Dunal

Thought I'd delay a little longer to release on a particular day, same as the last release. Otherwise, currently doing an overall pass on gold amounts / pricing. It's a difficulty valve that feels best at this stage. Part 2 will be included. First couple of maps of part 3 are almost 100% complete as well, so those may or may not make it in. Ike's more growth reliant than before; notably being reduced to level 5 with only having 15 base SPD. However, he's gone from having one of the lowest total growth % to amongst the highest. He's also still strong/sturdy at base, but along with all the other GMs, has a fair few weaknesses and the difficulty of the maps are much higher than before. I suppose that as far as the GMs go, Rolf is the least changed unit in terms of power/potential, with all other units being brought much closer to his level (but in ways that makes each unit feel very distinctive -- Titania is still a soft-Jeigan, but the difficulty is high enough where it's not like she can outright solo or anything).

A bit more play-testing is required but once that is complete, the next release will happen. Should hopefully be sometime this week.

@Realhi87 Speed Caps: Laura gets weighed down by anything that isn't a light tome. And beyond ~38 SPD, any extra speed on top of that is merely +AVO, since you'd be in range to double foes regardless. Nolan: He's pretty awesome lategame where he has huge crit rates (Berserker has +20% CRIT) and is, along with Shinon, the best Crossbow user. Tarvos or Arbelest are his weapons of choice. Before then, he's a good tank and will continue to be. His base damage is low, but low STR is less of an issue in this hack since damage values are baseline much higher (higher weapon MT, lower DEF/RES). So the % damage difference is much more fair. From there however, he has a high chance to either crit or proc his mastery. Much like Ilyana, he's good at soaking hits with inconsistent damage. But the former attribute is highly valued. High SKL makes Killer/Brave Axe viable on him as well. Meg: She was actually the most recent unit to be nerfed. Between high sustain with Imbue, access to Greatsword/Claymore for HIT rates (where she doesn't even care about being doubled at times) and one of the best HP/DEF/RES totals in the game... she's extremely good. She also has locked Beastfoe, which makes her one of the best units in 1-4/1-8/3-6 etc... She also has Heaven affinity, so with a support, can easily get +30 free HIT depending on partner. Or some less hit for +3 DEF/RES through Leo/Fiona. Forges already exists. And enemies in bad/worst bio suffer huge avoid penalties, so her target selection might sometimes just needs to be more decisive. Same goes for someone like Boyd (who is outright one of the best units in the game with a +HIT support and a Polaxe). Claymore: The purpose of this weapon is that you're meant to be doubled with it. What does Brom care? He gets doubled regardless. Meg? She's tanky enough to be sometimes doubled if she needs the HIT (assuming her biorhythm is bad occasionally). Still, it was reduced to 44 WT at some point, which lets Meg, Brom, Ike, Kieran etc... use it lategame without much loss. Which is useful for the HIT, of course. You have to consider that some weapons have niches -- they aren't going to be globally/consistently good. Laguz: All gain faster EXP even at higher levels. BEXP is rigged to give them favourable gains. Laguz Gauges are all improved (Lyre literally never de-transforms so long as she enters combat twice a turn). Laguz Gems also exist far earlier. Strike Rank increases much faster for all of them. Untransformed Laguz retain more stats. Some laguz have extra skills (Cats have canto for instance). I think you'll find that Kyza does have a selling point though: the fact that he has super high sustain and good 2-range with cards. Granted he needs Fortune to not be in risk of crits, but that's a small price to pay. He was actually considered the most overpowered unit by play-testers about 6-9 months ago. All the small changes to Laguz make a huge difference. Consider that all Beorc get nerfed (mostly in part 3) as well. Other "odd" stats on some units: All I can say, is that you need to play it in order to understand why they are balanced the way they are (and further criticism from there would be fine; assuming you've used the unit enough to know the context/objective). The important part is making each unit feel distinctive and different. Mia? She's a player phase unit who's meant to 1RKO almost anything. Her awful durability counterbalances that. But her avoid is high and she'll never be one-shot. She's amazing with Wind Swords as well. In practice, it works well. She's like a good version of Hana with strong ranged options. She often feels like a typical mage, if anything. The units you've 'praised' are the all-around "balanced" but... while it's fine for some of those to exist -- if all units were that way, it would be incredibly homogenising. The idea is to have these extreme stat disparities with the right tuning. Whether some of those are over or underpowered, is a different matter. There have been countless balance tweaks over the past year, those not reflected in the OP. Context is needed for that however; Kyza actually had to be nerfed from the stats shown here; as much as it seems he wouldn't be good. Still, some unit archetypes/designs may not work out in the long run. We'll have to see. Meg was re-iterated about 5 times, until we found the best balance/spread for her in terms of enjoyment factor / power level (seemingly -- general consensus is that she's currently in a good spot). Originally, she was closer to the original Meg, just scaled up or made stronger... but it still didn't feel right in terms of her class/availability/niche. Some other things are just better for design. Supports being incredibly fast? It's for the best considering unit availability in this game. I was almost tempted to just make C supports free (they could be gained immediately upon recruitment) but a minimalist approach is fine. Biorhythm is meant to make low HIT values situationally good as a way to counterbalance strong weapons (Killer/Brave) and to also nerf dodge tanking (the best way to cheese the game when possible). It also adds an emphasis to giving units timeouts to also prevent low-manning and switching unit priority. Granted, some units like Aran aren't affected at all, but that's just a unique trait of theirs. Consider it a personal skill. Again, other things need context to explain. 28 WT dagger? Just means its good on Sothe but not on Heather. Stiletto's 50 HIT? Amazing assassination tool against low Biorhythm targets or those using it with amazing SKL (Sothe/Volke have good hit rates with it later on). Granted, there is bound to be elements that need a bit more re-iterating and/or re-balanced if feedback calls for it. I'm merely explaining the context for certain changes here. "Why do Tigers have higher MT/HIT on their weapons than cats"? Because they usually do not double while cats do. (Unless you're Kyza early/mid game). Although cats gain a lot of crit on ranking up (and are balanced around other things like Laguz Gauges or enemy threat). Any other concerns, feel free to mention and I'll do my best to respond/explain. Not until the final release, most likely. Considering the constant changes they tend to have (more-so than units themselves) would require a lot of updating past the next release. You'll be able to gain a general idea of what they are just by playing though, based on how enemies scale. A lot of class caps are also shown in the unit data.

Responses in bold. As a heads up, the public release (for part 1 & 2) will be next week, possibly as early as Sunday. After that, they'll be roughly a weekly release for each map individually.

stealing mah brand My suggestions would be: You should balance around base stats more than growths. Keep growths to a minimum in order to prevent stat inflation (including for enemies). ~250% total growths on average is the best balance between player satisfaction and minimising power creep IMO. If you're making mid/late game harder then it means that base stats can carry units further while still being very challenging. Adjust units around niches or strengths/weaknesses as opposed to making them "balanced". Buffing Dorcas's speed technically makes him better, but I think most people would prefer if he was improved in the strengths he already has. Higher STR/SKL will also make him a better unit, but in a way that still feels like Dorcas. Or for someone like Rececca, increasing her base SPD would be better than base STR, since again, that fits her archetype. Same thing with Eliwood but with RES etc etc... Consider how a harder mid/late game affects unit balance. Marcus might not necessarily need much of a nerf if early game becomes easier in relation to later parts of the game (contrary to the original game). In the same way, someone like Nino might become too essential if you over-buff them etc... Don't necessarily remove Fog of War -- most people think it's fine and creates some variance. Maps like CH13x would be less interesting as a result. Just balance around FoW; a well designed map can certainly work with it. Stat boosts/penalties on items could be part of some weapons but not on all/most of them. You risk bogging down the game with forcing the player to constantly calculate enemy strength assuming the game is challenging. It depends how consistent you're willing to make it. If all lances increase DEF by a couple points or swords increase SPD etc... then apply the same boost to all weapons of that type so that it doesn't become convoluted. FE Fates generally has a pretty good balance of this, with buffs/penalties on weapons mostly making sense and easy to calculate at a glance. Again, just be consistent. If a steel lance grants say, +2 DEF, then either make all lances or all steel weapons do the same. Avoid giving inconsistent boosts to things arbitrarily. Avoid change for the sake of change. Lyn's palette just doesn't seem to fit the purpose of the hack. You have to keep in mind that the audience for a hack is going to be specific -- so cater to that audience and don't put them off it. Custom classes are fine if they're meaningful or as an ode to other Fire Emblems. Concepts such as a thief promotion using staves (Trickster) would be fun includes for example. Probably best not to overdo it though. My suggestion is to include this solely for unit identity. If you want to separate Dorcas/Bartre with a new promoted class for either one of them then go for it. But someone like Eliwood or Canas? Would be pretty pointless because they already have a class/unit identity. It would otherwise be change for the sake of change unless you come up with something really interesting for them. Play testing and iteration is more important than anything else. Do not just make a whole lot of changes and then release it. This is by far the most important thing. Test a map 10-20 times with tweaks in-between each test and re-iterate. I can guarantee that the hack will be far better off for it. Make the experience good for a blind player. It's very easy to design something with your own knowledge of how it should play out. So even with testing on your end, it could potentially be a bad experience for a blind player who won't immediately play optimally like you would (as the designer who intends for a map to be played in a particular way).

Buff SKL to 3% HIT per point and then raise LCK to 2% AVO per point. Lower SPD to 1% AVO. Lower the damage of critical hits to 2x damage rather than 3x, but SKL innately increases crit by a higher amount, with LCK negating crit non-linearly (so increases dodge by 0.5% up to 10, then 1% up to 20, then 1.5% up to 30 etc...). Latter sounds odd but it makes bad/excess amounts less punishing / more useful respectfully at different intervals of the game. You can then grants units AVO based on how much excess dodge units have over the enemy's crit rate. This would then be the opposite for hit/crit rates: hit chances over 100% then gets converted to crit, meaning excess SKL becomes stronger. A skill system where it's a longer term version of Heroes. Average skill proc will be every ~15 attacks. And every ~4 SKL a unit has reduces this by 1. You could have other misc factors like every point of SKL increasing WEXP gain by 3-5% per point. Or Bows/Daggers having partial DEF ignoring factors with enough SKL (since they're aiming at weak spots).

Physical vs. magical damage will be a 50/50 split yes (considering magical weapons now being a thing), some enemies will have S-rank tomes. Earlier than you'd expect as well. Part of the reason why some magic types are 1-range only means that more enemies of those types can exist. It lowers the requirement to rely on 1-2 range weapons to counter with. So it creates a better balance of which enemies can exist together as well. Previously, a group of mages + archers were an annoying combination. Now, much less so. 3+ range tomes also mean that equipping 2-range weapons is less essential as well, since you won't counter them regardless.

They do not occur on map animations, no. The three Seraph Knights are already designed as: Marcia: Most well rounded with notably the highest SPD/SKL/DEF. Generally the most powerful combat-wise but requires the most investment. MAG isn't that great though, so has lower utility. But doesn't really have any real weaknesses. No innate skill currently, but Adept is being considered. (SPD / SKL / DEF > HP / STR / RES / LCK > MAG) Tanith: The anti-mage. Ridiculously high RES (highest in the game, even above Rhys and Heather) and decent offensive stats (mostly STR), but poor HP/LCK. Innate Maelstrom (locked). (RES > STR / MAG > DEF / SKL / SPD > HP > LCK) Sigrun: Supportive in nature. Awful STR and SKL for her base level, but decent elsewhere with an emphasis on high MAG (which can still make her good in combat with magical weapons). Also starts as a Seraph Knight with a good staff rank (which the prior two units have to start E rank). Current skill is Miracle, but may become blessing (locked). (MAG / LCK > SPD / RES > HP / DEF > STR / SKL) For skills, Blessing is planned and other stat changes will be done as necessary. But it may just be Sigrun at this point. Individual class skills aren't possible since they all share the same class, of course. Giving bonus crit is indeed possible as a personal skill though.

The 'chapter guide' here on SF does show this last I checked. They'll be some bonuses on maps with same affinity as well as units sharing it. Item drops and enemies themselves will differ as well, even on maps without the matching affinity. It adds some variance to the game. As for BEXP through allied staff usage I'm not too certain myself. May need to look into that. These will be different versions of the patch, so not in this case. The eventual no-affinity mode will be the hardcore/lunatic version. Heaven mode is the 'easy/godmode' variant. The other 7 versions are variants of the standard mode. That's the plan so far, but could still change. As for a release update -- still waiting on this to be showcased in FEE3, patch will release after that. Worth mentioning that a play-tester discovered a bug that if a unit dies with no animation (such as Staff!Fiona) the game freezes. This doesn't happen when animations is turned off. However... for this reason I may need to remove any class/weapon combos that do not have an animation. From a presentation standpoint, I was always iffy about keeping them since adding customs have their own issues involved. So this seals the deal -- I don't want a player causing the game to freeze on themselves if they were to miss a disclaimer. The good news is that the alternative seems very promising. Instead of gaining staves on promotion, Fiona has the 'Blessing' skill at base, which is now locked. Combined with Imbue, means that she's healing herself and all allies within 2 spaces equal to her MAG. Granted, her MAG has been nerfed, but it does mean that's a functional AoE healer who can make great use of Canto for positional purposes. Same with Astrid (with adjustments to her combat stats). Both have 'Boon' as their T3 masteries (locked of course; no longer exclusive to Dragons or in scroll form but Ena still has it). The latter may seem like a nerf, but they're meant to be support units without stellar combat, so Sol probably won't be missed too much, and status removal will be more important than before. Seraph Knights will have Blessing as their mastery, with Stun being exclusive to the Wyverns and Elincia. Leanne still has Blessing, but Rafiel and Reyson no longer have access to them, with Reyson having Maelstrom and Rafiel having Sacrifice. Should all work out really well. Potential for stacking may pose an issue, but you'd be using so many weaker combat units for it to work. We'll have to see. May be possible to make it so only the highest healing amount is applied. EDIT: Oh and Kyza may be getting Blessing as well. He currently has Imbue -- really depends if he can be balanced around it. And for the Seraph Knights, I'm still debating whether it should be all of them, or just Sigrun.

Problem with Micaiah is not only the inconsistency with her character at times, but her lack of a backbone or any kind of charisma/authority that would make her feel like a legitimate leader. I was fairly indifferent about her before, but the more I actually read into the dialogue/characterisation (for the purposes of re-writing it) the more disappointed I became with how she was/is written. By far, the worst part is how her overall 'value' as a character is mostly based around her powers/abilities (such as her healing/mind-reading/farsight). It basically becomes the entire basis for her leadership and also her character as a whole. If you were to strip those away from her, what is she is left with? There are rare occasions where she does have some characterisation outside of just being 'passive/polite', or her powers dictating the plot, but those are fairly rare (leaving her otherwise one-dimensional or largely uninteresting). And in terms of actual leadership/decision making... her farsight (or Yune) makes all of those decisions for her. I wouldn't say that Micaiah is polarizing -- there isn't really much about her that would make her overly liked or disliked. She isn't a dramatic character; so it's difficult having strong feelings towards her one way or another. It's more the fact that she's just used as a plot device, so any criticisms towards the plot itself can be redirected at her. And honestly, the reason why Part 3 falls flat for her is because they didn't even push the 'villain role' nearly enough since they clearly wanted her to be 'pure/innocent' (which did not work). If she was a more morally grey character that was confident in her stance/perspective -- maybe to the point where herself/Pelleas could be justified (in a way that makes sense, which the plot itself didn't allow for) then she could have actually been a really interesting character. In the end, she really is just an inoffensive Corrin. That's the best way to describe her IMO. She's not exactly controversial, just forgettable/boring, as much as the story/plot tries to keep reminding you that she's a special snowflake. Part 4 really just seals the deal. It really doesn't help either that there is a large disconnect with her power/potential (story-wise) with gameplay. She's not terrible, but you'd think that she'd be a lot more powerful than she is, especially when surrounded by so many other powerful units in this game. Magical units clearly got the short end of the stick overall... but the fact that her T3 promotion gains are the same as everyone else, despite promoting so late, and she doesn't even get her own legendary weapon? It's like the developers forgot that she's a main character late into development. Felt like she should have been the Gotoh/Athos archetype (due to Yune mirroring Ashera), but no.

Next release will be around the time of FEE3 since there will be a showing for it. Main changes since last update would be: Mage classes no longer having 'Shove'. Instead, they get innate class skills along the way. This would be Micaiah's 'Inspiration' starting tier 2, Bishop's 'Slayer' (Dragonfoe) or Ilyana's +5% > +15% > +20% crit etc etc... Untransformed Laguz retaining some stats based on type. Cats retain most of their SPD/RES, while Reyson retains STR/SKL etc... Overhauling + preparation for multi-version releases (a version for each affinity). Otherwise, it's mostly just been polishing the map design/content. Mostly on AI changes to make a few maps flow better. Initial release may only be up to 2-2, but should be steady following that (a weekly release schedule). To clarify multiple versions, they'll eventually be 8 versions of the game, one for each affinity. Each version will have different shops, tweaked map design (based on the affinity of the map), and bonuses to playable units with the same affinity. Support bonuses are raised as well as some other factors.

Corrin. For a rare-ish name I was hoping for a better character (since it won't ever be used again). Oh well.

But this is a strategy game, and in a lunatic mode (or any extremely difficult mode of a FE) the "strategy" mostly boils down to just relying on units who got blessed; or in other words, units who are stronger than they are meant to be. You mention that "Eiry and other low skl characters just shoot through their balance" but isn't this kind of contradicting in a sense? Unit shoot through their balance all the time, whether under or over. If you wanted 'replayability' then just don't choose it and/or not play that mode. But part of said re-playability comes from RNG in other senses, or just using different units in general (or prioritising EXP differently). Fixed growth (and/or penalties for being overleveled or having a high rating) keep units within their own boundaries. Locking stats from being too blessed or too screwed can add some variance if need be, but fixed works even better for this purpose. Plus, one huge appeal for fixed mode is being able to plan/strategize well in advance (in the same way 0% growths has the same thing). In an environment where the difficulty is at its highest, being able to calculate thresholds of certain units and understanding when/where to utilize units is effectively a huge part of the games sometimes. A fixed mode, or something close to it, really brings out that aspect. And when a game is extremely difficult, then said aspect really does shine. My impression from your argument is that a strategy game needs RNG to have depth, which in a lot of cases (especially in a game with a ranking system), couldn't be further from the truth. In some ways, yes, RNG is purely fun and does add some variance; but less is more (in other terms, a healthy amount) in an environment that has a lot more difficulty. This is why Advanced Wars has its pros over FE. Not that FE needs be become AW, but there's some lessons to be learned from it in regards to having meaningful strategy. I couldn't disagree more. AS often boils down to dealing double damage or receiving double damage; it's a very delicate balance. Enemies dealing 2 or 3 more damage matters far less. Most units 2HKOed before are still being 2HKOed (unless they start to be one-shot which is incredibly unlikely in this game for obvious reasons). The latter still makes things more difficult if need be, but not in a way that disrupts balance to a huge degree. It's clear that units are balanced around doubling certain enemies either at base level or at a certain level on average. Throw that out of the window and you might just end up with balance on the same level as New Mystery or Awakening. Conquest Lunatic is as well done as it is because enemies barely get any stronger, if at all. Unit balance is extremely close to Hard Mode. I don't think it gets enough credit for that. Not that the unit balance is perfect to begin with -- but it doesn't really change much (which is respectable in a game where the balance is good compared to other games in the series). Enemies have different weaponry/positioning but that works well enough. Not that this is the expectation for 7x, but there are other ways to have a similar direction. It will. There's clear that in SD or New Mystery, it benefits the enemy more than the player. The player missing attacks doesn't invoke strategy or difficulty; it mostly just becomes a matter of playing around it, which does have a level of planning to some degree, but not a meaningful one in a lot of cases (and might just result in a restart where in that playthrough, that miss just... doesn't happen). Enemies hitting more consistently means a lot though, especially since RNG tends to be in your favour. Perhaps 1 RNG would work just as well and/or better but in some ways that can increase variance in ways that doesn't add to the game. Perhaps higher base STR/MAG on enemies is best, but the point I was making is how player units are balanced around doubling, or being doubled by the varying enemy classes in the game. This stays the same regardless of WT penalties, so it doesn't change balance in that regard but does make the game harder. This makes certain enemies more difficult than others, so probably not an ideal solution either way. That much I can agree. Of course a lot of the suggestions I made had more meaning than others. Gating EXP through unit rating can make a considerable difference to the game's difficulty, more than you'd probably expect. That combined with just STR/MAG/SKL/LUCK (but only these stats) boosts to enemies could be more than enough to create a Lunatic mode. And a fixed mode (or something close to it) even as a separate option on top of that would be brilliant (it basically the same kind of appeal/strategy to 0% growths, but in a way that keeps every unit viable).

Ah, I see, so it's effort vs. reward/audience. I understand that. I do think though that the solution to that is to simply have some system changes that affect Lunatic globally, as opposed to increasing their stats (especially those like AS or durability; STR/SKL/MAG/LCK would probably be fine). Increasing enemy AS would immediately make some units nonviable, and increasing durability may make the game a slog fest. Increasing damage may work though. Some other suggestions however that shouldn't be overly time consuming (as in, outside of individual changes across the whole game ) could be: Massively reduced EXP gain for being over-levelled or having a high 'Rating'. Latter would probably be better since base level in this game don't necessarily correspond to unit power. This also means that if a unit is 'blessed' in stat gains, they'll gain less EXP. Perhaps an outright prevention for a unit to have a stat that's more than 1 than it's average (for their level). Possibly accompanied by a 'lock' symbol next to a unit's stat in this becomes the case (any stat that is light green). This means that you cannot have a really blessed unit to cheese the game with, which would otherwise be a favourable strategy in other FEs. Although having a 'Fixed Growth' mode that's only active in Lunatic would work too. Generally that increases difficulty since players seldom use screwed units anyway and generally snowball their blessed ones (and when a FE is extremely difficult in terms of enemy scaling, then snowballing your own units usually becomes the best thing to do). Perhaps combined with this, each unit can only use one stat booster throughout the entire game (or you just cannot give a stat booster when the stat is 'locked'). Lower effective damage dealt to enemies by 50%. Similar to what you already have going for certain bosses. This means that the base difficulty of an enemy doesn't change (so Isadora whacking them with an Iron Sword doesn't become worse off) but that cheesing enemies with effective weapons becomes less of a win condition. They're still useful, but not overly so. It basically means that 2x bonus becomes 1.5x for all enemies etc... Enemies no longer lose AS from being weighed down (or that their CON just increases to the weapon's WT in order to give players clarity). So that Steel Lance Peg? Still fast. This is much healthier than increasing base AS since class archetypes should be within doubling range in terms of baseline stats that doesn't disrupt balance. So not simply being weighed down is fair. This would affect certain enemies more than others, granted. Perhaps, all weapons gain +10-15% HIT by default (reduce overflow hit by half to accompany that). This makes the game a bit more challenging since missing enemies tends to be more annoying (or otherwise non-impacting for the most part) than game changing. While for enemies, them hitting you a lot more often is actually much more detrimental to the player than it is for enemies being hit more. It also helps negate dodge tanking -- one of the most powerful things to abuse in FE where applicable. This is how you can create a Lunatic mode merely by doing systematic changes as opposed to changing individual maps (that only apply in this mode). I don't think 'Lunatic' necessary needs to be so much more difficult than 'Hard'. But by doing these global changes, can be a really healthy way to introduce extra difficulty. Because you're doing so by limiting the player taking advantage of the strongest things they have access to, but not diminishing the aspects of the game that are not part of those (like viability of weaker units). Understandably, simply increasing enemy stats does technically make the game more difficult with low effort, but not in ways that are too meaningful. It just forces the player to use cheese tactics or over-levelled/blessed units more often, which counteracts the difficulty. Changing individual maps is certainly time consuming, but there are systematic/mechanical changes that can be considered. However, whether changes like this still require too much time investment is a factor you still need to consider. I think that even if it's a post-release thing it'll be worth doing that more than just adding a scaled up hard mode on release, but that's just my perspective. Honestly, Hard Mode by itself with a 'Fixed Growth' mode would actually be more meaningful than a scaled up version in Lunatic. Because a big part of combating difficulty is being lucky with a select few units.

While I do understand that concern from a balance perspective; it actually can work well in practice -- and not as inherently powerful as you might expect. A hit penalty is a good valve, and often times 2-3 access are only provided to units who usually cannot double by default, or the tomes themselves have extra weight, but obviously less extreme than a siege tome. Combined with the fact that it cannot retaliate at 1 range, and you have a formula that works pretty well. The actual MT of the tomes themselves can be weak as well (with wind magic, is already the case). There are actually a lot of things working against it. Longbows in the GBA games are again, only situational since they're otherwise fairly weak; the main purpose for 3 range is being flexible in positioning. The non-retaliation against 2-range foes is less of factor that you'd think. While the balancing/gameplay is clearly different in Gaiden/SoV, Thunder is surprisingly situational since it's heavier or weaker than other spells. Same applies here -- but factoring a HIT penalty or lower MT may even make it too weak. Keep in mind that against bosses with only 2 range, you risk damaging your tactics/turn ranking by spamming them based on their inherit stats. Taking retaliation damage is worth doing if you're dealing far more damage on your end. More times than not, 3 range functions as supportive/extra damage from more flexible positions, not a decisive factor in outright killing. It's only for player phase as well. Not that I'm advocating that it should be in the game or anything (it's certainly not a typical addition and anything seemingly not tried/tested is obviously going to have a level of scepticism; I only have my own unreleased project to go off of). That's not what I'm arguing. What I am trying to state however, is that it has the potential to improve variety, strategy and class identity. I think it should at least be explored or experimented with. Adding extra utility in some units/classes is a good opportunity when you counterbalance it with other factors. It's why Madelyn's 1-2 range staff is a cool addition; it's not something that otherwise exists in GBA FE, but it works very well. If siege tomes were never a thing in FE, they would seem absurd on paper as well. And that would be understandable all the same. In any case, this project may be far enough in development where additions such as these aren't worth designing or balancing. Which is fair enough.

I would disagree on the basis where when the maps are really big, units with lower mobility need extra help and/or be really powerful to be justified. On smaller maps these units will usually have more target selection and won't need to worry about utilising their full movement to progress -- which for these units can pose a problem when other units are far ahead (and "baiting" at a faster pace). Rescue-dropping solves this to a degree, but still something other units don't need which can make them more practical. Magnus at least has Arcthunder starting CH 11 which certainly helps, but for a unit as a whole he suffers from being weak in the maps that are more practical for him to exist in (CH7 and CH6 to a lesser extent, which is still a larger map) and when he does start to get pretty good, the maps following that are not as suited for him while not necessarily being stronger than other units. You don't get a massive amount of deployment slots at this point, so there is contest for units who have similar reward for being faster. It's the type of environment where the more efficient/better you play, the worse these types of units become. If you're playing slower, then mobility may not be important. Still, in Magnus's case, his primary issue may stem from being quite weak early (damage-wise) which factors into growth momentum (where if a unit is weak early on, they'll gain less EXP when playing practically) so that's why he may not be too powerful later on either (or as much as he should be). Either way, I do stand by him having a lot lower RES in return for extra base MAG. Feeding him kills early would be easier which will benefit him later on. In return, being weaker against magic separates him further from Eiry. For Eiry in particular, I'm still not too certain whether she's in a good spot or not, to be honest. If she's a soft-Est that's meant to be really powerful come part 2 (and if part 2 is difficult enough to justify growth units) then that's fine. I suppose there's some room for that archetype depending on difficulty. It's not that she's terrible early on, and I think that her RES-tank nature being shared by Magnus is part of why she doesn't feel too great (it isn't an overly powerful niche either). An earlier Flux tome would do wonders though, and the addition of early Boots would be great for their efficiency. +1 movement is pretty huge and would instantly make them at least decent. Wallace and/or Hyde have the same factor. But they're decently strong from the get-go and can promote immediately if preferred. So in comparison they're fine; even if they're mid-tier or not overly powerful, that seems appropriate. Same goes for Celeste. Also worth mentioning, perhaps the issue with Magnus/Eiry/Cybil is reliance on kills as trainees to reach an appropriate state. It would be great if EXP for non-kills increased by 5-8 points as trainees in general, but kill-EXP stays the same. You could have a system where the first attack by a trainee on any particular enemy only applies this, so you can't abuse it. Doubt it's necessary though since it'll kill your turn ranking if you do that, by definition. It would also benefit to bump up Cybil's base level to 7 or 8 IMO with a couple stat adjustments. Perhaps Toni could go down to 5 just so there's some variation here. After all, she's already a great unit that deals good damage from range. It won't hurt her too much. Just lower Toni's promotion gains slightly to counteract the extra level or two. Noted. That said, I don't really have a problem with that map; it's more to do with the variety of gameplay (going from bottom-to-top of the map and killing enemies blocking the way. Which persists until the end of part 1). Regarding CH 11; my comments on that allude to the gameplay just feeling like cleaning up enemies as you make the way up to the boss. But a symptom regarding the repetitive nature of this may be the difficulty, at least on normal. There's zero sense of urgency and I feel that this map needs a secondary objective aside from the first 2 or 3 turns since the village/recruits are so close. CH 12 lacked this same sense of urgency/strategy as it mostly amounted to again, just killing the idle enemies blocking the way. When a map is not making me become interested as to what the enemy is doing and how I should play around their behaviour, it becomes quite stale. I think it's good to experiment and find what works. 1-range magic means that you can increase the density on magic users, which then makes Disruption have far more relevance in gameplay. It also adds further gameplay opportunities for Barrier/Water and makes high RES and/or low DEF units better off. Since normally units with high DEF are favoured a lot more. It also means that you can mix in magical enemies with archers or other ranged weapon users to create more variety in turns of enemy grouping. I honestly think you could get away with having Thunder magic be entirely 1 range, but with 4 or 5 more MT or so. It gives Magnus a reason to use Fire and Wind magic as well. A second new tier of dark magic could work too (while keeping the 1-2 tomes in tact). But rather than increased damage, they could give a defensive boost or something. Although you could just limit this to one or two tomes like Worm. There's potential to separate Wind and Fire magic as well. 2-3 range for Wind magic is a possibility (but maybe only if it has a HIT penalty at 3 range, like -20% or -30%). After all, Archers gain 2-3 range on promotion, so balance-wise it can probably work. Of course, that would add extra utility to anima users compared to light/dark casters, so that would need to be considered in balance. However you could also limit anima users to only two types (either Fire+Wind or Fire+Thunder, separated by Mages and Shamans). But hey, that's only one direction you could go down. There's plenty of things you can experiment with. Yeah, those are the maps in need of most changes IMO. CH 4 definitely needs to play out seperately to CH 3 and CH 3x (both of which are fine, really. 3x's smaller map keeps the gameplay flowing well. My problem is that both maps play out and end really similarly; but it's executed better in 3x). Only if it doesn't involve increasing enemy stats from hard. If you can think of other ways to make the game more challenging, then that would be awesome. Different enemy AI, enemy classes, maybe weaponry etc... I think it's important that enemies don't just get stronger though, since that disrupts gameplay balance and unit viability. Enemies with higher AS just mean that units reliant on doubling become bad. That's quite a bit pitfall in regards to design. Just hoping to make a great game even better! From the narrative, to the animations, art, music, mechanics/features etc... All of that is excellent, especially for a fan game. You've shown to make good improvements over time as well.

In normal mode, I think it's fair to say that you should just use everyone to a moderate degree, then in Part 2, just stick to the units who were (more) blessed in stat gains. In hard, it's probably preferable to dedicate to a group, and replace units with newer ones along the way if they get screwed. That's ultimately the purpose of Fargus, Bennett or the substitute cavs. Drop a trainee if they haven't grown too well. By the way, I think a partial solution for Magnus/Eiry would be an early pair of Boots (that only increase movement by 1 -- which lets you introduce 1 or 2 more pairs later on). That's a pretty elegant solution to their primary issue if you choose to use them. I do still think they need some stat changes (one of them needs a RES nerf in exchange for other stats, in order to make enemy 'Disruption's actually relevant against you and also to separate their niches). I suppose Eiry could potentially be unchanged if said boots were introduced, since she's a soft-Est that I can imagine being good with long-term investment. Both being RES tanks is too overlapping though, and Magnus could use more offence at base in return. Plus, it makes thematic sense for Magnus to have worse RES from a character standpoint. He's relatively a newbie to magic, so hasn't honed the ability to protect himself against it. He's talented in using magic, but I imagine a lot of knowledge is needed to endure it, as opposed to 'talent' to order to utilise it.

Possibly could be to do with visiting all houses and/or recruiting Elle. Or it's just a turn limit which is pretty common for a gaiden requirement. Can't really think what else it could be unless it's really specific, so I'm willing to bet it's either of those.

Again, it's not so much that this type of gameplay exists. It's more to do with the fact that it persists far too long. You don't necessarily need defend maps for variation -- just enemy behaviour/formations that's frequently more dynamic than armies mostly just waiting for you to lure them in separately. It's a non-issue to have this now and again especially in the early game, but shouldn't primarily define a whole map. I get that a lot of FE games have this kind of gameplay, often frequently; but it's not ideal. Enemies coordinating together to form formations and their own objectives would be a great step forward. The player's task can then be to intercept and be reactive to what the enemy is doing, which offers a lot of strategy and replay value. Eliza's route and the last couple chapters in Uther's route are especially guilty of prolonging a gameplay style that has so much more potential to be better. It's not just about reinforcements and/or enemies charging at you -- but the possibility for interesting enemy behaviour and strategy. Formation switching/setup (enemies moving in sequence or in a timed fashion to setup more difficult groups for you to take on, or planning on enemy's part before they then charge you) is an excellent thing to explore. Not that I'm advocating Advanced Wars with a Fire Emblem skin -- but it's just a good direction to think about for some maps. Enemies have already been made to rescue each other for movement purposes and that's the type of behaviour I'd like to see more of. Fair enough. I don't think it's absolutely necessary for mages to be as common; 30-40% of enemies being magical would be a good balance. It benefits to make RES a more important stat as well. However, if 1-2 range is always the case, then it's not really possible to increase numbers. 'Disruption' is a cool skill, just situational even despite changes to WTA (which is better than it being outright irrelevant, granted). Mages still have huge RES -- I doubt Magnus or Eiry would care about enemy casters with Disruption. Still, it's a better direction than Focus, which worked against their movement. I found use for it against Richard when using Magnus. And ultimately, I think the main reason why Magnus or Eiry feel as underwhelming as they do as units (Eiry moreso than Magnus), is because a chunk of their power budget is having massive RES. Magnus hits like a wet noodle except with Elthunder some of the time (if he hits with it). Same with Eiry, but throw in lower HP/DEF. But their worst problem comes from the 4-move, combined with the map design past CH7 being really bad for it. It's difficult to justify rescue-dropping either of them when Hassar/Toni deal better damage (even against lower RES enemies) and have more movement. Even someone like Marcus can often put out similar damage with a Javelin. Magnus can be utilised on enemy phase, but the damage he would be dealing back is unimpressive. There are a fair few enemies with strong RES and they don't get any kind of effective damage or powerful tools until Arcthunder later on. Magnus would benefit from ~6 less RES and ~3 more base MAG. That would probably put him a decent spot and create a more individual niche for Eiry. Move would still be bad; but may make rescue dropping more worth while. Eiry I'm not really sure the best direction to improve her. Her stats look good on paper, but between the same movement issue and not being able to take much pressure, her role basically boils down to dealing average poke to most enemies aside from the occasional anima user. She's not really all that flexible as a unit. And maps like 7x where you'd want to be training her, are completely unsuited for deployment. And I'm not a huge fan with deploying units just for the sake of EXP. Maybe she's just an Est archetype (due to being such a low level) that isn't meant for early efficiency. I suppose that's fine to a degree. I would personally have her join with a Flux tome (along with Shade) for some risk/reward in damage output (similar to Fire/Elthunder in Magnus's case). Lowering Shade's WT by just 1 would help as well. However, aside from those two units (and Cybil) every other unit in the game seems fine (the thieves look weak on paper, but they utilise effective/reaver weapons especially well, and are a high enough level to promote with low investment for the extra move/utility). Cybil is basically a ferry/support bot -- her combat is fairly underwhelming, making her early training period not very rewarding as a result (aside from those purposes). Granted Pegs offer a lot of utility, but it's not exactly like she'd be too powerful if she just started out as a LV1 Peg with her averages. The fact that she doesn't just means you need to put in extra work just for an average/typical Peg Knight. But otherwise, it's all seems good. You could say that Jericho shares the same issue(s) as Magnus/Airy, but that extra point of movement is more significant than you'd think, and hits reasonably hard with Flux. It might also be relative to other units they're with and the maps they're on.

I wouldn't know because I may be playing too efficiently/fast for it to happen (for CH2 and CH5). Maybe going the upper route in CH5 matters there, but either way it would let you take care of the mini boss's group in isolation regardless, so the gameplay doesn't change. CH2 may have charging enemies as well, but that means nothing from a gameplay perspective aside from those cavs near the start of the map. I'm assuming you're talking about the group of cavs near the boss if you wait long enough, in which if Eagler is busy with the village, that could catch you out -- but not at the speed I was playing. CH2 is fine anyway (it's early game and the design well suited for it) . And again, I think CH5 is decent as well, with my only real criticism being the whole 4-move thing on quite a large map. Without rescue-drop spam it has pacing issues. Otherwise it's a return to Uther's crew after playing with Eliza's -- so has the enjoyment factor for that reason. And comes before CH 6 which is very different. Enemies charging you for the sake of it is not important here, its intended purpose should be to maintain gameplay flow when done at the correct time, and offering distractions and/or make taking objectives increasingly more interesting. Enemies don't even need to charge at you directly either -- they could be part of an objective, or meeting up with another group of enemies, or transporting weaponry, or forming a position that makes them inherently more difficult to charge towards on your end. Make it so enemies on a map feel dynamic and that they have some sense of awareness and strategy on their end (like CH 6 or 7). Stand around for them to baited on a constant basis makes it feel like a one-way battle. And on your end, the strategy becomes "who should I give EXP to?" (which again, is a justifiable early game thing so long as it's not overdone -- CH 1x works for this reason and it doesn't drag on) . The problem is that Eliza's maps, and Uther final maps, have this way too often. They just aren't fun or rewarding to play. Taking damage is mostly a non-issue. With or without barrier/pure water. Killing an enemy quickly favours you far more in most cases since a lot of the time you can heal before it matters. If you've murdered the group of enemies on player phase, then that's efficient play. There will be times where magic WTA and/or Disruption matter. But A) Enemy casters are less common to begin with and B) Being relevant some of time when they do exist meaning... it's not that prominent in the grand scheme of things. Occasionally relevant is not exactly on the same level as physical weaponry and the WTA for them. I like how the magic triangle has actually some kind of factor now -- but it's still just a situational factor. 90% of mages having decent/high RES doesn't help either. Which should be the standard. Much like how the standard for physical weapons is 1 range. But occasional variety is a good thing and it's still healthy design for enemy mages to be more frequent. While not absolutely necessary -- it's the best way to increase enemy mage density without them being a pain for enemy phase. Still, if the intention is to make magic WTA only occasionally relevant due to the smaller number of units, then that's fine too. It's more about giving each individual class some extra identity. I think you're overestimating how different Magnus and Eiry are. They both: A) Do not double. Magnus has mediocre speed and Eiry gets weighed down heavily by her tomes. B) Do decent-ish damage in a single hit, if not stellar. They often 3RKO most enemies (Magnus if given Elthunder), which stays the same for a long time. C) Both have 4 move, huge RES, similar hit rates/avoid. Main difference between them is Magnus being fairly tanky against physical damage and having anti-armor in Arcthunder later on. In their final promotions, Eiry's staff usage will be neat -- but doesn't apply until much later on. Either way their stats are all very middling with no real extremes aside from Magnus being tankier. From a design perspective that's the only real way they differentiate (a few points of SKL/LCK/RES/SPD is largely making no real difference here). And Eiry's defence isn't even that bad after her first promotion. Either different skills or more unique stat spreads would be good here. If Magnus for example had poor RES in exchange for a couple more points of MAG/DEF then I'd be willing to agree. Or if Eiry had the SPD /CON to double but had atrocious SKL/LCK (to make her damage output wildly fluctuate which... actually fits her) etc etc... It's not just player units though. Magical enemies in these different classes don't feel hugely different either in terms of stats or how you deal with them. Different skills that you need to watch out for separately would have good implications for gameplay/strategy when facing them. Kind of missing the point here a little. Isadora using swords is significant compared to Marcus using lances because not only is the WTA actually significant for them on a common basis, Isadora gains access to Zanbuto/Lancereaver etc... while Marcus gets Javelin access compared to the Light Brand which targets RES. Making them very different. Mostly it's how much more relevant WTA actually is. And while yes, Halberd exists... you're not always going to have access to every type of weapon. So weapons with special properties are gifted to select units at different intervals of the game. You cannot transform the early Zanbato into a Horseslayer.

Far too many enemies (or small groups of enemies) only move while in range on the maps that I had mentioned, which makes the gameplay very stale and repetitive (oh another idle Zwihander/Celeste? Only varying strategy is either Eliza or Vaida to bait -- on a replay this doesn't change; most enemy groups are tailored fit for one or two units). Not every enemy needs to move immediately but there are multiple methods to handle this and improve the flow of the map (and avoiding times where there is downtime in action, like spending a turn or two to position units for a bait -- while the entire enemy army is twiddling their thumbs). This can be done through enemies moving on X turn, moving when you're close but not necessarily in range, or outright having enemies who are travelling to create a formation or obstructing an objective. Let's say on X turn a group of enemies start moving to merge into another group. Or move towards another enemy in order to rescue them and then charge towards you. In either example, the player can choose to disrupt this by intercepting the first group before they can join up with the second group (or vice versa), because if they do merge or rescue (or even trade over items to each other to make individual enemies more powerful -- a cool concept IMO) or pre-injured enemies that need to wait for backup healing etc... you'll face a more difficult challenge because you'll need to fight both groups together or they'll have better weaponry/health. Meanwhile if you intercept correctly, then you can fight each group separately and therefore needing less units to handle either the first or second group, meaning you can send off more units to do things like shop/arena or fight separate enemies. And that's just a few examples. Either way, the importance is having dynamic enemies where it's up to the player to decide on how they deal with how enemies are behaving or the density of units they need to prepare for if they do X or Y (like sending away a unit to do something, meaning you have less fire-power to fight the main force of enemies). CH6 is a great example of a well made map. Not every enemy charges towards you -- the ratio in enemy AI is great. It's a defend map, but the way it's played out can be the same for any other -- defeating the boss and clearing objectives in a timely manner. The mini boss needs baiting, but he can be quite dangerous and you don't want to be overly distracted by enemies that are charging towards you when you do grab his attention. So timing is key. It gains access to the arena and an alternative route to the boss, but those aren't mandatory -- meaning on a replay you can try ignoring him for longer and sending more units north. The replay value and accommodation for different strategies is there, with no outright obvious way to beat it. A lot of enemies charge at you, but it maintains a good sense of pace and action, and balances how fast you can advance. You need to split your army and because of reinforcements that appear, the units best suited to deal with those aren't always available, so you need to improvise. Again, the only real issue is the sheer quantity of 4-move scrubs that you have. Otherwise that map is very good, and most importantly; fun. By CH 4x, I was really burnt out with how the game was expecting me to play. Same for CH 11 or CH 12. I wasn't really having fun by CH 12. Cadence is also important. Both CH 6 and CH 7 are fun. But they would be even better if not back-to-back. Because variety is important. CH 10 was a godsend for this reason. And/or if you decided to play Tristians maps all together in sequence -- they're all fun and varied. Stark contrast to Eliza's maps; it's easy to get burnt out on that type of map design. And I'm not even saying that these types of maps are bad by themselves (while not perfect, CH 1x is okay, even if it's just baiting strats with a few reinforcements thrown in -- because it plays differently than CH 1, which is the important thing. Magic type means very little for gameplay though, beyond WTA (which matters a lot more now granted). All magic is 1-2 range and rarely has unique properties. Arc tomes and resire aside, which don't appear all too often. WTA is a thing, but usually archers or physical units deal with enemy casters just as well, if not better than taking advantage of it. Disruption means a total +8 damage in WTA, which is good! But doesn't change the fact that Hassar, or Toni, Isadora etc... are dealing more damage to a low DEF / high RES caster anyway. Casters that appear less often than physical units to begin with (which is inherently a problem with Fire Emblem; casters being always 1-2 range means that you cannot have too many of them, because too many ranged enemies is bad for enemy phase or gameplay -- I would suggest having some more powerful 1-range magic tomes mixed in, like a separate tier of dark and/or thunder magic or something, or just the Arc Tomes/Divine/Worm etc... but I'll admit that it's an alien concept that people might not agree to. Still, tankier 1 range mages would be good for enemy design and density of casters. My suggestion is to test out this design. By my experience it does work in practice). Sword and Axes can be the difference between actually having common-ish 2 range (Hand Axe) or weapons you have access to at the time with unique effects (like the Zanbato) and enemy physcial units are far more common, making WTA very relevant. I don't care about what type of magic a unit is using. They just need good stats to target and kill low RES enemies. Or Magnus actually being able to tank. Those don't have anything to do with magic type. This why distinction via skills would be great. It doesn't matter if Mercenaries and Fighters both have focus. They're distinct based on weapon type and that matters a lot. Meanwhile the gameplay for Magnus wouldn't change much for him if he would be using light magic instead.

Press left or right. It'll show the other chapters such as Tristan's. To be honest I'm not a fan of the design of the world map UI in this regard -- and isn't very clear why or how 4 or 5 maps are grouped together as they are. However it could be a WIP. A prompt should appear when you unlock them so it's a bit more clear. While I'll be providing my full feedback in the near future, I have to say that I'm extremely impressed overall with the quality of the game at this stage and it's great to see the progress being made so far. Last I played was a couple years back and considering the improvements that have been made along with the new content, I have a lot of good things to say about this project. I think I'll mention this now though in case I can get a bit of clarity and/or discussion surrounding it; my main criticism at this stage would how the game relies far too much on bait and switch strategies, which is one of the biggest pitfalls for FE fangames (or the main games themselves). What I mean by this is that the maps are often too focused on 'Put your units in range of an enemy/group of enemies > take them out > rinse and repeat' with a few reinforcements thrown in (which you usually just want to take care of before baiting the next group) usually in a linear fashion. Literally all of Eliza's maps follow that trend. That doesn't necessarily mean that no maps should be like that. While CH3 (Eliza's first map) plays out like I just described -- it's fine, if not eventful since the density of enemies aren't that high and they aren't that powerful either. But hey, it's normal mode and also an early part of the game, so it's fine -- and makes sense for the map itself. CH1x, if I were to imagine the hard mode version, would also be fine (especially since it plays out differently than Tristan's other maps). In fact, Tristan's maps are all great; varied, fun and aside from 1x itself, doesn't follow the aforementioned pitfall. CH1, 8 and 10 should be a blast to play on hard. Going back to Eliza -- CH4 and 4x follow the gameplay pattern described, which is an issue especially since they're back to back. CH3 was already a 'bait and switch' map, as it were, so feel that these two maps stand out as not being particularly enjoyable to play in comparison to other maps (CH4 more so than 4x, in which the latter benefits from being smaller and more compact). I feel that both maps need to be more dynamic and engaging to be truly enjoyable. Even if it's normal mode, the quantity of these types of maps (in sequence) in too high. The reason why CH4 feels worse overall is because it comes right after CH3. So if CH4 was changed a lot and CH4x stayed relatively the same, it would feel a lot better. Uther's are hit or miss. Everything up until CH7 is more-or-less great. Not massively keen on CH5 since big map + 'bait and switch' coming off of either CH2 or CH4 isn't good cadence. However I think CH5's biggest issue just stems from having so many 4-move units on such a large map, which is bad for pacing. I''d say that it stops CH6 from being perfect as well. But I think you guys are deadset on the whole 4-move thing as much I think it doesn't do any favours for design (And going from 4 movement to 7 movement in many cases via promotion is too steep of a transition -- especially when they're all promoting around a similar time. You go from one extreme to another... and then there's Magnus and Eiry who need constant rescue-dropping to keep up with said movement transition). 7x is the worst map in the game IMO (ironic). I understand what gimmick/concept you are going for -- but the execution isn't there (it's basically a bog-standard 'bait and switch' with an annoyance thrown in -- making it even more cautious/slower). Boss is way too threatening for how inconsistent their AI is (possibly because of WTA) since they double most units. I'd say lower the boss's AS to 10 (and possibly increasing strength by 2-3 if needed), but then allow them to 'cheat' by letting them use their full movement after attacking, even after moving beforehand (give them a unique skill, like an advanced version of the default one). Then make it so they will attack you every single turn and then retreat to safety (what they prioritise already) with maybe moving 5 or 6 spaces away (so you still have the opportunity to attack them) and making them tankier with immunity to stealing (so that dealing with the boss isn't just killing them immediately/quickly when you catch them, but by whittling them down over the course of the map). Then you design the rest of the enemies/map around this very concept. This means they are completely consistent in what they're doing and therefore how you should play, but they aren't massively punishing on a turn-by-turn basis. The damage threshold (by other enemies) becomes a lot more liberal since before, the boss can almost 1RKO half your unit roster. This is one step towards fixing this map. It isn't all that fun to play -- since while it's relatively uninteresting outside of the boss, the boss just forces you to kill them quickly or just play very cautiously -- neither of which make the map enjoyable. However, if designed for a middle ground, the boss can at least add to the map. CH9 = Bait and switch. CH11 = Bait and switch (I really think this should not be one of them -- enemies should be far more aggressive and dynamic; even Richard could move if re-balanced -- he's a desperate man, after all). CH12 Part 1 = Bait and Switch. CH12 Part 2 = Bait and Switch. yeti pls I'm not going to go in depth with these. The variety in map design just isn't there and detracts from an otherwise great game. The pacing isn't good and 'bait and switch' (with little reason to split your army into multiple groups or take on multiple objectives simultaneously) is the worst way to design a map, let alone so many of them in sequence. The saving grace here is CH10 (a great map) being in the middle of it all. However, I just didn't find any of these maps all that fun aside from CH9, where the objective/time really helps. My other main criticism is mage design (how the classes all share skills within the light/heavy variants and how clunky Magnus/Eiry feel with how the map design is past CH7). Disruption is a far better skill to have than Focus (for the heavy types) but it would be even better if they all had unique skills. Light variants could all separately have +10 HIT (Scholar)/+10 AVO (Mage)/+10 DODGE (Monk) and the heavy variants could have something like Disruption (Sorcerer)/A skill that makes them deal +5 damage at close range (Shaman)/A skill that doubles or triples overflow hit at close range (Diviner). Those last two could be anything really to separate them, but I enjoy the idea being stronger in close combat. That fits their play style and movement type. I'll go into further depth about Magnus/Eiry in my full write up (which should cover all aspects of the game). However, I'm mentioning these now in order to possibly garner some discussion surrounding what I believe are my two biggest criticisms of the game. I love the game otherwise -- it's really quite marvellous. EDIT: Worth mentioning that I've yet to play hard mode beyond CH7. It's possible that some of the later maps do become more interesting. But the core design/flow of the maps is partly the issue here, and still doesn't do normal mode any favours; which will likely be a lot of people's first experience with the game. For the last map of Part 1, CH 12 really just feels filler/slow/boring, especially coming off of CH 11 which was not as enjoyable as previous maps either (My 'Enter' Key has never felt more abused, but props for having the ability to skip phases in the first place -- that does help CH 11 a lot).

Just because it wasn't tuned properly, doesn't mean it cannot be executed well. That's the general consensus I've gotten from the answers in this topic; the fact it hasn't been executed well before means that it cannot be. But that's not the case. The full complete magic triangle in all it's glory (and weapon ranks separately for fire/thunder/wind) can work. It just needs to be in a world where different magic types actually have meaning beyond the triangle itself and/or said triangle actually being relevant. Usually it involves limiting a magic unit to two (sometimes three) magic types of out the five which doesn't clutter them with different spells to learn; and that the two types that they do have are made significantly different in the same way that each of the physical weapons can be different. In the end, the only base difference between standard weaponry and magic is... one targets DEF and one targets RES. The problem is that magic lacks variety and most mages have very similar stat spreads compared to physical units (who are very varied). What about a 1-range magic type given to high DEF mages like an Armor? Or 2-3 range magic given to weaker mages like an Archer? The design implications would be assumed to be hard to balance... but it really isn't. Because that same foundation already exists for physcial units -- so with the correct tuning through the tome stats and unit RES amounts, it works just as well. Ultimately, the problem stems from differing magic never really being anything more than thematics/animations. There are rare exceptions in spells like Nosferatu... but that's about it. If you look at Radiant Dawn itself, all mages have the exact same stat spreads (high MAG, low/average speed, low DEF, high RES, average-good SKL) and the magic types themselves are hardly different aside from a varying 1 MT and 5 HIT between eachother and some rarely relevant effective bonuses (Fire magic being effective against enemy beasts matters for 1 whole map (4-5) out of 44 maps). Again, execution for varying mages/magic was poor, but that doesn't mean it can't be done well. IS just hasn't figured it out yet -- their gameplay design for mage units is stagnant compared to physical units, what with the archers and armors and T1 fliers etc... It also doesn't help that player/enemy magic units are in far less quantity than physical units. But part of that problem is that since they're universally 1-2 range, the game design cannot afford to have too many of that for the same reasons (in that same way that having an over-abundance of handaxes/javelins on enemies is a problem).

If you're going to be featuring characters across the entire series, then I would suggest having a heroes-esque game as opposed to a standard game with a narrative. You could for example have a rogue-like FE where there's a barracks/base (such as in the Tellius games) between each map and you get to choose one unit between a selection of five or so units to recruit. Those units could be characters from across the entire series. You may start the game with ~6 random units (one being a lord/MC in the series OR a 'My Unit', one being a Jeigan and another being a healer -- rest being completely random) and you go through each map that may be semi-randomised (same with loot and enemies). Each playthrough is ~20 maps long or so and you can opt to have many difficulty modes and a ranking system (the latter being a a perfect fit for a game like this). This can allow you to create a purely gameplay driven FE with plenty of re-playability and featuring a massive roster of units with popular characters. ...But that's just one option. You may want to explore many different things.

I wouldn't say that 'stat inflation' makes each stat worth less. One point of STR still counteracts one point of DEF. If anything, the fact that Fates has very low HP values (and lower damage amounts compared to previous games) mean that each point would increase in value because the threshold of securing kills is more likely to be met with slight stat differences. The exception here is Luck, since they halved the value of it per point. Although the tonic provides double so that doesn't matter in this case anyway (it's essentially a buff for % proc skills). For myself, it's undervaluing movement. I used to think Serra > Priscilla because of the level lead (which doesn't even matter since MAG is going to be the only relevant thing for a long time anyway... and Serra doesn't reach Priscilla's base until LV9 -- but that's besides the point).