Camus The Dark Knight

FE6 hard is a pretty fun difficulty, it's a good challenge without being unreasonable. I used both Wendy and Sophia before in hard mode (yeah don't do this) just for the sake of it and I still got by, so it's not impossible or anything. If you want another challenge without anything too crazy you could put self-imposed turn-limits on chapters, or go for A rank on turn count. If you want insane hard I was making a casual FE6 ROM hack, then decided to turn it in to lunatic-hard-mode, though it was based off my girls only run cast so the characters would be rearranged (So Guinevere is the main lord, not Roy). It's done up to chapter 22. A druid from chapter 22...

They both suck but can somehow steamroll the final boss due to their weapons (Though in Idoun's case really anything can).

Really any pre-promote with "average" growths.

FE3 (Book 2) / FE12 Hardin gets pissy and becomes a bad guy. Marth being the goodie-good-guy he is stands up against him, but gets wrecked, some random dragon filler stuff to explain FE1 plotholes. Marth returns and beats Hardin (well Marth sucks, so someone else beats up Hardin) OH NO TOTAL SURPRISE SOMEONE ELSE WAS PULLING THE STRINGS!!! (never would of guessed), slay dark magic user, slay boss dragon, day is saved.

FE3 No idea why, it's unrefined and has a lot of flaws, but it's my favorite for some reason.

"Divine Authority" can and has been changed, many times throughout history now. For a long time the church and state were a single entity, and still are in some places (such as Saudi Arabia for example), it's a rather recent movement separating them, it's only a few hundred years old (not long as far as human-history goes). I wanted to point that out in that because of this, the "rules" laid out are often interpreted and taught by those in power to further their own, or societies, goals. With the separation of church and state, it has opened up choices for people, society (those that have separated them anyway) no longer *force* you to worship someone or something. It comes down to individual preference. Some people prefer the rigid solidarity of a set of commands provided by a divine being (essentially the highest authority) because they feel more comfortable, or fulfilled, knowing exactly what to live by. While others prefer something that is more flexible, which the state fills as it is not bound by divine authority when making it's laws. When it comes to religion there is more to it then "religion = rigid, state = flexible", but my meaning is those are the appeals. In terms of the homosexuality topic, state rules are often for society due to them being more lax while religious rules are often personal. That's why you could have a die-hard religious person who believes homosexuality is a sin live next to a gay couple in countries where church and state are separate without a huge issue other then the neighbors annoying each-other. And why countries that are controlled by one (such as religion in places like Saudi Arabia, or the state in places like North Korea) are often terrible places to live. Err that was hard to type my thoughts out without sounding retarded, so I apologize if it reads a little wonky.

Corporatism is when, in effect, things are run by a few large organizations (usually corporations, hence the name), it usually results in a corporate oligarchy form of government which the US nearly is now due to how lobbying works (though that is a discussion for another time). The reason capitalism makes this easier to reach is because due to it's competitive nature there is the possibility of crushing all opposition in your field, whether it be agriculture, media, etc. and forming what is known as a monopoly. When each field is monopolized by a single company, those select few companies in effect run everything forming a corporate oligarchy and corporatism form of government. It should go without saying, but this is only beneficial to those in charge (or those close to them) of those organizations. While the average person is economically enslaved to them. Many capitalistic countries have laws or safeguards against this, often breaking up monopolies (the Bell Telephone Company probably being the most famous, happened in 1984), though they are by no means perfect as many large companies often partake in controlled opposition to get around this, such as Intel with AMD. Intel is pretty much a step ahead of AMD at any given time, but suppresses their products until AMD catches up so AMD keeps a share of the market, therefor Intel will not monopolize processors and get split up in to smaller companies. While this isn't ideal for anyone other then the company itself and investors, it's better then no protection. I apologize for the late response, I have been busy. I hope that answered your question since I am not 100% sure what you meant.

Doesn't know my middle name.

Most of Europe will collapse. The US Dollar will collapse and be replaced with the Chinese Yuan as the world's reserve currency. The US' power will greatly diminish due to the collapse of the petro-dollar, growing civil unrest, and another needless war I am sure we will start in an attempt to prevent it. China will become the next superpower (I honestly believe they are already, but I digress...) marking the fall of the West and rise of the East, something that happens every couple hundred years (it's like a pendulum). Short of an Ottoman Empire 2.0 the Middle East will remain being an utter disaster. The rapid spread of Islam will likely start another holy war. Business moguls will move to wherever is most profitable (Likely Asia) So basically, the same thing that happens every couple hundred years. Nothing new.

Capitalism is an exceedingly effective form of society because it takes advantage of human nature. Greed, desire, competitiveness, among many others. in a capitalist society all of these things breed innovation and promote growth. It forces people to take action to achieve what they want, and that is how things get done. Most of the luxuries you take for granted you can thank capitalism for. The main flaw with capitalism isn't so much what was mentioned, but rather that it easily falls in to corporatism. While corporatism's effectiveness can be debated, it is not in favor of the average person just trying to get by. Socialism fails because it actively works against human nature. It goes under the premise that everyone is willing to "pitch in their fair share" (for lack of a better term, I am trying to keep it short). The problem is humans do not want to do stuff that doesn't benefit them, or someone close to them (whether family, close friend, spouse, etc.). This stagnates progress and innovation and will eventually collapse. That's why socialism works wonders in a small-scale environment, such as a household, but is an utter disaster large-scale. Communism is basically socialism on steroids...

"partially fine"? What does that mean exactly?

Humans are almost exclusively followers, people need something bigger then them-self to believe in, it's been that way for a long time and I can't see it changing soon. If it's not a divine being, real or not, it's usually the state or an idol of some sort. Religion is a powerful ideology and it fulfills that need people have. So is it good or bad? It's hard to say because it varies greatly based on the religion in question and the changes it has undergone throughout history, but one thing is sure, it can unite people for both the greatest causes, and most terrible ones. In the end I would say it's more good then bad, because it fulfills it's purpose exceedingly well, much better then anything else has so far, for better or worse.

Every race has done that at one point or another, whites just happen to be the perpetrators of the most recent atrocities in regards to large-scale genocide. I find that unlikely considering their constant infighting after the fall of the Ottoman Empire (which itself lost WW1).

I have a lot of unpopular opinions since I often view stuff with complete disregard for the feelings of myself or others (They get in the way imo). That's when it comes to stuff in life or political talk. When it comes to entertainment like movies and games and such, I have some. The biggest off the top of my head is I like the Star Wars prequels. The original trilogy is much better, but I still enjoy the prequels.

I take life as it comes, I don't really have some huge dream I am wishing I had, idk I guess I am not much of a dreamer. Paying off my house is the best I can think of at the moment about 1/3 left. Win/10

The GBA era was pretty tame in general, the NES and SNES era was darker (Not really dark, but not happy-go-lucky Roy/Eliwood/Erika saving the day), the series just kind of went "back" after it. I mean FE4 had incest, hinted at rape, child sacrifice in the name of religion, among other things not exactly kid-friendly. If they want to go for mature, then calm down with the immature "mature" content, and add an actual interesting mature story dealing with dark topics. Eye-candy irks me unless the game in and of itself it meant for that (Which FE isn't, or at least wasn't).

In no particular order... The new art-style from the recent games. RNG FE6's growth rates (Seriously I have gotten level ups where nothing goes up multiple times in that game. And I mean on "good" growth characters with no maxed stats.) FE11's side-quest requirements. Needless localization changes that come and bite them in the ass in a later game (Ettard/Alondite issue, calling dragons wyverns in the first English release, removal of FE9 maniac mode screwing up FE10 save data, etc.) Payed DLC, though to be fair this goes for any game. If I pay $50+ for a game, I want the content that goes with it. I don't mind it on F2P games as all, but not on a game you already payed for. RNG FE4s weapon and class balance (or lack of it) The GBAs magic sword system, FE6 Runesword was the only good one. No gold weapons yet, if there were no silver it might make sense, but come on, unless you have were-<creatures> in a game, I don't see why you would have silver but not gold. Speaking of silver weapons, silver weapons being A-rank (or equivalent) in any games besides FE1-4, B rank is what they should be. RNG This last one is more a fandom thing, but people who want easier games, the series has been softened more then enough already, how could it be "hard" when not playing hard-mode? Yes that sounded rude so I apologize. Maybe Thracia 776, FE9 Maniac, and FE12 Lunatic spoiled me too much. I wouldn't say the knights were redundant considering how weapons and blood worked in that game, but yeah the mages kind of were.

Villains: Often have a unique battle theme and class, they appear much more frequently in cut-scenes and often times appear as a unit on a map in earlier chapters where they are unkillable, and usually the strongest enemy unit in the game without a gimmick (which is usually reserved for the end boss) and are often times the ones responsible for most if not all of the events. Villains would include, Gharnef, Jedah, Hardin, Alvis, Ledrick, Zephiel, Nergal, Lyon, The Black Knight, Sephiran (Though FE10 can kind of be debated), Validar? (Have only played awakening once and kind of skipped a lot of dialogue), and whatever FE14s happens to be. End Boss: The last boss you fight, not seen too often until the very end though talked about. They are usually quite strong but often fall quickly to the game's plot-centric weapon. They are usually a dragon or god, or a human possessed/protected by them. End bosses would be Medeus, Duma, Julius, Veld, Idoun, Fire Dragon, Demon King, Ashnard, Ashera, Grima, and w/e FE14s is Which do you prefer in general? And which is your favorite from each? For me I prefer villains over the end bosses almost all the time, and on an individual level Alvis is my favorite villain, with Medeus being my favorite end boss. EDIT: Err idk why 2 posts came up, can this be deleted? I can't seem to delete it.

Villains: Often have a unique battle theme and class, they appear much more frequently in cut-scenes and often times appear as a unit on a map in earlier chapters where they are unkillable, and usually the strongest enemy unit in the game without a gimmick (which is usually reserved for the end boss) and are often times the ones responsible for most if not all of the events. Villains would include, Gharnef, Jedah, Hardin, Alvis, Ledrick, Zephiel, Nergal, Lyon, The Black Knight, Sephiran (Though FE10 can kind of be debated), Validar? (Have only played awakening once and kind of skipped a lot of dialogue), and whatever FE14s happens to be. End Boss: The last boss you fight, not seen too often until the very end though talked about. They are usually quite strong but often fall quickly to the game's plot-centric weapon. They are usually a dragon or god, or a human possessed/protected by them. End bosses would be Medeus, Duma, Julius, Veld, Idoun, Fire Dragon, Demon King, Ashnard, Ashera, Grima, and w/e FE14s is Which do you prefer in general? And which is your favorite from each? For me I prefer villains over the end bosses almost all the time, and on an individual level Alvis is my favorite villain, with Medeus being my favorite end boss.

I would like that personally, I mean conflicts being "low" stakes in terms of threat to the world. I would love a Fire Emblem game about a political conflict, instead of "Heroes vs. Dragon/God", and a few almost achieve this but throw in a "complete surprise twist" that a dragon/god and their followers were behind it in the last couple chapters. I would not mind seeing a FE6 style story just with Idenn/Jahn omitted. Imagine if the story were just Zephiel wanting to take over the world for political reasons (like Hitler as a real-world comparison) and Roy and allied countries had to stop him. Yes the stakes wouldn't be over who controls a gold-mine or something that low, they would be higher, but it wouldn't be the entire world collapsing in to darkness if a god/dragon isn't taken down. FE4 is another example of this, until the Loptyr possessing Julius is thrown in. Generation 1 is almost entirely political conflict, there are a couple mentions of the Loptyr cult, but from the characters PoV it's just a nutty cult wanting to gain power by controlling rulers (not unlike the real-world). Generation 2 starts much the same via liberating countries and such, it's at chapter 10 that it takes the "big bad evil god ruling the world" turn (notice that's when almost every boss becomes a dark bishop?). If FE4 ended with Alvis and Manfroy (the cultist tricking him) I think that would be kind of cool. Or maybe Julius still (Since he would be the next Emperor after his father's death), but a non-possessed version being manipulated by Manfroy.

Just bring back "knight-cavaliers" for four weapon types, I miss those and I liked the concept of picking your 2nd weapon after promotion. It made units like Astrid in FE9 rather good after promotion being able to pick axes as their 2nd weapon (as any mounted units with bows seem to be stuck with swords after promotion most of the time). And it fits in with non-promoted units having one weapon type. EDIT: On a more humorous note, with my Astrid comment, it made me think how axe using classes are not common among female characters, yet the stereotypical female growths (more agility focused) are much better for wielding axes.

Ideally I like FE9's fixed growths mode, but it must not have been popular since it never returned. As for stats, I say make average growths like 500%, but do the same for enemies of course. Nothing irks me like "LEVEL UP!!!... +1HP" (or worse, nothing).

I find the main issue is mounted units... while each game has it's own imbalances, mounted units seem to be the only consistent one throughout the series. The games would be so much more balanced if high movement units were gimped in some way. Horse-killing weapons are not an excuse either since 98% of the time enemies don't have them. If they did something like make *all* lances super effective like bows with fliers that might be something different (Not saying they should, just using it as a point). They are even more god-like in the games with canto. I think canto's idea is pretty cool, but it's OP as hell. On a side-note, armors suffer in almost every game for the same reason, they deserve some sort of buff as well if they keep low movement. I always liked the idea of FE8 generals, weapon triangle control, invincibility skill, caps higher then most classes, etc. At least then they would be decent in a casual run. As for the RNG comment, I propose FE9's fixed mode should be added back, I liked it a *lot* and am sad it was removed. It could be modified slightly with which weapons/items were equipped, but not by much and in the end your characters ended up with roughly average stats so you couldn't get RNG screwed.

I would still say she is easier in all honesty, neither can counter attack (Idoun has 1 range, Veld has a 3-10 range weapon) though she has no chance of surviving a round from the Sword of Seals unless Roy got like no level ups (And even in 0% growths he still 3 shots her if I recall). Veld is useless thanks to Stone, but due to FE5's huge throne bonuses he has a slight chance of surviving an attack (however low). But as mentioned Veld has a ton of guys around him when Idoun is almost solo. Plus most of the time other characters can kill Veld easier then Leaf (also allowing him to capture the throne on the same turn).