince you pretty quick.

[redwitch]

well, I own all of them, Mount and blade is a masterpiece and I cannot wait for bannerlord, EC is great and Legends of Eisenwald decent, but as I much as I wanted to like bottle brothers, there are just too many aspects which ruin the game experience for me. I'got the impression the devs like to implement their game to put some players off. Though it is still in EA, in my view the game has some serious design flaws which will be retained until release as they are core parts of the game: the levelling system is horrible (though it is supposed to change, I haven't much trust it will be improved), instead of having a dynamic party system like in MB they chose a static one limiting the player to just 12 party members, then limiting the levels to just 10: this limitation is due to the fact that the game environment is static, instead of implementing a dynamic environment where enemies get stronger along with the player, so the level cap is not necessary.... for a party based rpg where character development is crucial such flaws are deadly

[newageofpower]

@redwitch

The biggest issue I think, is the developers worship of RNGesus to the point where they deliberately curtail player choice.

I recall the multiple pages of begging (on both steam forum and their site forums) for the option of starting a campaign with customizable mercenaries, perhaps just a few on a point-buy system (I.e. each trait worth a few negative or positive points), but they refused out of fear nobody would play the game the way 'it was meant to be played'.

[redwitch]

@newageofpower

I think the best way would have been to implement a party system similar to that of mount & blade: you have a core of companions which you level up and who don't die (of course you can get defeated but a defeat would have other consequences) and the bulk of your party would be composed of dispensable troops which you may equip but not level up. In a game based on character development, it is absolutely the worst design choice you can make to have the player lose a character. If I start to play this kind of games, character development is the main motivation.
and you are right, introducing RNG into the levelling system is another terrible design choice.

[newageofpower]

Originally posted by redwitch:

@newageofpower

I think the best way would have been to implement a party system similar to that of mount & blade: you have a core of companions which you level up and who don't die (of course you can get defeated but a defeat would have other consequences) and the bulk of your party would be composed of dispensable troops which you may equip but not level up. In a game based on character development, it is absolutely the worst design choice you can make to have the player lose a character. If I start to play this kind of games, character development is the main motivation.
and you are right, introducing RNG into the levelling system is another terrible design choice.

Personally, I am okay with character death. This is a game where actions have real and permanent consequences. The lack of choice for an RPG, though, really bugs me. Especially when it is there to force players to spend hours rolling the RNG lotto or accept suboptimal play...

[Gharpar]

I own both games as well and clearly prefer Battlebrothers.

However it does depend on what is more important to you:
- tactical combat: Battlebrothers lightyears ahead of LoE. You play on a huge map rather than a tiny one. Battles are bigger, more challenging and infinitively more fun. The opponents are more varied and so are your own moves.
- In fact opponents are possibly the biggest strength of Battlebrothers. Every different faction has a very distinct character. Wolves charge quicker than you can say ****. Goblins are nasty little buggers that rely on ranged weapons, dodges and high accuracy. Honestly, this game has the most dangerous goblins I have ever seen. Orcs on other other hand will just brute force you. They are scary as hell (they have massive hp, deal brutal damage and have a charge that will shatter your frontline). The undead are possibly the weakest enemies but they will wear your down by sheer numbers ... and they have the annoying habit of rising again after you killed them the first time.
- RPG side: Here both offer a distinct style. Battlebrothers is a sandbox game à la Mount & Blade whereas LoE has a real storyline to follow. I find both to be immersive but Battlebrothers has infitively more replayability.
- blood & gore: Battlebrothers feels dirty - enemies and your mercs look mean and ready to chop of some heads (which they actually do). In LoE things are cleaner and less brutal.

[poleece]

Thanks for the detailed answers guys, thumbs up.