Whatever happened to the usefulness of archers?

[General Banzai]

Yeah but Luna+ is not supposed to be a balanced difficulty. It's a niche use that 99% of the game demographic won't take advantage of.

uhhhh real pros yo

[BBM]

i swear archer makes more sense as an enemy only class than soldier(thinking of gba fe games here). they would positions archers to be in effective places, especially for that ballista thing which i have NEVER found useful as a player.

This is actually the biggest impact of Archers IMO. They're much more effective as enemy units than as playable units. Archers force you to equip ranged weaponry to fight them, which are generally weaker, less accurate, and heavier, and because the GBA games especially are so EP intensive, you have to use these worse weapons against 1-range enemies as well, who are often more difficult to kill because of that. Magical units could do this better, but fsr I've noticed that a lot of maps have magical units come together in groups, which means you aren't forced to have weaker combat for more durable enemies, whereas Archers are more often integrated with other units.

[eclipse]

Ryan and FE12!Gordin.

Yeah that's pretty much all of the nice archers.

Jeorge in both games (hello Parthia).

[Skynstein]

This is actually the biggest impact of Archers IMO. They're much more effective as enemy units than as playable units. Archers force you to equip ranged weaponry to fight them, which are generally weaker, less accurate, and heavier, and because the GBA games especially are so EP intensive, you have to use these worse weapons against 1-range enemies as well, who are often more difficult to kill because of that. Magical units could do this better, but fsr I've noticed that a lot of maps have magical units come together in groups, which means you aren't forced to have weaker combat for more durable enemies, whereas Archers are more often integrated with other units.

That's because archers seem to be more effective in numbers. In AOE and AOM (RTS ok but also applies to FE) ranged units are much more effective in numbers because they can "focus fire" on a certain unit. In FE an archer's range is effectively a "no flight" zone and multiple enemy archers intensify it.

Not sure how it was in GBA but in Awakening you should NOT equip ranged weaponry to fight archers to avoid their counterattacks.

[General Banzai]

In FE an archer's range is effectively a "no flight" zone and multiple enemy archers intensify it.

some FEs

not all

nessie dont give a fuck about no archers

[Rapier]

Archers are only really useful against flying units (I'm not sure if Wyvern Riders in FE13 are immune to arrows like in FE9/10). Other than that, they're usually subpar units without an enemy phase and with little endurance.

They'd be more useful if only they had 2-3 range, better crossbows and possibly gain the use of swords after promoting.

[Shadow Mir]

Archers are only really useful against flying units (I'm not sure if Wyvern Riders in FE13 are immune to arrows like in FE9/10). Other than that, they're usually subpar units without an enemy phase and with little endurance.

They'd be more useful if only they had 2-3 range, better crossbows and possibly gain the use of swords after promoting.

They're weak to bows like in every non-RD game.

That's because archers seem to be more effective in numbers. In AOE and AOM (RTS ok but also applies to FE) ranged units are much more effective in numbers because they can "focus fire" on a certain unit. In FE an archer's range is effectively a "no flight" zone and multiple enemy archers intensify it.

Not sure how it was in GBA but in Awakening you should NOT equip ranged weaponry to fight archers to avoid their counterattacks.

In GBA... well, javelins and hand axes were too inaccurate to be relied upon in FE6, but that wasn't the case in FE7 and FE8.

[The Void]

Non-promoted Archers without reclassing just won't be good longterm in FE unless more of them get better offensive stats at base.

Either that or all of that and FE's maps and attack phases get changed.

Edited November 18, 2013 by The Void

[Axie]

In GBA... well, javelins and hand axes were too inaccurate to be relied upon in FE6, but that wasn't the case in FE7 and FE8.

Also, enemies in FE6 are stronger, so you can't just kill enemies with Javelins and Hand Axes anyway, even if they were accurate. In FE7/8, enemies are piss weak, so Javelins are strong enough to kill any regular enemy and you'll only need anything else for bosses. Making Javelins and Hand Axes weaker while making enemies stronger goes a long way to help Archers (and Mages).

Also: making base stats more balanced between classes would help a lot too. I mean, in FE7 Rebecca's bases are worse than Eliwood's bases in literally every stat except for Res, while Eliwood in turn has lower bases than Lowen (who already has a horse and two weapons) in every stat except Luck. That's hilariously unbalanced.

[General Banzai]

Also, enemies in FE6 are stronger, so you can't just kill enemies with Javelins and Hand Axes anyway, even if they were accurate. In FE7/8, enemies are piss weak, so Javelins are strong enough to kill any regular enemy and you'll only need anything else for bosses. Making Javelins and Hand Axes weaker while making enemies stronger goes a long way to help Archers (and Mages).

Also: making base stats more balanced between classes would help a lot too. I mean, in FE7 Rebecca's bases are worse than Eliwood's bases in literally every stat except for Res, while Eliwood in turn has lower bases than Lowen (who already has a horse and two weapons) in every stat except Luck. That's hilariously unbalanced.

to be fair, though, lowen's growths are absolute trash

[JSND Alter Dragon Boner]

im pretty sure that lowen's growth is super good

[Sasori]

Its a shame archers aren't that useful because I have a soft spot for the class. Fire emblem 12 was a step in the good direction. While Gordin and Ryan's bases and move where still horrible their chip damage was still nice to have and they got some awesome promo gains to make quite good as snipers.

I get the logic in giving archers bad bases. IS meant for them to chip from a distance so your close range units could attack safely without risking a counterattack, but enemies in most fire emblem games tend to be so pathetic that you don't need archers to weaken them.

[TheBigDipper]

Jeorge in both games (hello Parthia).

You get it like in Chapter 12 or something, and I'm pretty sure Gordin would get better stats than Jeorge at that time. FE12, I don't know shit.

and possibly gain the use of swords after promoting.

Horsemen do get swords after promoting from hunters. Oh wait we're talking about archers.

[Refa]

While if you were using Gordin, he probably would get the requisite rank in time (...probably) for promotion level, you'd have to give an early Master Seal (of which there are only 2) to Gordin in lieu of a better candidate.

[-Cynthia-]

im pretty sure that lowen's growth is super good

Eliwood has 15% Str and 10% Spd over Lowen, but Lowen has 10% HP and 10% Def. The growth differences are small enough not to make much difference in the long run.

[General Banzai]

im pretty sure that lowen's growth is super good

30% str 30% spd

that's trash tier

lowen is so bad people only like him at all because he has a fucking horse

[Tamanoir]

30% str 30% spd

that's trash tier

Lowen is so bad people only like him at all because he has a fucking horse

Nope, it's because of his fucking haircut.

Actually, the main problem of Archers are Mages, and FE13 (outside of Lunatic +) made it even worse. What reason to use any Archers when Sorcerer can Nosferatank all days ? ANd have wind magic if they needed to beat Flyers. Mages attack at 1-2 range (They are generally to squishy to use a close range, but at least can counterattack if things goes bad), hit the lower stat (due to most ennemy being physical), and most of them gain Staff Ability on Promotion, making them even more worthy to use. Sniper .? the rare and expensive 2-3 Range Bow, and Ballista who are too rare to have any uses (And Mages are better options with better availability)....

The problem isn't that archers are bad (Though some are particularily awfull), but that mages is too good. In every other series Mages have MP, so they are limited in their Power over time.

They're pretty bad. Not useless garbage, but bad.

As has been said before, the problem with archers is that IS seems to somehow think that bowlock is a good thing which must be counterbalanced by things like awful stats. When you look at cases where they actually have good stats, they're good.

This is only true in FE2, where the two archers you obtain (Without counting Villagers) have pretty low stats, but bows are so overpowered it doesn't matter.

The problem with Archers is that they seems really hard to balance. they are either the best unit of the games (Tactics Ogre, obviously), or the worst...

Edited November 18, 2013 by shyteddie

[Nicolas]

30% str 30% spd

that's trash tier

lowen is so bad people only like him at all because he has a fucking horse

In FE7 being absolutely mid unit AND having a horse is much more than enough. He does much more than ~75% of FE7 cast. And I don't believe that Oswin is over him in last rate the unit.

[BrightBow]

Personally I see a huge problem in the exp gain. Because it only rewards units who actually kill things, regardless of what the classe's role in the team is.

Imagine your average Fire Emblem game, with the starting team having an archer and a duo of Cavaliers.

You would use the Archer to weaken them and then have the Cavaliers finish the job without having to eat a counter.

But since getting kills is the only real way for combat units to gain exp, the archer will inevitable fall behind.

In order for the archer to gain exp, you would have to weaken enemies with your cavaliers and then finish them of with the archer.

Which effectively kills the utility of the archer, since when he only performs the finishing blow, he might have as well have attacked with a melee weapon and archived the very same results.

It's similar with Armored Knights. They aren't really designed for killing, they are merely supposed to eat hits and weaken the attackers. So they will often require being feed kills as well.

Edited November 18, 2013 by BrightBow

[Shadow Mir]

Actually, the main problem of Archers are Mages, and FE13 (outside of Lunatic +) made it even worse. What reason to use any Archers when Sorcerer can Nosferatank all days ? ANd have wind magic if they needed to beat Flyers. Mages attack at 1-2 range (They are generally to squishy to use a close range, but at least can counterattack if things goes bad), hit the lower stat (due to most ennemy being physical), and most of them gain Staff Ability on Promotion, making them even more worthy to use. Sniper .? the rare and expensive 2-3 Range Bow, and Ballista who are too rare to have any uses (And Mages are better options with better availability)....

The problem isn't that archers are bad (Though some are particularily awfull), but that mages is too good. In every other series Mages have MP, so they are limited in their Power over time.

Mages had it pretty bad in the Tellius saga thanks to tomes having low Mt (Radiant Dawn especially; PoR wasn't much kinder to them, but the archers you got in that game stunk even worse).

Personally I see a huge problem in the exp gain. Because it only rewards units who actually kill things, regardless of what the classe's role in the team is.

Imagine your average Fire Emblem game, with the starting team having an archer and a duo of Cavaliers.

You would use the Archer to weaken them and then have the Cavaliers finish the job without having to eat a counter.

But since getting kills is the only real way for combat units to gain exp, the archer will inevitable fall behind.

In order for the archer to gain exp, you would have to weaken enemies with your cavaliers and then finish them of with the archer.

Which effectively kills the utility of the archer, since when he only performs the finishing blow, he might have as well have attacked with a melee weapon and archived the very same results.

It's similar with Armored Knights. They aren't really designed for killing, they are merely supposed to eat hits and weaken the attackers. So they will often require being feed kills as well.

I agree.

[NinjaMonkey]

Mages had it pretty bad in the Tellius saga thanks to tomes having low Mt

Which hits the much lower Res stat of their enemies, not to mention that the majority of mages have a 60% or higher Mag growth. The only problem that mages have in Tellius are their speed growths and caps.

[Shadow Mir]

Which hits the much lower Res stat of their enemies, not to mention that the majority of mages have a 60% or higher Mag growth. The only problem that mages have in Tellius are their speed growths and caps.

I still think it was pretty stupid that tomes were that much weaker than physical weapons for no real reason (FFS, in RD, they're stuck using El-tomes until part 4, besides the one Arcthunder and Arcfire that you can buy in 1-E!). And their speed cap wasn't that bad in PoR.

[Axie]

In FE9 the A-ranked Tornado has the same Mt of a fucking Iron Bow. That would be inexcusable even if every single enemy had 0 Res. Even Thoron has the same Mt of a Steel Lance. Magic in Tellius is pretty gimped even before we take the mages and their craptastic Speed into account.

[The Void]

Too many Archers just don't do enough damage to make up for how most of their hits will be done on the player phase.

Even for a guy like Jamke, he's held down by his game's map designs.

Edited November 19, 2013 by The Void

[Refa]

Midir is a top tier FE4 unit, at least if he gets the Killer Bow in his grimy little hands.