FishyFinThing

If you're talking not just about Fire Emblem but game like Fire Emblem as well, then sadly the best heavy armored unit's implementation I know isn't a Fire Emblem but from a game called Vestaria Saga. In that game, you start with 2 Guardians which is technically armor knight in FE. One of them is Bonacel which is basically an Oswin with good base, decent grow. The other is Prody with lower base but grown + earn exp faster and able reduce damage by 3-5 for adjacent allies which is one of the best support skill in the game. When I first look at the game, I want to test if they are any better than what people give them credit for. So I give them some chance and to my surprise, they never disappoint me. They are very well designed in term of level and function. The pacing is usually long enough for armor knight to catch up. The objective and opportunity for them aren't left forgotten either. For example, I found that there are maps in which enemy reinforcement coming from behind, so I left my armor guys there to block them. There is a chapter in which you have to defend your base so deploy them isn't a bad option either. There are chapters which you are 5 times out numbered and have to face enemy head on in the open. Again, I deployed armor to be the vanguard and it worked. Still have one free slot and need some more exp for armor knight? There are some place with a lot of reinforcement that they can solo as well. Snowballing the game? No problem, just deploy Prody with 4 other units in a tight formation and he will save you 3-5 damage every time his squad got attacked. Because you can tank more, you can fight more, and in the end, result in better training for unit that are under-leveled. Weak against magic? It is also patch able, they have enough HP to tank a few hit. On top of that, if you are experienced, you can get 2 items in which just holding them in a unit's inventory boost their resistance by 6 each. Which mean, if needed, you can have a 12 RES armor knight, that's mean he can tank almost if not everything in a turn.

I wonder why no one say something about summoner lord. Like modern day have aircraft carrier, the lord is like a big ship with ability to create, command, and perform stratagem with mini units at his disposal. It maybe weird but I think people don't give much thought about it.

I think objective is not necessary what make the level interesting but instead the amount of option you can try and the opportunity for a certain kind of class to shine. For example: -Most warrior aren't good because they lack of purpose other than combat which they aren't the best. That's why Dagda is one of a few warrior who is viable because in Thracia 776 exist capturing mechanic which give him purpose. -Oswin is one of a few example of a good game design for armor tanking. Because he's nearly indestructible early game combine with a certain situation like choke point, small map also give him opportunity. There are lots of way to make them good in which developer often overlook. For example, clashing battle between two full scale armies in the open field. You can't run or advance quickly in that case and armored unit become a reliable vanguard. Reinforcement from behind, when your army need to advance quickly and enemy is chasing them as well, armor knight who falling behind become your rear guard. Defense support, an armor knight can block a choke point range unit and healer can stay safe behind. However, if they can also boost nearby allies defense and resistance as well then having a tight formation around them become viable in the open. -Sometime foot unit suck compare to cavalry, especially in FE4. There are solution as well. Making area in which only a certain foot unit can access but not cavalry like ladder, wine, cliff, small window then place something that make player want them to get there. It could be a dangerous artillery that will become annoying if left alive, treasure, objective or shortcut. Also you can avoid making inflating map like FE4 when there is too much of open field, traveling and back tracking. -Branching path way and chaining objective will be useful sometime as well. Splitting/converting/separate deploying into different paths each favor a certain group for example will encourage players to try different units and can also make the map design become more deep.

I will also mention Dagda in Fire Emblem Thracia 776. He's a warrior class unit. Unlike most warrior class who always have hit issue for using axes, Dagda make up for his bad weapon type by trying to hit more. You also have a hero axe in the first chapter to make him even better. He's also a prepromoted unit with better base than almost everyone early game. Which mean you don't need to train him as much as most unit. All of that combine and you have an excellent capturing unit who will go around smacking people and steal all their item.

My thought on some question: -Skill system: It seems controversial for me to argue. And I think for quite a while since the GBA era, the mechanic of skill isn't so well improved. -Post Game, Trail Maps, or NG+: I'm not a fan of those, although some people may like it. To me a whole campaign is good enough if well designed. -Recruitment style: is not really important to me. -Route Splits or Different points of view: Perhaps it's more of story related and repayable value. If so then it's more depend on the writing and level design. -Rescuing, Pair Up, or neither: No comment. -All recruitment or not: to me it's depend on whenever or not the game is rich in term or replay value. If the game is already rich in replay value by other means, it doesn't matter. But if I don't feel like wanting to play the game again from the beginning then it will make me feel more tedious. -Weapon triangle: I know it's a tradition in FE but recently playing Vestaria Saga proves otherwise. Weapon triangle may seems standard in most Fire Emblem, but it lack of depth and giving a bit of issue in term of balance. For example, because axes are generally low in accuracy, having an accuracy penalty on an already low accurate weapon make most of axes users become undesirable. Or bow mostly have 2-2 range which making it less useful in term of counter attack when in reality it is more than something for 2-2 range. I think a better alternative is to give each type of weapon a unique feeling about their performance instead of giving them advantage over one another: For example, bow maybe useless for melee but can cover larger range at a cost of less accuracy and damage the further it fire. Axes can still be inaccurate and hit hard but there are still options for accurate boost on support to compensate it's weakness and without weapon triangle, it won't be too difficult to use when your unit become more experience making them a better weapon overall later game. Spear in reality are cheap and easy to use, we can make it to be a more cost efficient type of weapon compare to the other by making it generally cheap and low on proficiency requirement. Some spear are long which mean some of them offer passive skills that allow unit to attack first which also make them a favorite kind of weapon for passive fighter. Sword in general can be more skill demand to be able to wield and none of them offer range attack. However, they offer plenty of quirks such as being magical, having high critical rate, can multi hit or high critical rate. Light magic are more of a defensive magic. Thing like flash bang are useful at disorienting opponent which make me wonder why there aren't any use of light as mentioned. Things like lower accuracy for a turn or slow down opponent may come in handy. But because light doesn't have so much mass, it shouldn't do so much damage. Elemental magic are more of exploiting weakness. Fire burns clothe but not so much effective on reptile. Electricity are more dangerous against metallic armor and wet target but doesn't do much on non conductive suited unit. Cold magic may slow down opponent but does not much against roped mage, cleric and furry horses. Earth magic explode the ground or causing bump/mud on the road which stops cavalry but isn't effective against foot unit who find little problem on rough terrain and dodging explosion. Some magic do no damage but apply status effects which make target more vulnerable. For example, soaking water make electricity more effective but fire less effective. Oil soaking de-buff a certain stats depend on either if it applied on leg, face or hand; also it make unit more flammable. Maybe there could be an air magic that lower air density -> lower oxygen intake -> people get tired faster -> drastically reduce attack speed. I think warfare is not all about fighting, sometime making use of environment, science, insect, disease, chemistry to your advantage can also be called magic. -Should there be forging? But what about research instead? For example, you are struggling when your opponent is having so much cavalries flanking from all directions, that's when you find out you should develop a better weapon to counter this threat. And there come the pike which offer attack first or Phalanx formation which may be another type of weapon or support skill which can punish active unit more effectively. Now those tech become available in your shop for a reasonable amount of price and maybe require some special material. I think, it maybe more creative than forging. But I don't know how will it turn out in actual game play though. -What should be the range of archer? I think it should be greater than two with fall off effect. I don't think giving them too much range is broken as long as there are draw back to balance thing out. -Should archer be able to retaliate at one range under certain circumstances? In reality, it's a yes and no. Yes because some historical example shown that archer does carry light weight and quick draw weapons such as short sword and knife. No for a two handed weapon. Also light and quick weapons tend to be more of a back up weapon, they have short range and not as powerful as dedicated melee weapons. Which mean they can still melee, but properly they may not be able to attack first or does little damage. Archer in reality can be countered by well armored infantry and they are even more vulnerable when being flanked than other type of unit. -How should weapon rank work? I think game should be more generous in term of weapon rank. Why should we restrict a well trained unit to use a high rank weapon of one type when they can use a high rank weapon of other type. It's reasonable if the character is under leveled but it's stiff when characters are high leveled. I like it when all weapon ranks become one stats that will level up like any other stats which is more elegant. Of course what type of weapon a unit can use is still depend on their class. -Should game have third tier promotion? I don't think we should have a big power gap between your unit and enemies unit. Having a juggernaut may seem to be baddass, but also seem mindless. -Side story? Depend on how much it will contribute to your experience. A well designed long campaign for me is still better and a bunch of additional contents , micro transaction and dlc. -Should unit be killed off or betray you during the story? Yes if it add more value in term of experience. One of my most beloved moment is when I see Eyvel be turned into stone and at the end of that chapter, Leif promised her that he would come back as a better man to save her. The end of generation one in Fire Emblem 4 is also a great motivation to continue. But not all thing are absolute. I didn't have so much empathy to Orson as other two mentions above because it doesn't seem to have as much depth in his character and story compare to the previous. -Should there be Holy Blood/Crest System? That would come to the question whenever or not it is significant to overall experience. I would like it to be a personality defined aspect of a character instead of what they take for granted. Perhaps it should be something that choose them because who they are instead of where are they born into. Perhaps it should be both. For example one will have a minor alignments as inherited from a random parent, another minor from the most influencing person of their life (either their love or mentor) one major which they get when their character is fully developed. This could lead to an interesting situation like having a character who is orphan happen to find out their parents identity because of their clue about their alignment or characters who is struggle to define them-self happen to be awakened in a certain critical moment. -Should repair weapon allowed? Yes, as long as the price are reasonable and gameplay aren't too broken. -Should there be Leadership Stars? No and yes. No because Leadership Stars is a bit shallow in my opinion, yes because we can replace it with leadership skill. Thing like some sniper in practice usually have a spotter who will have wider vision and experience to guide them can be an example of leadership. It will be depend on what type of bonus they provide for their team. Some will be better at boosting morale. Some like Fire Emblem 5 Kempf should detrimental to their team performance. Other tend to be reckless but instinctual which maybe not good for helping their team avoid getting hit but better at rush down opponents with great haste and power. See chess personality for more detail. -Access to convoy: Yes, it's a useful mechanic. But can a storage dude be more of a storage dude? Maybe he can slowly repair weapon in his first inventory, have discount shopping skill, deploy mini unit that do gather intel, visiting houses, fetching and delivering remotely (like summoner). -Best form of canto: Ultra Canto is my favorite. This mean hit and run is a viable tactic. Some may argue it to be imbalance. But I think that the imbalance is not about Canto but about how other mechanic and level layout effect Canto. Ultra Canto will be imbalance if the map is too big, too empty and too much backtracking. I think that most Fire Emblem fail to provide situation where a slow but durable unit or a foot unit is needed. Thing like having a clash where a vanguard is viable; having a cliff, tree and vines where a light armored foot unit can limb but not horse; enemies reinforcements form the rear while your objective is far ahead can balance out Canto and give different units their moment to shine. The game shouldn't be too stress or rank on low turn count either but instead only do so when faster pacing is needed. -Should summoning return? If you mean summoning as a gacha mechanic, the answer is absolutely no. I don't like game that doesn't come a whole in one time transaction and mobile game overall. It is a time sink and money sink mechanic that shouldn't exist. But if you mean summoning as of FE8 the answer is yes, but it should be improved and expanded. Take an aircraft-carrier for example. It does give more tactical option an also a viable tactic. During medieval, using a swarm of hornet is also one of the most effective strategy. Anything may add the depth of the game, but I think only testing it will tell whenever or not it should be implemented. -Should dancer be able to refresh more unit? Not necessary. In Vestaria Saga, there is a dancer that can disarm enemy instead of giving a unit your turn. I think that other way around seems to be more interesting than how many unit she can refresh. -Should a beast character transform? I think why not just beast but other thing as well. Trebuchet, it's a siege weapon with great range but can't move unless packed, but packing cost a turn or a few turn. Heavy armor unit, what if they can just take off their armor sometime, let a horse haul it and then deploy them elsewhere which solve some of their problem. The question is why do we have beast unit when they are not much different than a normal unit who use a conventional weapon, or a beast unit who sometime work and sometime rest? There should be some meaning to such thing instead of just different stats and gimmick. -Which is the best support system? I think the best support system is something that doesn't require too much time cramping a certain group of people together. It is because this will make the overall formation too stiff, and gameplay too tedious. Which is why I like it most in Fire Emblem 5. -Base exploration: not necessary, I like more action, what's the point of walking around? -Should dancer be able to fight back: A combat dancer is a bit shallow in my opinion. But a dancer who can do more than just fighting and refreshing unit is more welcome. -Should there be base conversation: If you are prefer to character talking with each other in their base then my question is it's not really necessary because it's not much of a meaning overall and sometime they would have pointless dialogue as well. -Should there be weapon art: no comment. I haven't played Three Houses so I don't have enough experience to argue. -Should FE be 2D or 3D: Whatever developer feel more comfortable. But I prefer 2D for cost efficient. -Which calculation of attack speed is the best? If there is no rescue then Con is pointless. I prefer Speed - (weight - Strength/Con) -Class change? Although class change seems cool, I think giving too much of class change making characters become less defined. However, making classes imbalance (for example: armor knight too slow, axe user too inaccurate) is the real problem. I will choose no. -Should there be branching promotion? There a line between having a depth mechanic and having a complex mechanic. Whatever it is more elegant is better. I will choose no.