Aethereal

I think gender roles are very on topic, as long as you can actually tie it into what you want in the next game. What mechanic could possibly include gender roles outside of story telling, that isn't discriminatory? The difference between Joshua and Marisa shouldn't be that Marisa can't ever be as strong as Joshua, or that she should come with less base STR, but that their characters should reflect who they are, and are therefore different. That doesn't mean confining themselves to the gender roles, because those are something that you can deviate from. If you're upset that the only difference is a "sprite", you're taking away the characters of the two. I don't particularly know Marisa, but the differences between Isadora and Marcus, Rutger and Fir, Echidna and Dieck, Titania and Oscar, Mist and Rhys, Lute and Saleh, and whoever else shouldn't be that men are stronger than women, or women are faster than men, or anything else, it should be that their characters reflect their gender roles. Which, in most cases, they do. Titania seems to be a much more feminine character than Oscar, and Marisa is socially awkward in large part because she isn't comfortable with her gender(iirc, I don't really remember too perfectly). "Gender roles" have very little to do with things in a Fire Emblem series, aside from character development.

I don't know you, at all, so I hope I don't come off as insensitive for giving advice when I may not be fully aware of what everything meant. In any case, I think a big problem for some people, like yourself, is that you're comfortable with the pain. It sounds to me like you need to recognize the things that aren't making you happy, and get the hell away from them. I'm online, or playing video games, or watching TV far too much myself, so I may not be the best example, but when I had serious issues happen in my life I had to take a break from all that. And I know that's hard because it's your escape, but it's still necessary. It sounds like you think your family is pretty worthless and incapable of helping you, and you're probably right. Some people are just fucking terrible, and I'm really sorry that you got stuck with people like them, but the only way to distance yourself from them is to start your own life, independent of them. And that's hard too, but you have to do it. You have to be the one who gets yourself a job, or into a school you like, or even just move away from them. Even if it's a slow process, you HAVE to start it. It sounds like you don't have a role model figure in your life, and I know how that goes, so when you start having problems that you've never had to deal with before, it can seem overwhelming. But you seem like a smart enough person, you can figure it out, even if it's difficult, or you mess up from time to time. It sounds to me like you live under your family's thumb, to no fault of your own, but you have to stop being comfortable enough there to let it continue. Video games, TV, and the internet are awesome releases and escapes, but they're no solution, and anything that isn't a solution is just wasting time that you could be spending fixing the things that are really bothering you. In any case, good luck with everything, and I hope just letting stuff out helps you, and you find what will help you get out of this.

Being able to kill bosses without any risk of death at all, completely discarding the use of any strategy whatsoever, in a strategy game, would be pretty cool? How? Why would enemy only weapons to make bosses more versatile, and less easily trivialized be ridiculous or unnecessary? I'm not being sarcastic or anything, just asking. Bosses with only melee range capabilities are generally jokes, or at the least worse and less versatile than bosses without. I, personally, think bosses should not be so easily trivialized as "use an archer".

I said viable, not efficient, which is what you claimed it was. And don't say "Who the fuck is saying," like I'm incapable of understanding the conversation, or the game. YOU were the one arguing that you don't need to train Ike, because and again, to quote you: Aku Chi's raised some points that makes me skeptical Ena can even come fucking close to what Ike can do. If you can figure out how big of a difference a trained Ike saves in one god damn chapter compared to Ena, that seems relevant to your whole argument that you don't need to raise Ike for an efficient playthrough. Don't talk like I'm an idiot, YOU were the one arguing it's viable to use Ena, not me, all I did was ask how big the difference was between her and Ike. If it's not "anywhere remotely near the efficiency of Ike", then why the hell did you continue to argue as if some one would use her instead of Ike?

So, it sounds like Ike is (at least) 2 turning Berserk Ashnard. How many turns does it take Ena? I don't think second best is 'viable" if it takes an extra 8 turns, or something along those lines.

This is a really bad comparison. Except for a draw, a baseball game ends after 9 innings, each time. If every map ended after 10 turns, obviously turncount and how good you are at rescuing and moving and other shit wouldn't matter as much, but not all chapters are defend chapters. A much fairer comparison is golf: Where there's a set goal, that you can take as long as you would like in order to complete each hole/chapter. If I could putt really well, but it took me an average of 8 strokes a hole, would I be better than some one who couldn't putt very well, but did each hole twice as fast? Being faster at one facet of the game that helps me complete the objectives of the game does not necessarily make me better at completing the objectives. The objectives aren't to crit often, or to dodge a lot, or have great supports, or to putt. They're to rout, seize, kill boss, defend, arrive, escape, and to put the ball in the hole. Obviously critting often, dodging a lot, or having great supports, or whatever else helps. I completely agree, so does every one else. The thing is, those are all things you use in order to complete the objective. They are tools. Just like movement is. Turncounts are a good way to quantify how much those tools really help you, and who gives you the best tools needed in order to complete a chapter. I don't particularly care about the specifics of that hypothetical tier list, I was trying to illustrate what the logic of "turncounts don't matter for comparison's sake" implies. Why shouldn't we care about movement, or try to quantify how good movement is? Why shouldn't I care about how fast I can clear a chapter? Good weapon typing, well rounded stats, a great mastery, and high movement are awesome. I can also say paladins are good, not just because of those things, but because of what those things accomplish. Good weapon typing and well-rounded stats let them kill things faster and more reliably, or more simply: In less turns. High movement lets me get places in less turns. Sol lets me expose Paladins to more enemies, so that I can kill them in fewer turns. Nobody's dismissing the things you're talking about, they're quantifying them. I would be willing to bet that I could very reliably do more with Gatrie than I could with almost any other character in a world where turncounts don't matter, because of his pure durability. The fact that he has no axes, low movement, and is slow are all important things. How do we quantify how big of a difference each of those makes? Well, he doesn't move as fast, so we lose turns waiting for him. He doesn't have axes, so he doesn't hit as hard as other people, and so we lose turns because he doesn't always kill enemies that others would. He's slow, so he doesn't reliably double, which means enemies will live longer, and we will have to take extra turns killing them. Do you see what all of these things have in common? Um. So he gets to places in fewer turns. Why does she need those resources? She can kill Ashnard at or near base iirc. You can wait for her transformation gauge to fill, then beat the boss slowly. Unless you'd like to kill him faster. As in, in less turns. Right, which helps him kill things in less turns. Why is how well some one completes the objective of the game a bad way of judging how good a character is at helping complete the objectives of the game? I personally think the ability to fly and drop some body can be a lot more important than being able to kill random brigands, soldiers, and mercs. I also think if you can beat a chapter faster and easier, you must be better at it than some one else. I wish there was a way to quantify this, like, turns or something. I actually agree with some parts of this. I don't particularly care about a one turn difference, or exact strategies. A unit that can do a specific strategy really reliably, that's awesome and whatnot, but I don't think a character's usefulness is tied up in their ability to do one very set in stone strategy, particularly if it involves other revolving pieces, but then, I don't particularly debate tiers, and sometimes you are talking about the most tiny degrees of seperation between two units. There was some big turn counting earlier about Jill vs. Marcia. The reality is is that they are ridiculously close to the same usefulness, and those one turn differences are all that seperate them. That's not any one saying "One turn is a big deal!" it's them saying "Well, the difference is just one turn, but one person is ONE TURN better", or something along those lines. Plus, dude, not every one thinks along the lines of an optimal playthrough, and there's been a lot of debate over that, and most people don't want to judge units based on one specific playthrough that is absolutely fastest.

I don't think you're understanding. The point isn't that some one who doesn't do a low turn count run is stupid, or retarded, or whatever. The point is that if you DONT factor turncount in, you stop really judging how well a character can help contribute to clearing the objectives, and start figuring out how they can survive. You can literally turtle your way through half the game with little to no problem. In a world where you don't judge by turncounts, paladins suck, and generals and bishops would be king: After all, it doesn't matter if Gatrie moves two spaces less each turn to get to the seize point, or that we have to heal him every turn, since as long as he lives, he did the job. If turncounts don't matter, it shouldn't matter if it takes Gatrie twice as long to kill something as say, Ike. They both can kill the thing, they both live, they both must be equal. I know that that's not the way some one who doesn't do low turn count runs thinks, but it's the reality of the logic. I also agree that there are some thing that are obviously better than others, like giving that Spirit Dust to Soren instead of Boyd. How exactly do you quantify that if you throw turns out the window? I know that as some one who doesn't do every run in as few turns as possible, I can still recognize when things are better. It just so happens (and not coincidentally) that the things that are better contribute to lower turncounts. Know how I know Ike is better than Ena for final? Ike saves turns. Not because I'm interested in getting the fewest turns possible, but because being able to complete the chapter objectives faster is a good way to measure how good you are at completing the chapter objectives.

Furet recruits Lumi. I also don't remember Renair recruiting any one but Chester, and the male soldier. But that's not really a claim that one IS better than the other. Obviously the RNG might favor your Kolbane, but I had a Kolbane who could never double, that doesn't mean he's actually slow, it means I got a string of bad luck.

Um. It is possible to know. What can we do with Wrath that we cannot do otherwise? Any bosses can we kill a turn earlier, units in the way we can clear out more reliably? Anything? This isn't a sarcastic comment, I don't know the ins and outs of FE9, but I would like to see a response on the discussion of what Wrath could hypothetically give you on other units outside of Ike. I have a feeling that Ike getting Wrath is probably the best bet, but it could be otherwise. And I also think it's more relevant/important than other stuff being discussed. =X

Yeah, they kinda are. And if the bow did any kind of significant damage (read: More than iron) it would probably be more "broken" than hand axes or javelin.

Magic users don't dominate, because of their crappy durability against ranged physical weapons, which are generally more abundant. I agree that javelins and hand axes being so dominant is dumb, however. That really takes away the unique quality of the bow using classes. I'm also not particularly interested in units that can break the game in half, thanks. =/

Edit: Just saw RFoF's post, deleting what I said.

That's really not true, and you're speaking as if the early game where Marcus is the best unit hands down, and mid game where Marcus is most likely the best unit don't exist.

Badass soldier using Thoron? Yes please.

Marcus, Pent, Hawkeye, Geitz, Harken, Vaida, Jaffar, Louise, Isadora, Renault, Karel, Karla, and Wallace are the prepromotes of FE7. Useful prepromotes of those listed are: Marcus, Pent, Hawkeye, Geitz, Harken, Vaida, Jaffar, Louise, Isadora. Bad prepromotes of those listed are: Renault, Karel, Karla, and Wallace. Nine to Four by my count. In reality, Louise isn't a good unit despite you listing her, but that has a lot more to do with being bow-locked than being a prepromote or a bad sniper. She's better than Wil or Rebecca.

If every generic enemy had a halberd/horseslayer like effect on mounted units, with every weapon, mounted units would pretty much lose their niche, which is what I was getting at. Having a lot of movement is great for rushing ahead of the your army, or at the least leading your army. That niche is pretty nonexistant if the mounted unit gets 1-2 shot by everything, and therefore needs to avoid every enemy. The problem with their usual implementation is that they can rush forward and usually clear out large amounts of the map on their own, or with a heal every turn or two, and leave the rest of your army behind. The idea of giving them less accuracy, damage, defense, and avoid against foot units was to attempt to change it so that they could still in some cases move ahead of the group, but would have a much more difficult time taking out huge chunks of enemies with the rest of the army behind. I don't know if my idea would do that, and I thought of it on the spot so it probably wouldn't. Meh. But, I don't think getting 1-2 shot by everything makes for interesting gameplay, it makes for hiding your units behind units who can take more hits. I do agree wholeheartedly that generic enemies need more skills, but I'd find myself just avoiding combat with cavs at all times, or not bringing them at all, if every one had an equivalent to Halberd/Horseslayer all the time.

That's not a bad idea at all, but I wonder if it wouldn't make cavs almost completely obsolete. IIRC, most horseslayers one shot cavs in the FE7x demo. Of course, this could be different in a game by game scenario, but I was thinking of FE7x. In any case, cavs would probably sit behind your other units, which takes away what they were doing well. You could give foot units, or some foot units like a pikeman (Or, Halberdiers?) some different sort of advantage over cavalry, like an additional weapon triangle advantage? It could make them much weaker against foot units, and makes your foot units a good counter to an enemy section of cavalry/nomads. I'm sure mounted units would always still have a niche, in that they could still rush ahead, but they'd have a harder time rushing forward and clearing things out on their own if they're facing WTD at all times. 'Course, I'm just thinking out loud, this might be a terrible idea, and I could be overlooking something.

I don't think any of those are actual issues. Her name's a little funny, and she starts off as a level 1 lord that starts off a bit weak? Most lords are like that, and unlike a lot of other lords, Renair seems to pan out into a good unit fairly quickly. Anouleth was probably just making jokes, not actual critiques.

You're definitely on the right track. Having a mount is just a clear plus all the time in current FEs that non-mounted units miss out on. To offset that, they need some kind of penalty that comes with a mount, or they need something they're missing from foot units. Flying units losing two move and canto when rescuing is good, but it just gives them the same mobility of a foot unit. They're still absolutely better, because they're still better whenever they're not rescuing, and they rescue just as well as a foot soldier. I don't know all the FE7x skills, but I would think the best way to deal with it is to give other classes more utility to offset canto/more mobility. I remember the ability cover( I think?), which I thought was an absolutely awesome mechanic for knights, and I think that's an awesome design move right there, and more skills like that are the way to go. Terrain bonuses, and a little extra crit are definitely nice, but I don't think they'll make me move away from cavs>mercs/soldiers/fighters for just about every map. Basically, each class, to be perfectly balanced (Which may not be possible with the FE system) would need its own niche. Berserkers probably aren't as good as Paladins, but because of peakwalk they have certain maps where they are almost certainly more useful than paladins. That's good design. Some terrain penalty might be enough to make me think twice about bringing a mounted unit over a foot unit if FE7x has some strategically important terrain. That could be the niche of the mounted unit: Great on open terrain, bad with certain other maps. I'd think you would have to do a bit more, since there generally aren't many maps covered in forests/forts/pillars, but that's definitely the right idea. Make mounted units particularly bad at something. Sorry if that was long winded and filled with obvious information, or seemed overly critical. I haven't slept in a while. But I've always kinda wondered the same thing. I've also wondered why mounts need 2 extra move over every one else instead of just one, but that's probably just me.

No need to apologize. This is an awesome hack, and an awesome patch. I feel almost bad telling you about bugs, like I'm asking you to fix shit, when you've already given me a couple hours of brand new unique awesome game with a heavy dose of nostalgia on the side. =X Good luck with v5,

Ah, I thought it was 1X. Figures. =X thanks though!

How'd you get the Dastards! achievement anyways? I'm confused on this one. If it's not spoiling too much to ask. =P

That's not how you get the angel of life achievement. Although it said it gave me the achievement when I did this, in the achievement section it wasn't unlocked. But this happened to.... something else to. The Matthew achievement maybe? Can't remember.

On the achievement page, Renault just started moving. He also has all the items I left on him from Pent's tale. He also crit Arch in the face

So, I got past my previous issue. No clue how, but it just decided to work. Anyways, when Karel confronts Karla the first time he says "I will have stand triumphant over the entire family." just a small grammatical error.