Aethereal

Do you dislike sports as a whole? If so, that's not too surprising, at least to me.

Despite a ton of people loving Big Bang Theory, it bothers the crap out of me. It's easily one of the worst written thing I've ever watched. Besides that, I also hate a lot of classic rock bands. ACDC, Van Halen, Guns N' Roses, and Metallica to name a few.

While I didn't specifically state that I meant the enemies that are nearby as opposed to all the enemies on the map, that is what I meant. And there are very few times throughout the series where it would be a good idea to go into EP with a javelin or a hand axe equipped if they were locked to 2 range. Please provide some, since they aren't overly rare. Either way, the majority of nearby enemies being archers sounds dull to me, and probably most people. Having no fear of being countered on PP isn't fun. To your second point, counter attacks are only overpowered when your units are overpowered. Besides, FE12 handles both of these issues well. They decreased the might of Javelins and Hand Axes significantly, and made Enemy Phase combat a lot less important.

It's dependent on there only being archers as enemies. FE6 Sacae has a few moments where this happens, and FE4 has at least one or two instances where this happens. Regardless, I'm not interested in playing a chapter where all the enemies are archers, sounds incredibly easy because come PP I have an enormous advantage. 2 range only hand axes and javelins means both items would basically become the least useful weapon available, by a ridiculous amount. There's no tactical advantage to only countering one of seven+ potential weapon types, and so there's no decision to make. You would simply never end PP with a hand axe or javelin equipped.

I don't really think Celice is as good as Sigurd. That said, Sigurd being numero dos to Seth wouldn't surprise me.

I know you sort of acknowledge it, but these people are irrelevant to the topic of what is a good hard mode. If you don't want to play a hard mode, you aren't the person that a game designer should be trying to interest when making a hard mode. The people that are saying that increased stats are "uninteresting" are generally being unclear. Obviously there are other things that can go into a good hard mode then just upping enemy stats, but this idea that it doesn't make you "play differently" is silly. Why are more difficult enemies not interesting? How do they not change the way you play? I'm positive plenty of people can provide videos of them doing things in easy mode/normal mode of any fire emblem from 6 on that you couldn't do at the most difficult mode, and probably even vice versa. The games do play very differently between hard and normal.

Arthur, Oscar, and Boyd. Especially Arthur. If 5 move to start weren't bad enough, he's one of the stupidest looking characters in the series, and there's not a lot of character development for Gen 2 characters so it leaves a strong impression.

Can to elaborate? Is there actually any logic behind this reasoning, or do you just deem them unworthy?

The threat near the end of the game was the Fire Emblem, and the potential reawakening of the dark god. Obviously Gallia Crimea and Begnion were stronger than Daien, but you were meant to fear that the dark god could awaken at any time and wipe out the continent. While I agree that you had far too much money in FE9, that's mostly due to us getting a watered down hardmode. FE8 and FE9 had big issues with difficulty, and provided you with far too much money. As much as I'd like for the game to provide you with less gold throughout, FE8 and FE9 weren't trivialized because of money at all, and even if money had been scarce I doubt it would have made the games significantly more difficult or enjoyable.

To be honest, I wasn't a big fan of capturing, and I'd rather not see it implemented again. I can't place my finger on it, I guess I just didn't care for having to use drop/be hampered for a turn for a mechanic that didn't make a lot of sense to me.

Mildly? That's like a 10 foot fall, all the time. I don't understaaaaand

I guess you didn't necessarily deny them, but you dismissed them pretty quick, and they are facts. Just sayin'. Also, the 4 mt knife is the dagger. To 2HKO an enemy soldier after promotion, he'd need 20 str and a 9 mt knife. Unless I'm seriously missing something(possible), those don't exist.

I'd love to point these two quotes out. In the same post no less. Best insult I've ever heard. Man, this is the best thing to come home to. Desoato, this was really thoughtful. You shouldn't have. <3

The above two quotes are contradictory. The only reason a general<other units would probably be a desire to clear the game in lower turns. If generals' durability is sufficient in H5, they are probably tinked on easy. How could that be considered near worthless in easy/normal if you don't care about turns?

I dont think it means worse, but that the casual player is less invested. This might be through time or energy, but usually a combination of both.

The implication of the above, and more importantly the bolded, is that swords are better than other weapons when you don't have 100% hit. That is very very far from true.

I picture them hiding behind the throne playing chicken with you, personally.

Backing up a claim with anecdotal evidence is hardly backing it up at all.

Having ways of manipulating hit rates, so that you can get into higher percentages and have reliable strategies is good. Maxing your hit out at 80% displayed, in the best case scenario, after you've gotten to level 20/12, against a slow enemy type that you have WTA against is not enough. And it is not "reasonable against some enemies" when the enemies are not pushovers. FE6 is a game where the enemies are difficult. A quick look at the numbers dondon provided shows me that OJ, Allen, and Percival all have very real chances of never seeing 80% hit with a hand axe. In that case, you either hope to get lucky, or you turtle. There's no other strategies, and no one else is interested in a game like that but you.

This also makes having a balanced army more important. I bet Swordmasters still won't be as good as Wyvern Riders, but it's a step in the right direction. Win/Win to me.

Yeah, most of the accuracy issues are early game. And I agree with the last couple sentences, that's the main point to me. A lot of axe-users especially were pretty much screwed/reliant on luck if they weren't fighting lance users. I dunno. Personally, I'd rather see sword users get more crit than see axe users see less hit. >.>

If you can reliably deal with enemies that you consistently have a 40-70% chance of hitting, or some other unreliable number, then you and I have a different idea of competent. Wether that's because they have worse weaponry and skills, or because there aren't enough of them, or they have lower stats doesn't matter much.

There's basically three ways that low accuracy can make gameplay. For the first, you can have enemies that are competent in comparison to yours, and you are dependent on luck. Second, you can have enemies that are competent, but you have certain units strong enough/durable enough to survive those enemies. In this scenario, you turtle. This is generally dull and slow gameplay that is far from dynamic. Thirdly, you can have enemies that are either incompetent, or are not enough in number to be a hindrance. In this scenario luck doesn't matter, but the gameplay is dull, as the enemies don't cause any real threat. Which does Berwick Saga fall under?

I don't think you understand what I mean. I think you should try FE6 Hardmode, particularly Chapter 7, and see how fun you find it. It doesn't come down to finding a strategy that is less luck dependent-All strategies require you to get lucky. Assuming you use the absolute best strategy, you will still have a very real chance of failing. I'm not saying there should be a clear right answer, or that luck shouldn't be involved, but if I just wanted to play a game of chance, I'd play a game of chance.

There are quite a few chapters where "luck management" is really just hoping not to get screwed. The problem arises in the scenario that you have to, reliably, be able to clear or survive a certain amount of enemies/an enemy that is particularly strong. However, when those enemies/that enemy and you have a 400%-60%~ chance to kill each other, wether or not you die is largely out of your hands. The chapters where you have no problems with hit that will severely affect(effect? I hate these two words.) the outcome have little luck management involved. In these scenarios, you as a player have a lot more control over the outcome, in that if you play better you will have a significantly better chance of winning. The outcome isn't determined by an RN, but rather what you do. It's these chapters that are more fun, at least in my opinion, though I suspect in many people's as well.