Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Luninareph

What's your opinion on the map size of FE4?

The map size of FE4  

98 members have voted

  1. 1. How do you feel about the giant-sized maps?

    • I love them. They're one of the reasons I play the game.
    • I've always liked the idea, but feel it could have been done better.
    • I'm pretty neutral on map size. It doesn't matter much to me.
    • I don't really like how enormous they are.
    • I can't enjoy FE4 BECAUSE the maps are so huge.
    • I haven't played FE4, but I think the map size was a great choice.
    • I haven't played FE4 because I dislike the giant maps so much.
    • Other
      0


Recommended Posts

Of course it's my interpretation, what else would it be?

As I said, if you use the arena, you'll be crushing ants no matter what kind of units you are using because the arena breaks the game, it isn't designed to handle so much experience being poured into the units. The game's enemies cannot hold a handle to a promoted Lachesis or other similarly powerful units if they come around by Chapter 3.

But then there's so many ways you could make this game "balanced".

You weren't meant to abuse those +5 stat rings, they were meant to be sold for profit. This game wasn't designed for you to actually make use of those stat boosts.

You weren't meant to promote your units.

You weren't meant to use Sigurd to do anything but seize.

How is any of this sensible? Especially considering Holyn's recruitment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not unless you think that anything not prefaced by "In my opinion" is being presented as fact. ;)

you are not expressing an opinion if you claim to know design intentions. design intentions are facts. it is one thing to say that "the game is really easy with arena use" and another entirely to say that "the game is not designed with arena use in mind."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A big reason mounts are better is how some really good weapons (namely the hero weapons) are usable by every class (but thieves). It's pretty much a get at the very least a instantly get far in the arena button. Like once you get ayra's hero sword, you could give it to someone pretty scrubby like Beowulf or Noish and get a much better payoff than letting her keep it. There's no real reason to give Sigurds silver sword to Ayra (or Ethlin I guess). If Sigurd or mounts in general were significantly weaker there might be a case for it.

If most of the strong units didn't have holy blood that gave them a good sword rank (like if Sigurd had S lances and B swords, and the hero sword was A rank or something he'd be a MUCH worse unit.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always thought that if they remade fe4 one thing to make the gap between infantry and cavalry less is to make you have to actually siege the castles that Sigurd seizes instead of just being a small point to get.

Only foot units would be able to siege a castle and meanwhile on the outside you still have to worry about opponents. Introduce this with higher difficulty. While keeping most of the old school mechanics and maybe have the sieges work like a Dual Strike but you can control both fronts or more if you are sieging more then one castle at once.

One problem I see with this is that it might make the game far too long. Maybe if you only had to siege the last castle of each map...Also, if the cavalry were still active outside the castle, I imagine that the cavalry would get a big level lead on infantry anyway by having battles all the time, while infantry would only be getting into fights inside castles for the most part. Still, interesting idea at the very least, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But then there's so many ways you could make this game "balanced". [...] How is any of this sensible? Especially considering Holyn's recruitment?

We are going in circles at this point, I've already explained my take on the arena and offered an explanation for its inclusion in the game which I feel is consistent with a well-known trend. There's no more for me to say, and there's no explanation that can satisfy both the three or four takes that have been discussed here, my opinion is what it is :):

Edited by Erik Twice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've reread a lot of this thread. I understand your opinion a little better now, but I still don't think you provided satisfactory evidence for it, or your claim that without the arena there's a more proper balance between mounted and unmounted units. Without having played this game without the arena at all, it's easy to tell that the arena in fact makes it harder to use unmounted units, as it's such a huge source for EXP for them. The game provides too many incentives to hurry up with the villages burning down (a bigger deal when you remove the arena from the equation), especially Ch2.

You mention Lachesis promoting in Ch3 a lot. I can tell you that even with arena use, most units probably promote somewhere early in Ch4 for me. Someone like Lex could make it by Ch3, but people like Holyn, Jamka, Ayra, Alec, Noish...are you saying you usually promote those by Ch5? That seems awfully late. That's one chapter before they disappear forever.

Edited by Mekkah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My promotions are usually stuff like end of chapter 2/start of 3 for Lex and Aideen, end of 3 for Fin, Ethlin, and anyone I've been giving a bit of favoritism to that run, start/mid 4 for most other people, end of 4 for people like Tiltyu, Dew, Ardan, and maybe the Social Knights aka people who suck and are Tiltyu.

I feel like if you maybe gave all unmounted units 1 move and took 1 move away from mounts but mounts get a bigger bonus on roads you might have a chance at foot units not always being behind. Though there's still probably very few places where you don't have roads, like maybe latter half of 8 and 9.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel that what makes the gap between infantry and cavalry so large is enemy density. In the other games, mounts also have far higher move than infantry, but since there are usually enemies all over the map infantry has an easier time contributing, at least in the earlier stages of chapters. However, in FE4, units have to spend countless turns traversing the map without any fights, which allows the gap to widen before any fighting even begins. Imagine a remade chapter two where your home castle was only ten squares or so away from Nodion and the gaps between other castles were also smaller. Infantry would be far more useful. If there were more enemies and less dead space, infantry would be able to contribute at a similar level to other games. This might get rid of the big map feel, but could also be achieved by keeping the distances similar but filling empty space with more enemies and reducing exp rates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One problem I see with this is that it might make the game far too long. Maybe if you only had to siege the last castle of each map...Also, if the cavalry were still active outside the castle, I imagine that the cavalry would get a big level lead on infantry anyway by having battles all the time, while infantry would only be getting into fights inside castles for the most part. Still, interesting idea at the very least, IMO.

Maybe I could rework it, I feel with some more of the current comments (not as big maps etc)

We could have the remake of fe4 work on one castle per "chapter" culminating in a siege, after Sigurd and co charge perhaps, but I'm honestly not 100% sure how it'd work, if done poorly we could have chapters be even longer and as we know fe4 (and fe9's) main complaints are just how long enemy phase takes.

Also I feel a good deal of help to infantry in general would be to give them 7 or 8 move while mounts still have their usual 8 + canto. This alone would solve quite a few issues and mounts would still feel like mounts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Holy balls this thread got 2srs2fast.

I picked option 1. I just love big maps, but even I know it has balance issues. Something that blows my mind is... Why do mounts have canto? They already have higher move, why give them more? What fucking divine law is stopping infantry from moving once they perform any action?

Their higher stats never mean shit because the mounts always do just enough or more. This applies to every Fire Emblem too, not just Genealogy.

I digress, I personally don't think Gen 2 is that bad when it comes to slogs since something is happening in every chapter. C6 is Seliph solo. C7 has Leonster defense and Yied skirmish, C8 has the initial defense against the armors, defending Manager, and they send 2 Holy Weapons to kill you with though one is recruitable. C9 has Thracia mauling you while you try to fight Hannibal's crew, C10 has the initial Dark Mage skirmish and rescuing the children along with some other objectives in the second half of the map. Epilogue literally always has something happening. Gen 1 did have a few slogs though.

I'd love huge maps to make an appearance again, but I'd want them to he more like FE6's maps which were huge and well designed.

Edited by Ownagepuffs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's awful

Compare to a game like Thracia or FESS with nice map design

FE4's maps aren't only huge they're all generic and boring

The correct answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...