Ertrick36

I'd ask a speedrunner/LTCer or hacker, either of them with a YouTube or Twitch channel with videos/VODs proving they know enough about the game to speed through it. I wouldn't trust random nobs on the internet to answer conclusively, and the vast majority of people either forget details like how many exact kills certain units got over others or they aren't the type to test things repeatedly like a speedrunner or a hacker would.

Really situational. It just depends on if the limit is dependent on a certain bloodline, race, or expertise. Characters like Sigurd, Lyn, or Marth are specifically blessed to be capable of wielding certain weapons. Tylfing responds only to major Baldo blood, the Katti blades seem to have a will of their own that only allow Lyn to wield them, and Marth is the latest heir of the Altean royal family, which I believe is what is required to wield Falchion. Sometimes the rules are arbitrary - why does Emmeryn not wield Falchion, for example. But nevertheless, prf weapons are clearly meant for specific individuals, not just any skilled warrior. But in terms of class weapons, I see it as a matter of being specialized/proficient with those weapons. For example, longbows are often exclusive to archers and snipers - horse-mounted archers and those who use bows as a secondary weapon (e.g. assassins in Awakening) can't wield them. This actually has historical backing, as horse archers had to use special shortbows to be efficient in combat - trying to draw a longbow on horseback is too cumbersome for the vast majority of humans, and due to their size (they were almost always roughly the same height as the wielder) they really could only be used in a mostly stationary position, limiting their use in the hands of a duelist or auxiliary (that is, one involved with the military, but not molded into the military's ranks). Other weapons had specific purposes. For example, pikes were used mostly as weapons of defense against charges - they were too unwieldy to be used as offensive weapons, at least in the hands of your average pikeman. As such, troops trained for specific roles were trained to use certain weapons that others wouldn't. And in the context of high fantasy, it makes sense in a game like Fire Emblem: Awakening for dark magic to be exclusive to dark mages - maybe even with the training, it takes a certain loadout to be able to use the weaponry (a loadout which only dark mages and sorcerers have access to). But if you're asking which type I like more, it might be class weapons. I like when they actually go for historical accuracy in this regard, like how I outlined. Some prf weapons look neat, but others - particular those in later entries - look kind of ridiculous. Also not necessarily a fan of the idea of arbitrary favoritism. Every FE game has a slew of warriors and mages that are just as good at fighting as the nobility that wield holy weapons. The only exceptions to this are Genealogy and Fates, where high quality warriors of humbler origins are more difficult to find because the writers were way too obsessed with jerking off the narrative of the nobility being godly beings. Though of course, every FE game needs at least one character with a godly weapon that can easily slay the overtly evil villain guy at the end of the game. I don't mind the existence of this fantastical element, but I prefer when it's supplemented with a more historically accurate reason for discerning between nobility and the more common folk, or at least with historically accurate sentiments, e.g. the notion that the poor aren't capable of governing entire fiefs or kingdoms. But maybe that's a bit too cynical and real for a game like FE. I'm not sure, because Echoes was approaching this notion, and it's almost implied in Three Houses through supports with Lorenz and commoner character (though he's actually one of the nicer nobles, believe it or not). Maybe I'm just weird and I'm liking some elements of FE for entirely wrong reasons.

Man, the Fire Emblem games can be enough of a slog as-is. Genealogy, of course, lets you field 24, and that coupled with the massive size of its maps makes it the biggest slogfest in all of Fire Emblem. What really slows down the game is a combination of fielding liability units that need extra babysitting, figuring out who to feed kills to and how to facilitate such feedings, getting out of or around tricky situations, and even just preparing the most ideal way you can. Maybe at one point I was reckless and just threw my lot in willy-nilly without much thought, but as a more experienced player I am better off taking my time in my considerations. Anyway, all of that is tied into how many units you can deploy, as more units means more time needed to divide one's attention between units. I think around 14-16 ought to be max. And that's the utmost maximum cap - on average, the limit should be 10-12, the 14-16 unit deployment limits being preserved for the really big chapters. It might also depend on the focus the scope of the cast and fights the individual game is going for. For some games, there should be even lower limits. But never higher than what I listed because, as I said, it just becomes a giant slogfest. I think the only time a giant deployment really worked was in Echoes, and it was just because the vast majority of the game barely required much thought to beat (and the post-game only lets you deploy 10 units).

I'm not sure, since I don't know how exactly your brother would enjoy the story. I think generally speaking the way he'll play will probably play into his favor in terms of inheritance, possibly optimal pairs too as long as he's aware of the ability to check for available conversations and knows to check such things frequently (like, after every castle captured and character recruited). Generally speaking this will lead you to building a respectable enough 2nd Gen. Ayra can have a convo with either Lex or Holyn which increases her love points with one of them, for instance, and either option will grant her a great weapon which is perfect for inheritance and make both children great. You might want to tell him that if he wants to see couples form that he should have them be next to one another at the end of every turn. As for hidden events... I mean, there is absolutely no way for someone to know about them without either somehow accidentally stumbling upon them or through actually looking them up, but I think they should stay hidden for a first playthrough. The only exception I say to this is for the Chapter 10 secret for after you defeat Alvis. For that, I'd say you should hint to it, and only do so once he's gotten to the 2nd Generation. Tell him something like "When you defeat Alvis, go stand next to water". Something that's sort of vague, but understandable enough that he'd get what he'd need to do. I say this because it's a crime that this secret scene is missable.

She isn't bad because dodge-tanking is much more valuable in the GBA games due to 2RN. It's only if you're playing a game with 1RN or, like, Fire Emblem Fates that speedy units with no defense or strength are worthless. Or if you are a bad enough tactician to leave a squishy unit open to attacks from accurate foes. I learned that lesson the first time I played Blazing Sword - got her killed in the final Lyn Mode chapter because I was an idiot and thought I could have her rush the enemy even though she didn't actually get very many levels. Specifically in FE12? Eh, maybe. Definitely not in the first half of the story, though. Thing about Caeda that she has over those two, however, is granting support bonuses to units that are actually valuable. She grants bonuses to Marth, Oguma, and, in the remakes, both Mallesia and Castor. All of these units are good, strong units in their own right, if not actually critical to beating the game. In FE12 she also has exclusive access to the Wing Spear, and you can't deny the value of what is basically the lance equivalent of a rapier. In combination with the Dragonpike, she's basically capable of dealing effectiveness damage against any and all enemies that are actually formidable. Caeda is probably at her weakest in Mystery Book 2. Or rather, at her point of least advantage, as there's no wing spear to be made exclusive to her and those two Whitewing sisters both start with the ability to use just about any lance in the game (Catria being just two WLV points away from using the Gradivus, and Palla actually being able to use every lance in the game). Also Caeda gives fewer support bonuses, as she only grants them to Marth and Oguma. She's really not that terrible. The power of bows make up for her low strength (seriously, the weakest standard bow in the game has a might of six), and she's better able to afford to rely on speed as a player turn focused unit than your typical speedy Hoshidan unit like Hana or Kaden. She's definitely better than Subaki and Hana, probably better than Azama who is better served not being a healer, and absolutely gives units with lackluster speed such as Orochi or Hinata a run for their money. I'd also say she's better than Niles, and the only real reason Niles is more respected is because he's a better capture unit than Orochi, who honestly is just not a good unit. Give her the Pursuer by endgame, and she's basically guaranteed to kill anything she attacks that isn't the final boss (even then, she'll do quite a number on them for a non-Yato unit). Here are mine, in no real order. Mozu (14) - Any who are trying to go for a LTC playthrough will tell you just how much Mozu sucks. Admittedly, she is bad for anyone wanting to go for a speedy playthrough, and for the amount of commitment she needs to match strength with the average unit in your army (actually not too much if you get her early, but there's still commitment wasted), the payoff is simply a decent unit who can pass down a nice growth skill to any child that isn't Shigure or M!Kana. But I like using her anyway, and would gladly dump 50 turns on her paralogue to make her decent. Tine (4) - She's "bad" in the general context that she's simply not as good as all the horse-mounted units in the game, particularly her brother Arthur who not only is a mage that gets a horse but also has the potential of inheriting the ability to use the ridiculously OP Holsety. She's a respectable unit, as is her sub Linda, but others overshadow her. Even so, I have a fondness for the children of Tailtiu, the lady who was abused by one of the most objectively evil women in the series, Hilda (not that Hilda, Three Houses fans, a different one). Ayra (4) - Another unit that's "bad" because of everyone else who's overwhelmingly good. Folks that are good at the game will generally say she's best left just gaining levels in the arena and leaving the fighting to the mounted units - that her abilities as a unit don't make up for her lack of mobility. Perhaps such is true, but I still like using this Astra monster in Gen 1 - nothing is more satisfying than seeing her commit overkill on an enemy. Marty (5) - Literally the only thing good about him as a unit is his absolutely insane Build growth. Seriously, he'll almost immediately ram that cap, and all it's really good for is capturing enemies. Just about every other stat for him is absolutely atrocious, and most will recommend you don't use him much. But A) I love the capture mechanics in this game and B) he's the only option I realistically have in sparing Gomes, one of the few minor bosses in the series I feel genuinely bad about killing. Also, he can be made good through the use of crusader scrolls, and you have more incentive to use less-than-ideal characters about midway through the game thanks to stamina mechanics. Delthea (2/15) - Don't really like her as a character, and she's a typical glass cannon which will buckle about as soon as she makes contact with virtually any enemy wielding a decent strength-based weapon... but, I mean, I love me a nuclear bomb in human form. Seteth (16) - I think if there are any units that classify as "bad" in Three Houses, the characters you are only able to recruit late into the game are about the closest to qualifying as such. Unlike most FE games, Three Houses is a game much more heavily focused on and favorable towards growth units. Every unit you get in the first few chapters of the game are crucial growth units, and are almost certainly gonna make up your core army late into the game - including those that people might generally say "suck", such as Ashe or Ignatz. Seteth is a unit you get so late into the game that he's almost certain to be overshadowed by almost everyone else you've been using all this time. But what can I say, I find him too lovable to ignore. Dorothy (6) - I think I'd classify Dorothy as "bad" not only because of the mounted bow-wielders in the game but also because of Wolt. She's stuck in this weird middle ground where most people looking for actually good units will probably just ignore her in favor of other bowmen in the game. But I dunno, I kinda just like her character, which is that of a guardian to a perverted troublemaking cleric. She not only has to look out for Saul to keep him safe, she also has to look out for him to keep him from being a problem for others. Cecilia (6) - I also think some would classify Cecilia as a generally worse character than some other mages in the game both because there's a smorgasbord of other mages you get before her who are likely to be better and because the first chapter you're able to use her takes place in a desert, meaning you can barely even move her around in that chapter. But I'm a grumpy adult and can't stand all these kids, so I'll take my kinda not great mounted mage just by virtue of her being at least in her 20's. Virion (13) - I'm of the opinion that there's no such thing as a "bad" unit in Awakening, only less-than-ideal units. Well, Virion is one of those units. In Awakening, archers are just lame. They're locked to 2-range, and they don't make up for their lack of counterattack ability with any notable strength beyond the usual "strong against fliers" deal which means little when mages are so much stronger and are able to use several weapons with effectiveness against fliers. Even so, I still enjoy using the archest of archers, even if Noire is probably a more archerer archer than Virion. Trainees (8) - Ross is actually a pretty decent unit, but the other two suck in their own ways. Even so, I like making tiny little Amelia into a terrifying great knight and innocent Ewan into a Druid of darkness. There's just something comical about seeing Amelia physically grow into a heavily armored cavalry unit, and seeing such a sinister unit as a Druid with as ridiculous a color palette as Ewan's. I know I said I dislike children when I listed Cecilia, but I meant that in Binding Blade a lot of the core cast (that is, Roy and those he can support with) are basically 15 years old or younger judging by appearance - in Sacred Stones most units appear to be at least 16. Surprisingly there are no units that I like using in the Archanea games which are actually bad. The worst one is probably Katarina in New Mystery simply because of redundancy, but considering there are enough cavaliers in the game to make up an entire team and that she's actually pretty decent (particularly in her high weapon ranks), I'd hardly classify her as a "bad" unit. And Wendell in the remakes is even still usable as a mage Jeigan, although I prefer him in the original games. I guess I'm just a simp when it comes to the Archanea characters, as I don't really like using the redundant characters like Tomas or the bald armor knight duo. And I don't list Est because I actually don't find her all that fun to use beyond employing her in the Triangle Attack, and in the one game I do find her enjoyable to use in, Gaiden/Echoes, she's actually not difficult or tedious to level up.

Dude, that's the entire reason I use Adblock Plus. Though even then, some sites will still have ads that seize your browser if you aren't quick enough - usually questionable sites that host viruses for accidental download/installation. I also use it because otherwise my internet browsing would result in a ridiculous amount of memory usage, especially on sites such as Mod Nexus which hosts a massive catalog of mods for a smorgasbord of games. Anyway, due to a recent issue with my computer, I had to reinstall my OS (thanks, Windows 10, btw), which meant I was given the option to turned off the internet tracking on Windows 10. So I don't really get directed adverts anymore. Regardless, I've seen plenty of gems. My favorite was this one about a CBD Startup - not because the ad itself was funny, but because there was a capital "T" in the ad that I could use to replace the "D" in "CBD" using GIMP to do so, which made the ad's clickbaity tagline "See What The Excitement Is About" absolutely hilarious. It resulted in this: I had to edit the "excitement" bit in like that because it got cut off in the banner ad. Also, it doesn't help that the thumbnail is a dude laying in bed, lmao Also love shit like this: Look at the myriad of options available to me. Either "Fix" or "Yes" to the question "Do you want to scan and update drivers now?". Like, what the hell would "Fix" do that "Yes" wouldn't do? lmao Then there's stuff like this: Like... why is it meant specifically for old people? Judging from the thumbnail, it really doesn't seem like the kind of game that'd appeal to that demographic. Then again, there's a famous grandma who plays Skyrim, so what do I know. Then there's this kind of crap I used to see all the time which is just cursed (spoilered due to image size): Bear in mind that I've never clicked on a single one of these ads - they're all different kinds of terrible. As a rule of thumb, I don't "like" ads because at the end of the day the people making them just want my money. At best an ad may make me curious enough to research the product, but that's pretty rare. The only ads I'm susceptible to are food ads, and that's only if they advertise food products I actually like - and even then, I might only just desire the general type of food advertised (e.g. burgers or pizzas) rather than eating the food of a specific company. Like, I might see a Dominos ad but get hungry for Pizza Hut pizza instead.

Hard/Classic, the game will probably seem easier to you than 3H. Only the beginning might give you difficulty, but if that's the case just make good use of Frederick. The only other way I see you being challenged by this is through the inability to rewind time. You might've relied on that more than you think you did, and in this game you'll have to adapt to the fact that you won't be able to rewind time unless you reload the save. Lunatic/Classic is highly not recommended. The game will force you to play the game a certain way, and more or less take away most of your individual agency as a player. It doesn't challenge you in a way that actually improves your strategic abilities, it only challenges you in the sense that you'll need a lot of trial and error just to figure out how to slog through it all. Also if you feel you can't progress without grinding, you'd actually need SpotPass to grind in Lunatic because all skirmishes on that difficulty setting pit you up against level 20 enemies with max stats and a ridiculous ensemble of skills. It's overall just not a fun experience, and I say this as someone who's played a lot of games in the series.

Maybe, although when you're drunk your mind can go to... well, rather strange places at times. I wouldn't be surprised if he thought about Samus for whatever reason. Zelda is far from the most far-fetched character he could've thought of when comparing Lucina to others.

"If he kills Emmeryn, it'll be the END OF ALL OF UUUUUUSSS!" Yeah, Lucina is definitely Future Trunks, lmao. She even prevents the death of one of the protagonists, Chrom, who is also her father, and at some point people start kind of dismissing her warnings. All that's missing is Chrom being an arrogant prick who sees his offspring as a nuisance until she's actually killed/nearly killed. Imagine if we got the equivalent of a Buu arc in this game.

I'd almost like to see @Silafante speak his piece here, but he's kind of just stopped frequenting this site. Anyway, gonna rank the movies by order of release. Bear in mind I only saw Force Awakens out of the sequel trilogy, so I only know of what I heard from others on the later two movies. Episode IV, A New Hope: 7/10 - For an introduction to the wider series as a whole, it's nice. It's probably got the most basic plot in the series, and it's really campy. There's suspense, but the main shocking events that transpire don't happen to the main characters themselves - that is, Luke, Han, Leia, and Darth Vader. They happen to things and people they care about - Alderan and Obi-Wan, in particular. But the main cast otherwise come out of the conflict no worse for wear. Episode V, Empire Strikes Back: 9/10 - The movie with all the critical twists. Luke loses his had and discovers that the main villain is actually his father. Han is betrayed by his close friend and frozen in stasis to be sold as a decorative piece to a crime lord he owes money to. Leia's rebel alliance is nearly destroyed and run off their main base on Hoth, and not long after she fell in love with Han he gets taken prisoner by a mercenary. Vader himself comes face-to-face with his son for the first time ever, and seems to contemplate his interaction - contemplates why Luke chose to fall down a chasm and possibly die instead of join his side and rule the Empire alongside him. Everyone loses in their own ways, and while the ending is ultimately hopeful, there's much that was lost by the end of this movie. Episode VI, Return of the Jedi: 7/10 - It's a good follow-up to Episode V, but there weren't really any more shockers in store for the main cast we've been following all this time. Well, except for Darth Vader's return to the light, because Luke chose to keep his hope and faith that Vader still had some good in him. Honestly, the scene with Luke, Vader, and Sidious was the most memorable thing for me in this movie because Luke finally had to face the choice of either staying on the path of light in spite of the overwhelming odds or succumb to the urges of the dark and effectively take the easy way out. Luke defeated Vader, and had him at his mercy... but instead of choosing to kill Vader even when urged by Sidious, he spared him. Even at the possible cost of his own life, he chose to believe in Vader. It's what finally tipped Vader over to the side of good, resulting in him saving the life of his son who just a moment ago saved Vader's life. Aside from that, I don't really remember anything all that special about this movie. Episode I, the Phantom Menace: 5/10 - I do like the memes that came out of the prequels, and there is a charm to the campy nature. However, after the twists and turns of the previous two movies, Phantom Menace didn't really offer much. It might've been a bit too much on the light-hearted side of things. Episode II, the Clone Wars: 4/10 - I honestly don't remember much of anything beyond the memes, Kamino, and the actual battle on Geonosis. There was also the slaughtering of the Tusken animals that Anakin committed, though that's partly covered by my mentioning of memes, but I remember what preceded it - watching Anakin meet his mother, who was basically dying at the hands of the Tusken Raiders, and then him march out and begin slaughtering everyone. That was probably the only moment in the movie that had any impact on me. Episode III, Revenge of the Sith: 8/10 - Yeah, I'm rating it a smidgen above Episodes IV and VI. I mainly remember the battle on Mustafar, watching Obi-Wan who was usually a jovial and campy character entirely distraught over what became of Anakin. I feel like much of this story is carried by Palpatine and Obi-Wan. It's the movie where Palpatine's long game of political maneuvering and quietly influencing Anakin's life pays off, and we also see a pivotal point in Obi-Wan's life which turns him into the cynic we see in the original trilogy - the man who always doubts Luke and believes that he's lost whenever he acts rashly or impulsively. But while people give him flak for acting like a hormonal teenager, the story wouldn't be complete without Anakin. And honestly, to defend him, I'd say he's perfect for what the story was trying to set up. He joined too late to really be raised as a proper jedi, and he came from a difficult background. Yet instead of dealing with the emotional turmoil he was going through, the jedi more or less basically just told him to sit down and shut up. I like this because it shows that even the jedi aren't without flaws. And as a result, the jedi lose their precious Chosen One to the Sith. Episode VII, Force Awakens: 6/10 - Honestly, it just feels like A New Hope with a different skin. Outside of the context of Star Wars, it's a nice enough campy film, but it's just not all that great a Star Wars movie. I feel like honestly I agree with a lot of Mark Hamill's opinions on the movie - Luke should've had a more substantial role, and it would've been more impactful if he was there with Leia when Ben stabbed Han. I hear that Luke got an even worse treatment in the later movies, and I think it's a real shame that after all he'd been through he was given this disappointing conclusion to his story. There are also an assortment of games I played based on this franchise. Namely: Rogue Squadron: 8/10 - This was, I feel, a big step for flight simulators as a genre. Sure, you had Ace Combat, but AC3 kind of broke the team's budget enough that the localization was significantly nutered, and AC4 didn't come out until 2001. Rogue Squadron was the real shit. It was, digitally, barely jury-rigged to function, but it was a badass flight simulator where you got to fight among the best of the Rebel Alliance to disrupt the actions of the Empire. Sequels came out for this game, and I loved them just about as much as the original, even in spite of the... iffy on-foot segments of Rebel Strike. Knights of the Old Republic: 9/10 - Yes, I think this matches what made the Empire Strikes Back great with its twists, while also combining elements of Revenge of the Sith that demonstrate the flaws of the jedi. But this time, you yourself get to decide if you'll succumb to the dark side or side with the light against the odds. And just like with the Empire Strikes Back, there's a very crucial twist involving your character's identity which elevated this Star Wars game's story above all others. The gameplay is nice, too, if you're more into playing a fast-paced D&D with jank than an actual action game - plenty of builds you can make in this game, which really just goes to show how varied the jedi can actually be. Knights of the Old Republic II: 8/10 - Some will absolutely give me flack for listing this below the original KotOR (I'm sure I even know some of their names), but I'll have you know it's just barely below that game. What really holds it back is the unfinished nature of it all and an unsatisfying ending. That aside, this cranks up the deconstruction that Revenge of the Sith did to eleven. Everything you think is great about either the jedi or the Sith is questioned, and your mentor in the game, Kreia, is the one that holds them to the torch. On likely the first planet you explore, Nar Shadaa, you'll encounter a bum who'll ask you to give him something (I think it's money, but I don't quite remember). If you give him what he wants, you're chastised and shown that by giving him that thing, you made him into a target for others who are desperate - you watch him get beaten up by a thug who also wants what you gave him. She almost always will question the path of pure good, but won't abide just pure evil without aim or purpose either. And in the end, you're made to question the very entity that is the force. It's a tremendously great story and the gameplay mechanics are improved over the first game. But for me, it's sort of like Mass Effect 3 - it would've been the best if it wasn't for its grievous faults. That's classic Obsidian, for you - always overreaching, making fantastic games but having to cut lots of stuff out because of budget and time constraints. It's no wonder Joshua Sawyer and Chris Avellone became weary as time went on. At least Avellone got to help make another critically acclaimed Star Wars game after this one, even if he wasn't a lead designer for it. EDIT: I should add that the philosophy of Kreia is really what set this game apart from basically anything else Star Wars, and that it actually came out before Revenge of the Sith. There's a lot to her philosophy beyond simple moral greyness - it's a philosophy dependent on one's own capabilities and powers, and one that scorns the reliance on the power of others or the aiding of others going through struggles, seeking a collective learning experience where everyone learns through their own struggles instead of being given an easy solution. I'd even say Kreia is the reason people even question the virtues of the jedi and the sins of the sith in the first place. Well, her and Jolee Bindo, the best cynical old man who ever lived. They really bring into question the true value of the jedi teachings, which were first brought up in the Empire Strikes Back. When I say this game is an 8/10, I really only mean that it's a major disappointment that the end battle and ultimate resolution of the story were disappointing and that the incomplete status of the game holds it back. The story, or at least Kreia, is 10/10, and I say that as someone who almost never give perfect scores to anything unironically. Battlefront II: 8/10 - I'll lump in the OG Battlefront as well because they're fairly similar. Here, I'm talking about the original Battlefront games - the ones not published by EA. The story isn't much to write home about, though in the second game it's a nice side story to accompany the overarching story - that of the 501st Legion which were a significant force in Star Wars lore, who were powerful enough that they became Anakin's/Vader's main fighting force and were one of the original batches of clones that were still used even as far into the timeline as the Empire Strikes Back. But what makes this game great is it's sort of like a space-themed Battlefield. It's a shooter where you choose to fight for one team against another in various game modes. There are several classes to play as, each with their own roles, and objectives vary from "try to capture these six points until one side runs out of reinforcements or points to capture" to "capture the flag x number of times" to score battles in space where both sides must try to either destroy parts of a ship and its support frigates or defeat a large amount of enemies. It was honestly just a fun Star Wars-themed shooter. I don't rank the Lego Star Wars games because it's been a long while since I've played them. But tbh they're probably around 7/10 or 8/10. If you're wondering why I generally place the games above a lot of the movies, it's because most of my childhood was spent playing the games as opposed to watching the movies. I also just generally view games as a superior medium to movies, at least when done correctly.

Nah, I was more referring to a general period of time before well before Napoleon's rise when the Reisläufer - that is, Swiss mercenaries - and the Swiss's use of pikemen were at their height, which was around the late 1400's. If there's one specific conflict I'm thinking of, it's the Burgundian State against the Swiss (known as the "Burgundian Wars") - specifically the Burgundian State under leadership of Charles the Bold, who relied greatly on cavalry as a "main force". He suffered three crucial defeats at the hands of the Swiss, first because he misjudged the size of their main force during a siege (he also brutally killed a bunch of Swiss, which he thought would terrify them into submission, but because of his loss they were only emboldened by his cruelty to more or less viciously kill him) and the next two times were mainly due to him abandoning his artillery and having only cavalry and infantry to rely on (and he only really tended to use infantry as a distraction/to keep enemies off his cavalry). The last battle even saw his life taken from him. I think it helps demonstrate my point because while cavalry are extremely powerful, especially the Burgundian cavalry, they couldn't defeat an army with a more varied and unique approach. Of particular note were the Swiss pikemen, who notoriously readied pikes against cavalry charges by pointing them upwards and forwards against the ground. When you're charging at the enemy while in formation with other chargers, you don't have a lot of room to either stop or turn around when the enemy prepares a defense like this. It resulted in a lot of horribly skewered cavalry. And before you say that's cruel, I'll have you know that before the Battle of Grandson began Charles had about 400 men of a Swiss garrison, who were all begging for mercy and didn't really wrong him in any way, hanged from trees over an excruciating four hours just to shock the enemy forces (again, that backfired because of his loss), so I'd say the skewering of the cavalry was the least that Charles and his forces deserved. By the time of Napoleon's rise in power, people were abandoning traditional military tactics in favor of those that employed guns. That said, because guns were still a bit inconvenient to use, armies still employed melee combat quite prominently - it's just that they didn't wear full plate armor or chainmail anymore. But once the percussion cap was introduced and they started making repeaters and revolvers, people abandoned most melee combat tactics altogether because using a gun was not only easier, but it also was faster and more effective. Nowadays people rightfully turn their noses up at those firearms because they're slower to reload than firearms that use cartridge magazines, but back then they were a revolution - they were called "repeaters" because you could just repeatedly fire without much pause, while with a flintlock you still had to fiddle around with the gun each time you fired, not to mention the fact that a flintlock gun could be ruined by weather while every percussion cap weapon could work in just about any conditions.

I think another reason is because the Laguz seem to have an aversion to using unnatural weapons - that is, weapons that aren't their claws and fangs. Granted it seems like this aversion is a more recent thing, but I don't think they'd be so ready to forgo the use of handmade weapons if they became familiar enough with them that they knew how useful they were, no matter what sense of honor they had. Especially if this aversion transferred to the use of siege weapons, as they'd be hard pressed to expand their territory through warfare without using artillery such as trebuchets or ballistae - there's only so much a powerful beast can do to a city, especially when that beast values their own life. That puts them at a pretty strong disadvantage against Beorc armies, especially those with archers and mages. You simply cannot win wars without the use of ranged weaponry - not when your enemies use such weaponry. You can have all the natural speed in the world and you'll still fail when the enemy has solid ranks of cavalry, infantry, and archers. It's what the French learned when they tried to rely solely on cavalry charges to win their battles against the Swiss.

I suppose it's partly what the previous user said, though I think there's more to it. It was probably better advertised, and I think something like DBZ was more appealing than some western cartoons because it wasn't trying to go for a "little boy" appeal, but instead was what you'd call a "manime". I remember as a young boy I despised the idea of being treated like a kid - most young boys hate it. Boys like big, muscular dudes that kick the bad guys' arses into next week. I think in the 80's there were a decent number of western cartoons where you watched dudes beat up bad guys, but a lot of cartoons from my time were more reserved and less combative. I'll also add that, IMO, Avatar: the Last Airbender was a western cartoon with all the appeals of an anime. Which at the time of its airing meant that I hated it because for whatever stupid reason I strongly disliked anime when I was really little. It wasn't until I played DBZ: Budokai Tenkaichi 2 that I actually started liking anime in any form - that was, I'd say, around the time the third game in that series was coming out. I think if anime is to evolve in a way that's actually good, writers ought to look back on the past works to understand what was actually appealing about them. It feels like so much anime nowadays is about the cutesy girls with big breasts and high school dramas. Not to say that all has to go away, but it's not what I like in anime. I mean, my taste in anime is stuff like Dragon Ball and Jojo's Bizarre Adventure. It doesn't have to be macho manime, but I like when the stories are about more than having a disastrous lunch date with the quiet girl in the protagonist's class or whatever. That said, my analysis of what the evolution of anime will be is this: I think girl breasts in anime will go from melon size to yoga ball size, bringing breasts to a point where boys and girls alike can sit and relax on them as if they were luxury condo seats. Don't tell me that's already an anime, I won't even be surprised.

To answer objectively, it's a matter of perspective - what qualities one might find appealing. When critics say something's good or bad, they're talking mostly about what they personally find good or bad - or sometimes, if they're disingenuous they'll speak about what they think is broadly appealing to their listeners. When a piece of media reaches massive acclaim, it's because it managed to have just the right qualities that it appealed to the broadest spectrum of people, and also because it was well advertised. In terms of the qualities people find universally appealing, well... This may sound like I'm talking elementary school literature, but it really comes down to having a conflict, a build-up, a climax, and an ending. The thing that many writers miss with all four of these elements is that they actually need to function as intended. A conflict actually needs to be a conflict - it needs to be a challenge that the protagonist has difficulty overcoming, to the point that it actually forces the protagonist to change. A build-up means raising the audience's interest and excitement gradually - usually by introducing higher and higher stakes as the story goes on. A climax is where the conflict comes to a head and is either resolved or likely only partially resolved (think Star Wars: Empire Strikes Back - they didn't get the best resolutions out of this climax, but it was a great climax nonetheless, and I'd say that the overall net negative resolutions made it a more interesting story). And the ending needs to serve as an unwinding point where you see the ultimate results of the climax. The problem is that amateur writers don't always know how to do all of this - they don't understand that all pieces are needed to complete the puzzle. Without a build-up, you just have a plateau with a cliff fall; without a climax, the build-up isn't worth it; without a satisfying ending, the climax isn't worth it; and without a proper conflict, none of the pieces work. The most frequent screw up is with the conflict. Because they're the ones making the story, they don't know how much of a challenge their characters' conflicts might seem like to the average reader. Take, for instance, Alm's story in Echoes. The reason his story didn't quite make the mark for some is because it didn't really feel like he struggled in a way that he had to better himself or adapt. He fought and he cried, but he never had much issue with actually striking his foes down, nor was the Rudolf revelation all that big a shock to his core character. There is also the issue of spelling and grammar, but honestly those are secondary because the ultimate purpose of those aspects is enabling the reader to understand what's been written. That said, there's a lot of... interesting fanfiction where people screw up so horribly in this regard that it actually is difficult to understand the story. As for my personal opinion? Well, it's changed over the years. When I first got into FE, it was mainly about characters, and I couldn't care less about the world or even the overall story. Now... it honestly depends on the story I'm observing. I need to have the right expectations of a story to appreciate it properly. It worked for FE because I only wanted good characters at the time, and now that's the only thing FE needs to get right to be appealing to me. But let's take something like Zelda. Particularly Breath of the Wild. What I usually expect from Zelda - and I mean the actual character Zelda - is a girl or woman who usually is supportive of Link and accepts the burden of her destiny. Even Tetra, the least Zelda-like Zelda, still had these qualities - she supported Link when he needed her and, when she discovered the truth of her hidden identity, she accepted her lot in life. But in BotW, she's uncooperative with Link and kind of selfish - at least in the memories you observe her in. And not even in a way that's, IMO, interesting or appealing - she just comes across as a spoiled princess. Even if that was the intent... I just don't really like that kind of Zelda. Now, that isn't to say I like female characters that are subservient or helpless. But with Zelda, I have this expectation that she'll be mature enough to understand the stakes of the conflict and accept her responsibility to Hyrule - not to want to hide away in an ivory tower because she wanted to grow up to be a lawyer or whatever instead of the princess that saves the world from a literal world-ending entity. Or, for a more recent example, I'll mention Mount and Blade. The series has a reputation mostly as a sandbox. So the most that I expected was maybe some worldbuilding, and in M&B2 that's basically what I got, so I was satisfied with the story content it gave me.

I had a quarantine birthday literally only, like, a week or two after the quarantine started in America. Normally I'd visit with my grandparents, but that time I didn't get to. I did receive a call from my grandmother though, along with a neat bracelet with oil diffusion beads which you're suppose to douse in essential oils, which was nice. Still, it was mighty disappointing to skip out on a tradition. In any event, happy birthday.

I think if anything Verdant Wind is the one that needed a rework the most. Claude's role in the story really doesn't feel all that relevant, and a lot of character buildup for him didn't amount to much. They originally intended for him to employ questionable ethics, but they didn't follow through, so his troublemaker nature remained that of a fun-loving prankster instead of that of maybe changing to a man willing to use underhanded tactics to win the war. Although yes, Silver Snow is also kind of a let down. It's mostly due to them trying to push Byleth as the lord when Byleth is such a non-character. While you may feel a connection with the students, you don't actually feel you have any connection to Byleth him/herself. And while the characters all get their times to speak their minds about certain events, Byleth's story is really the focus of the big plot elements unique to SS, and really the only reason you care about it is because of the implications it has for the rest of the world. I do think CF and AM were good, though. CF is pretty short and probably could've done with an expansion, but AM is the definitive path in this game with the most polish. I also think that they should've made the first part of the game more interesting in subsequent playthroughs. Offer more than what we had to differentiate the three houses - perhaps different missions or spins on missions aside from just the different narratives offered. As awful as the story in Fates was, as was the practice of dividing the game into three separately sold paths, they did well to make playthroughs of the different paths feel very different from one another. I'm not sure if TH could do it in exactly the same way, but they should've done something to better differentiate the houses in Part 1.

That's rather simplifying it. Those "revolts" aren't just singular small factions opposing the might of powerful, cruel, invasive regimes. They're the result of years and years of history involving infighting and being influenced by outside forces - of many, many factions arising out of the infighting and pledging allegiance with some while denouncing others. And they're often pushed and backed by outside forces. They don't really just spring up spontaneously. Perhaps act out spontaneously, but they aren't created spontaneously. I'll also add that these days war is waged differently. It wasn't until recent history that we even classified war crimes - back in the days of feuding lords and mighty empires, there were no rules for engaging in war. Empires invading other nations often killed, pillaged, and raped their enemies with impunity - and they executed people in horrific ways and for little good cause. Imagine if Paulinus's beat-down of Boudica and raping of her daughters, along with the annihilation of her tribe, happened today. The international community would be appalled. Sanctions would be placed on Rome, world leaders would denounce them, and everyone directly involved in these acts would be tried on an international level for war crimes. At the very least Rome would suffer great economic repercussions. Back in times of old, it was seen as necessary and justified for the purpose of establishing an authority over enemies. Now, it's met with universal disapproval, as many have respect for other peoples' political autonomy. That's why you don't see the U.S., Russia, or China openly engage in war crimes - they usually try to hide that kind of stuff from public eyes. And this is relevant to Genealogy of the Holy War because Jugdral's politics aren't just a fantasy of Medieval honor - they're actually an accurate recreation of a Medieval society, with all its strengths and flaws. It's why they take particular note of Ethlyn being allowed to maintain relations with her brother after marrying and of Sigurd's harboring of Shannan. Kaga was fully aware of how Medieval societies conducted themselves - he knew that in ancient Japan wives were typically forbidden from treating their relatives and parents as family, and that feudal era kingdoms would always execute entire noble or royal families as a means to quash rebellions before they even begin. They take particular note of stuff like Ethlyn's relationships and Sigurd's protecting of Shannan to demonstrate just how good of people Sigurd and his allies are. Their resistance to the norms of Jugdral's society puts them at risk, but they don't care because they just simply want to fight for the good of the people, not to seize power. And while it ultimately sees Sigurd getting punished, it pays off for the children of him and his friends, who were able to unit and oppose the Loptyr Empire because Sigurd established friendships among the next generation through his acts of kindness - this no more apparent than in the case of Seliph and Shannan's relationship and the rebellion of Isaac. The norm in Jugdral is brutal, Medieval punishments. Many non-player factions are all too gleeful to commit horrific acts in the name of seizing power, and it often works. Sigurd and Seliph represent an opposition to traditional feudal ideals - the idea of winning wars through words instead of violence, of always pursuing diplomatic resolutions, and of ending armed conflicts as humanely as possible. No one among Seliph's forces ever suggests that they march in and kill all of Julius's and Manfroy's families. They don't insist on public executions or razing of settlements that belong to the enemy. They simply just fight the people oppressing the helpless. Of course, most FE protagonists are like this, but Jugdral is one of the only settings in FE where the antagonists actually have fairly realistic goals - at least among the nobility and royalty. And admittedly the Loptyr Cult also kind of had a sort of realistic goal with the Child Hunts - which was to build a society of strong, cruel warlords. It's just too bad they sucked ass at actually convincing anyone that the Child Hunts were a good idea, and they just gave the usual line of "sacrifice to the dark god, conquer the world". Anyway, reading further into it, Isaac actually did maintain a resistance force for a long time. The reason, I'd say, is because Dannan was actually incompetent. His leadership was incompetent, and his forces were incompetent. They were just enough to occupy Isaac, but not enough to completely destroy a rebellion - enough that common folk had no chance of winning a fight with them, but not enough to take down any skilled combatant, which Isaac was filled with. Dannan was a cruel leader, but not in the way that mattered - which was a way in which he'd be able to demoralize the Isaachian forces. Also, I wouldn't say Silesse's resistance movement counts because they barely acted out violently against Grannvale occupation forces until Seliph was making moves. Their role was mostly in ensuring the royal bloodline survived - ensuring that Ced survived. In this sense, they were more a quiet resistance than a full blown rebellion like you'd see in Isaac. And the Thracian Peninsula is politically complicated post-occupation. At first, it was a simple matter of Travant invading Munster and destroying Leonster. However, after that invasion, Grannvale invaded and defeated the Thracians, forcing them into a peace treaty thereafter. When this peace treaty was signed, Blume was installed as the new ruler of the Munster District, effectively cutting the Thracians off from the lush land they coveted and went so far as to wage a bloody war to acquire. So generally speaking, everyone in the Thracian Peninsula absolutely hates Grannvale - those loyal to the Munster District's kingdoms hate them, and the Thracians hate them. Yet those of the Munster District and of Thracia hate each other as well. Allies of Leonster aided Leif, but when the empire came they were usually executed and/or interrogated. The only notable resistance factions still around by the time Thracia 776 starts are Tahra and the Magi Squad. Tahra initially succumbed to Grannvale occupation, but they eventually rebelled when the Child Hunts began - Leif arrives just in time to help them stave off a siege. As for the Magi Squad... well, details are vague about their origin, but I'd say Ced's leadership helped shape them into a formidable enough guerrilla force to conduct covert operations. I'd have to assume they also spawned after the Child Hunts began, as their main purpose seems to be cutting off the Loptyr Cult's influence in the Thracian Peninsula.

Alvis had the people's love. If anyone opposed him, it would strictly have been the few allies Sigurd had that managed to survive. The young and foolish such as Azelle would've openly opposed him while the older and more tempered among his allies such as Adean would quietly conspire to mount a force of opposition to him. There were still plenty of his surviving allies, however, that were so scarred by the events that they simply didn't have the will or ability to oppose Alvis, such as Sylvia. And then there was Finn, who mostly was just constantly on the run with Leif and Nanna because Grannvale formed a temporary alliance with Thracia, which meant both Grannvale and Thracia were hunting down any and all remnants of the Leonster noble family. People don't often revolt against powerful, influential regimes when those regimes conquer their lands. And when they do, you get stuff like the story of Boudica of Iceni, who was beaten and her daughters raped for opposing Roman authority, which also resulted in the resistance forces getting absolutely stomped by Roman forces. The power of an empire only crumbles when another force of great power comes to match them or when their leadership becomes so inefficient that the power diminishes. Again, the Romans, as well as the Byzantines, serve as a perfect example. Over the years they were either kicked around by powerful forces such as the Normans, the nomadic steppe nations that occasionally popped in to say hi, or the Ottomans, or they succumbed to political infighting. The Loptyr Sect only ever managed to transfer leadership over to a vessel of Loptuos and causing the Empire to rule over all of Jugdral. But Julius's leadership was a big farce - he lacked the charisma of Alvis, who himself didn't support the Child Hunts. The Child Hunts were a core element in the Loptyr Empire plot, and as the Loptyr Cult itself is still just a small force in actuality, they had to employ the power of the Grannvale Imperial Army to conduct them. If you played Thracia 776, you would've learned that there are plenty of people affiliated with Freege who oppose the Child Hunts in some form. Blume himself resists the idea of participating in it, though doesn't condone it outright. Ishtar worked in secret with Alvis to oppose the Child Hunts, and some of Freege's more minor notables such as Olwen or Amalda straight up joined the side of the enemy to oppose the Child Hunts. Obviously the Child Hunts still happened, but the battle for control was already lost for the Loptyr Sect - it was lost the moment the Child Hunts began, when Ishtar pleaded for Julius to end them, because a divided response to something like this gives the opposition enough power to rebel outright. People already were sort of on the side of Seliph by the start of Genealogy, but they didn't have the will to oppose the Loptyr Sect until Seliph proved that it was possible for one to beat the Grannvale Empire. And in order to prove it, he had to have led a rebellion in Isaac, which would've been much more difficult had Sigurd not spared Shannan. You never hear about outright rebellions until Seliph defeats the occupation forces in Isaac.

I think MGS1 and MGS2 have a mode similar to EE in MGS3. Or maybe I'm conflating MGS1 with Twin Snakes or misremembering. Either way, I do know MGS3 isn't the only one with that option. I do know for a fact that MGS4 doesn't have it, and MGS5 only has it for a limited set of missions (likely Peace Walker as well, but I don't recall). The original Metal Gear games don't, I don't pay much mind to the spin-offs (I'm aware of Ac!d though and how it's a sort of tactical stealth game), and we don't like to talk about That Game Which Shall Not Be Named. I don't recall it being called "European Extreme" outside of MGS3, though. I think it went under different names or difficulty settings for after you beat the game. I probably should replay the series for the umpteenth time just to double-check, lmao.

Some of my suggestions might be only vaguely approaching similar to all this stuff, but I'll do my best. Feminine animations... Honestly, I'm not sure how much of help I'd be here, but I think most JRPGs will have this to some degree. You might also want to look into fighting games with female characters, such as Tekken and Soul Calibur. Fighting games just love to make fighting styles that are super graceful. One of my favorite Tekken characters to play, Ling Xiaoyu, has a really nice, flowing fighting style, and Lili from the same series definitely fits that bill. For Soul Calibur, you'll definitely want Xianghua, though plenty of girls in that series have nice movesets that are very feminine (some are taken to fairly comical extremes - like Cassandra and Sophitia having a lot of butt and crotch attacks - but they're still plenty gorgeous even barring all that). Tekken is generally a lot more of a technical fighting game, so I don't know if I'd recommend it for you to start with if you want a more casual experience with fighters - a newbie can master it, absolutely, but they need to be ready to accept a lot of failure before they start raking in the victories. SC, though, definitely is newb friendly. I've only ever played Tekken 3, Tag Tournament, 6, Tag Tournament 2, and 7, but I will say all of those games are good fun. As for SC, I've played all but the first Soul Calibur - of all the games in the series, I'd recommend 2, 3, and 6. 4 and 5 supposedly had good ranked online, but their online activity is probably dead now because of 6's existence. Fallout, Fallout, Fallout! Seriously, all the games. Or at least, the numbered games up to 3, as well as New Vegas (4 isn't all that great, IMO). You don't necessarily need to play them in order - it's understandable if the CRPG gameplay turns you off from playing the first two. But if you're willing, the way you uncover mysteries in those games is handled so brilliantly. Be warned that the games can get pretty grim, since... well, you know, it's set in a world over a hundred years removed from a nuclear apocalypse. And there are mature themes such as gambling, substance abuse, violence, sex, war, and political and philosophical themes. It has light-hearted moments, but it's definitely not a game for those looking for pure happy times. Fallout 1 is especially bleak, and the best ending you can get is a really frickin' sad ending (it is a great ending appropriate for the game, but you almost certainly won't be happy for your character). The DLC for Fallout: New Vegas, especially Lonesome Road, contains some of the best mysteries to uncover, and sometimes you really have to look to find the hidden truths. Resident Evil also contains some interesting mysteries to uncover. Time for me to be a hipster idiot and recommend a game people tend to forget about - Resident Evil: Outbreak. It's not necessarily focused on the hide-and-seek mechanics it contains, but it's definitely a game that encourages you to avoid fights if you are able. The controls are a bit janky - like any old Resident Evil game before RE4 came along - but you get to play through the stories of eight different characters who all play drastically different, and you get to uncover bits and pieces of each of their stories. Yoko Suzuki is a particular favorite of mine, partly due to the secrets behind her arc that even she is unaware of, and partly due to her playstyle being geared towards avoiding fights (she has a dodge move that's basically the absolute best in the game). You can hide in lockers or under beds in that game, too, which is useful if you're being pursued by enemies. I think A Hat in Time also contains a segment that's all about hide-and-seek horror. It's only a single segment, but the game is a really solid platformer that you should try if you like any of the 3D Mario games. And weirdly enough, even though it's not really horror, there are some exhilarating moments to be had in Metal Gear Solid that aren't too far off from those of hide-and-seek horror games, at least if you're actually trying to be stealthy. There are definitely times when I was playing some Metal Gear Solid games where I was very fearful of the enemy finding me and I'd jump whenever I was spotted. You're not so powerless in MGS as in a typical horror game, but you are limited in arsenal, especially at the start because you almost never start with basically any weapons except for, like, maybe a knife and your fists. I honestly love all the games, but if you want the thrill of being near helpless and needing to rely on stealth to survive, MGS1 is good for that, and every other game you'd need to really crank up the difficulty. MGS3 is my absolute favorite, and even has a mode called "European Extreme" where if you're spotted you get an instant game over.

If RAM was relevant to Android, I think they would've listed it as such. It's actually reasonable to assume that Android requires less RAM than iOS. Generally speaking Android is built more like an actual computer than iOS, even using an operating software based on that of an actual desktop OS (Linux), and game developers seem to have an easier time developing apps for Android. From the research I've done Android is, for whatever reason, more stable than iOS devices. Perhaps it's simply the operating software, perhaps it's something in the actual specs. Point is, it's likely the game just simply is better optimized for Android, or Android's better at running games than iOS - maybe even a combination of the two. Could even be that Nintendo deliberately prioritized Android for one reason or another.

I would have to hypothesize that the increased RAM requirement is specific to the operating software. Perhaps the game is better optimized for Android than iOS, which may seem weird but computing devices in general can be really finicky for no good reason. Perhaps the Android version reads memory differently from iOS, and thus it's able to make better use of limited RAM. Updates will always auto-install, or else you'd get closed out of the game if you don't run the latest version. It seems to me like if you have Android 4.4 or better that your game will probably still work indefinitely - only until they announce that it requires even higher versions would you need to start worrying.

Two changes to Awakening? I guess I'd make it more like Fates. Mainly by implementing the Friendship/Partner seal system. Maybe also changing the pair-up system, but tbh I'd rather they focused their efforts on either changing the balance of Lunatic mode so that it wasn't just Frederick Emblem or redesigning maps. Probably the former because they never change map designs in remakes. I feel Limstella really was wasted potential. Ephidel became a dragon's roast dinner too soon to leave much of an impact (he mostly seemed to just serve as an introduction to morphs), but Sonia had plenty of characterization and Limstella lasted longer than both of them. I guess they might've had some ideas for her but ultimately just wanted to focus on rounding out Nergal's story as best they could. lmao, I remember when playing Sacred Stones I was extremely regretful over the fact that I didn't use one of the arenas when I had the opportunity for this very reason. That actually makes me ponder how they'd handle that in regards to Lucina. Because I see a few options. Do it the same way as Unassuming Venusaur did in the gay FE hacks and make it so that they're able to produce offspring without much explanation (basically just assuming that because magic exists there's probably a way for a gay couple to produce their own offspring) Robin only serves as a concubine of Chrom and Chrom has a "legitimate" marriage just to produce an heir (which would be sort of accurate to medieval times, as often times marriage was merely a means of forging alliances and producing pure blue-blooded heirs) Lucina is a foster child, and I guess they change how the Ylissean royalty are able to pass on their marks Chrom knocked up some random woman off-screen and Lucina is actually an illegitimate heir It'd have to be one of these things because you just can't have FE:A without Lucina unless you give its story such a massive overhaul that it's not even the same story. And if you're gonna just be changing up the story entirely, you might as well just make a different game because the point of a remake is to retell a previous story, perhaps in a slightly different way, but still keeping all the core elements of the story. Point is, Lucina would need to exist in a FE:A remake, and so the writers would have to explain how Chrom was able to produce Lucina when he's in a homosexual relationship. I'm sorry, I rambled on way too much on what was probably a joke/light-hearted comment.

FE1: Wendel's a surprise to be sure, but a welcome one; Gharnef may be a gimmicky and gatekeepery fight, but he's more memorable than other enemy mages in this game FE2: Probably Sonya for playable, and Jedah for enemy. FE3: Linde due to the goody tomes she has access to, and... uh, Gharnef again, I guess? Even though his fight in Book 2 is honestly kinda boring... FE4: The game with the actual juicy answers, nothing beats completely flipping the game balance on its head with an Arthur equipped with the Holsety tome. In terms of enemies to fight, well, I guess I have a fondness for Alvis because of his role in the story and the kickass music that plays when you fight him. FE5: Hard to talk about favorite playable characters in this game considering you're always swapping them around, but I guess I'd say I like Olwen a lot. As for enemy, I mean, who else to pick except Reinhardt? What, you want me to lie and say someone stupid like Veld? FE6: I'm not really a fan of kids/adolescents, which much of the cast of this game very obviously are, so I kinda defaulted to Cecilia, the first combat mage you encounter that doesn't look like she's younger than 16; dunno who I'd pick for enemy. FE7: If I'm wanting to completely break the game, the objectively correct answer is Canas (who would win, a big, bad fire dragon or one moon tome boi?), but otherwise I like Nino; Nergal is the only enemy mage I really remember both in terms of character and how the fight was - Sonia was memorable for earning the Worst Mom 967 award (and every Worst Mom award in every year after 967 until she died), but her fight was unremarkable, and I barely remember a single thing about Ursula or virtually any of the other enemy mages that appear in the game. I remember that one Black Fang dude that talked about cutting Lyn up into bloody ribbons more than I remember whoever his counterpart was, and it's only because of that messed up fascination he had of becoming the human equivalent of a paper shredder. FE8: Lute if only because I felt like the series really needed an insufferably arrogant mage lady; Lyon is obviously the most memorable mage enemy, though I'm not sure if it's just because of his character arc. FE12: Skipping to 12 because I haven't played much of the Tellius games (I keep saying that, maybe I should just sit down and play through them already) and Shadow Dragon barely introduces many new characters. Anyway, I know my pick for playable mage would be Katarina, but I'm not sure for enemy mage... I suppose Eremiya, even though her chapter is an insufferable nightmare to beat? FE13: I feel like if I said Robin it'd be cheating considering they can become literally any class that isn't special or unique to specific characters. If I were to exclude Robin, it'd be Laurent if only because in a Discord server I'm in we made his character portrait into an emote - though he also is just a genuinely good character and unit. As for foe, I'd say probably Aversa? I do remember Excellus, but mostly because of that fuckin' ugly as sin face, but I didn't really care much for Validar or his battle. The plot twists' actual impacts have very little to do with the actual character of Validar even though they heavily involve him. FE14B: Gonna say Mitama - I don't want to pick Sakura because she's the easy pick, but I also think most of the other mages legitimately suck in Birthright. Mitama, thankfully, is both likable and moderately competent. Uh, in terms of enemies, it's... well, I think I'd have an easier time reaching into a garbage bag filled with decomposed materials than I would picking which Sat AM cartoon villain from FE: Fates is better. Probably just Iago simply because fighting him is a bit more challenging than fighting other mages in this path, and because of what he does to Takumeme. FE14C: Leo, the tomato lord. It's hardly a contest in my eyes. For enemy... uh, Iago again. Seriously, he's the only mage I remember having actual fun fighting. FE14R: It's really goddamn unfortunate that he only shows up in the half of the path that I utterly despise, but considering the same can be said for Mitama and it's even more of a pain to acquire her, I'm gonna say Leo again. Oh yeah, and how about Iago... yet again. Mages just blow ass in this game, man, I can't help picking the same mage villain over and over when all of them are either unmemorable losers or just as generically evil as Iago without having actually fun boss fights. FE15: You really want me to just say Sonya and Jedah again? Because I will. Okay, Mae is also significantly more likable in this iteration given that she now has an actual personality. FE16: Because anyone can become a mage in this game, I'm gonna stick strictly to the ones that have Strengths/Budding Talents in either Reason, Faith, or both. Look at this chart for more info. But overall, I'm gonna say my favorite playable mage in this game is Annette. Actually difficult decision because I also like Marianne, Sylvain, and Lorenz, but there's just something appealing about giving an adorable, small girl like Annette a big "f*** you" axe and it actually being a feasible strategy. As for enemy... hmm... Does Nemesis' Opera Company count? I mean, it's mostly because of the music, but... well, yeah, okay, it's mostly for the music.

Glad to see another VC fan in this community. Anyway, VC has an entirely different design philosophy than FE does, and you can tell by how potentials and classes are handled. In Valkyria Chronicles, there are special traits called "potentials" which are, more or less, special buffs and debuffs given to individual units based on certain situations. For example, "Trooper Killer" boosts attack power for a unit with this potential if they're near an enemy shock trooper. There are a total of eight of these - four personal and four battle, typically (some units only have three personal potentials, though never more than four for either). All but one of the personal potentials are unlocked for most units - the last one requires a small amount of investment on the player's part to unlock. For major characters, such as Welkin Gunther (the protagonist of the first game), multiple personal potentials are locked and can only be unlocked through story progression. As for battle potentials, they're unlocked through leveling the classes up, which require no particular investment in any characters - hell, you could play the game entirely with Scouts and still level up the other classes. As for classes, there is a very small amount of them in the games, though how many exactly varies from game to game. For the sake of simplicity, and because they're the more popular VC games, we'll talk about the first and fourth game. In VC1, there are a total of five classes - Scout, Shock Trooper, Lancer, Engineer, and Sniper. You also get access to two tanks, but they have their own progression. With a typical FE game you'll maybe run into, at most, five units of the same class, assuming we're talking about the western-released, non-remake games. With VC, however, you're gonna be able to recruit only 20 units at any given time (they can be swapped around), and five is actually a minimum head count for amount of units sharing the same class, with the numbers going up as far as 14 (in VC1, there were 14 Scouts and 14 Shock Troopers). Unit identity in VC hinges on entirely different factors than in FE. In FE, you look at units of the same class and you think "Okay, which of you is best at what your class does?" In VC, it's more "Which of you all are best for this mission in particular?" It relies on multiple factors, those namely being what classes are appropriate for the mission and if their potentials work well for the mission setting and battlefield environment. As such, I think a class-wide leveling system in FE would be misguided. The idea would ultimately be to get people to use different units. I think there are two things you can do to actually get a player to use different units, and only one of them actually benefits the player. The first is the fatigue system of Thracia 776. When you have a system where people will become unusable for a chapter or so due to overuse, you'll be encouraged to not just use the same, like, six or so people all the time. The other thing would be Bonus EXP. Bonus EXP is great if any particular unit has fallen behind and you want to catch them up without them becoming a liability and without having to coddle them. A class-wide leveling system wouldn't encourage people to use other units. It'd either just make it easier to use crummy units without actually investing in them or it'd encourage you to only use a particular set of units that are already ahead of others in terms of stats. It'd make a character like Seth trivialize the battlefield even more than he does, and a unit like Mozu or Est wouldn't need to risk their lives to become good (unless it doesn't take into account unit disparity among classes, in which case they'd never get to be good - well, maybe Mozu eventually, but not Est). This system would just go against the design philosophy behind FE's unit identity differentiation and how it's meant to impact a player's playstyle.