Bows and Archers

[Ownagepuffs]

Play FE6 HM, FE12 L, and FE13 L+.

Then you'll learn to love bows. IS doesn't need to needlessly give archers a bunch of buffs. Just tune the game in a way that makes them a worthy investment. In FE6, Bows were accurate and there were lots of shit to kill with bows. In FE12, Bows help deal with Wyverns and sniper is a decent class in it. In FE13 L+, Bows are the only physical weapon that can deal fully physical damage through Pavise+.

Oh and more archers need to be like Ryan.

Edited February 10, 2015 by Ownagepuffs

[Robert Stewart]

I think it would be cool if crossbows ignored half of a unit's defense or something. Historically, crossbows were powerful enough to pierce through armor easily. Knights back then called crossbows a dishonorable weapon for that very reason. Also, a higher crit chance for them would be fitting too I think because those things are brutal as all hell.

I like this idea. At least, I like it more than randomly making a stat other than strength/magic be responsible for damage.

[IGdood]

That's a good point. I'm also thinking there should be a class restriction for crossbows for historical reasons- crossbowmen received different training than archers IIRC- but that might be going too far.

Perhaps give it to armor knights? Crossbowmen seemed to be able to double as light/medium melee infantry, particularly those of the Italian peninsula. Also some Western European light/medium cavalry were also issued smaller crossbows so they could actually have something to use against the horse archers of Eastern Europe/Middle East.

Oh and more archers need to be like Ryan.

So true.

[Knight Falchion]

Perhaps give it to armor knights? Crossbowmen seemed to be able to double as light/medium melee infantry, particularly those of the Italian peninsula. Also some Western European light/medium cavalry were also issued smaller crossbows so they could actually have something to use against the horse archers of Eastern Europe/Middle East.

That would actually be pretty awesome, especially if it replicated the eastern/western split in what style of bows were used.

[NekoKnight]

It's probably been mentioned before but how would people feel about classes with two weapon types, Bow + something else, automatically switching to their next melee weapon when attacked at melee? Bow knights would switch to their swords, Warrior to their axes, etc? Alternatively, there could be a skill that makes it so the unit automatically equips the ranged or melee weapon depending on what range they are attacked at.

Snipers could be compensated by having higher base stats.

[Knight Falchion]

It's probably been mentioned before but how would people feel about classes with two weapon types, Bow + something else, automatically switching to their next melee weapon when attacked at melee? Bow knights would switch to their swords, Warrior to their axes, etc? Alternatively, there could be a skill that makes it so the unit automatically equips the ranged or melee weapon depending on what range they are attacked at.

Snipers could be compensated by having higher base stats.

I'm not sure that this is a good idea since it takes away the balancing weakness of using bows, which is that you can't counter attack at melee. Well, at least it seems unbalanced in the way you've suggested it. I know I wouldn't like facing warriors that could automatically switch back to their huge fucking axes after they've taken a potshot at me. Giving them more 1-2 range options they can have already equipped would be better IMO. Your idea is neat, I'm just not feeling the fairness here.

The higher base stats for Snipers I like, though.

Edited February 11, 2015 by The Legendary Falchion

[NekoKnight]

I'm not sure that this is a good idea since it takes away the balancing weakness of using bows, but it's certainly interesting. Increasing early game archers' base stats or just the bases of snipers in general might be the best fix.

Well, the Skill version would mean they would lose their bow counterattack-vulnerability at the expense of not getting another skill.

The innate weapon switching (such as it works for magic users and staves) version would still have the weakness of not being able to counterattack at range after they weapon switch to their melee weapon. For example, A Bow Knight switched to their sword to counterattack a melee fighter but if then attacked by an Archer, they would still have their sword equiped.

[Knight Falchion]

Well, the Skill version would mean they would lose their bow counterattack-vulnerability at the expense of not getting another skill.

The innate weapon switching (such as it works for magic users and staves) version would still have the weakness of not being able to counterattack at range after they weapon switch to their melee weapon. For example, A Bow Knight switched to their sword to counterattack a melee fighter but if then attacked by an Archer, they would still have their sword equiped.

I must admit that I misunderstood you at first. I thought you meant they'd automatically switch between them for both bows AND melee weapons. Obviously, that's a lot more broken that what you're actually suggesting. However, it would still be a must-have skill along the likes of Galeforce, so just losing another skill slot is not really an opportunity cost when something's that good.

But now I must say that I am more inclined to support this idea.

Edited February 11, 2015 by The Legendary Falchion

[thanibomb]

Awesome ideas, guys. I personally wouldn't mind any buff to archers as long as they get at least some improvements this game.

What I'm most curious about now is what gender the eastern looking archer is. His/her map sprite stance says male (the bow angle) but his/her clothes, features, and hair say female.

[gabethegreen]

Yeah i love archers/Snipers i believe they need something in order to make them easier to use and train

We also should get more then one from the main story excluding reclass this time although virion was cool

[The Protagonist]

I feel like Fire Emblem has never really had a good solution to bow units. Outside of games like 7, where I like using Wil thanks to availability, 9, because Rolf, and 10, because Shinon and the tools to make him effective are handed to you, I often avoid Archers. Gaiden and 10 tried expanding their range, I think (ignore fe9 double bow, too wonky). 10 overall tried to make bows more viable, or at least more varied, which humorously created the crossbow-one-shots-every-peg problem. Enemy archers always tend to be more valuable than player ones because of the importance of enemy-phase combat. I think that terrain could be a key to making bow units effective, allowing them to exploit strategic positioning. I mean, I never thought about using archery in 13 at all, and that game has about as much terrain quality as FE1.

[Snowy_One]

I feel like Fire Emblem has never really had a good solution to bow units. Outside of games like 7, where I like using Wil thanks to availability, 9, because Rolf, and 10, because Shinon and the tools to make him effective are handed to you, I often avoid Archers. Gaiden and 10 tried expanding their range, I think (ignore fe9 double bow, too wonky). 10 overall tried to make bows more viable, or at least more varied, which humorously created the crossbow-one-shots-every-peg problem. Enemy archers always tend to be more valuable than player ones because of the importance of enemy-phase combat. I think that terrain could be a key to making bow units effective, allowing them to exploit strategic positioning. I mean, I never thought about using archery in 13 at all, and that game has about as much terrain quality as FE1.

The 'solution' is actually quite simple. Increase their range. The problem is that, currently, bows don't really have a defined niche. Any lance or axe unit can pick up a hand axe or javelin and function just as well as a bow-user without the problem of a lack of a 1-range counter. Even if one limited the amount of thrown weapons doe to about 2-3 per game they still dominate anything the bow user can toss out. Then mages get thrown into the mix and they simply destroy archers all-around. Sure, mages are frail, but you won't want either to be attacked in the first place since Archer's can't counter at all, and if attacked at least the mage can deal some damage. Magic matches bows range and attacks RES instead of DEF which is often lower, and that's not to mention siege-tomes, staves, and that mages aren't as badly affected by desert maps.

Simply put, anything an archer can do another unit can do better. Except take out enemy mages. Maybe.

The solution? Give them something unique. Yes, fixing their 1-range counter problem helps out a lot, but they'll still end up lacking compared to magic and thrown weapons. They'd be out of the bottom/low tiers but unlikely to breach High. So giving them 3-range finally gives them something actually unique to their weapon (class-based if smart so a Warrior or paladin can't just pick up the bow and match) that other weapons/units simply can't do.

[Jotari]

The problem with giving them range is how if effects enemy phase. Archers might not be useful to the player but they're pretty useful to the enemy. They have a much better hit ratio than most other weapons and can take out Pegasus easily. But the real issue would be giving them all three range means there's that much more attacks a unit is likely going to have to tank on enemy phase. If every archer has three range then a lone unit could easily face up to twelve attacks is there's several archers in the level. I think giving them a short range option similar to a long range option for other classes, and just beefing up the stats of player archers is all that's needed. It's been said multiple times before that there are good archers in the series. They just need to start off with good bases.

[Jedi]

FE6 and FE12 made Snipers an incredibly good class, thats part of what made bows so good in both games. Along with the huge amount of enemies effected by bows.

[The Protagonist]

The 'solution' is actually quite simple. Increase their range. The problem is that, currently, bows don't really have a defined niche. Any lance or axe unit can pick up a hand axe or javelin and function just as well as a bow-user without the problem of a lack of a 1-range counter. Even if one limited the amount of thrown weapons doe to about 2-3 per game they still dominate anything the bow user can toss out. Then mages get thrown into the mix and they simply destroy archers all-around. Sure, mages are frail, but you won't want either to be attacked in the first place since Archer's can't counter at all, and if attacked at least the mage can deal some damage. Magic matches bows range and attacks RES instead of DEF which is often lower, and that's not to mention siege-tomes, staves, and that mages aren't as badly affected by desert maps.

Simply put, anything an archer can do another unit can do better. Except take out enemy mages. Maybe.

The solution? Give them something unique. Yes, fixing their 1-range counter problem helps out a lot, but they'll still end up lacking compared to magic and thrown weapons. They'd be out of the bottom/low tiers but unlikely to breach High. So giving them 3-range finally gives them something actually unique to their weapon (class-based if smart so a Warrior or paladin can't just pick up the bow and match) that other weapons/units simply can't do.

Range boosts could be really detrimental without careful map design to accommodate, and enemy phases would still be absurd.

FE6 and FE12 made Snipers an incredibly good class, thats part of what made bows so good in both games. Along with the huge amount of enemies effected by bows.

I haven't played through all of 12 yet, so I'll refrain from commenting, but I didn't really find Snipers to be THAT exceptional in 6, despite the kinda ridiculous number of wyverns present in Bern's army.

[Jedi]

I haven't played through all of 12 yet, so I'll refrain from commenting, but I didn't really find Snipers to be THAT exceptional in 6, despite the kinda ridiculous number of wyverns present in Bern's army.

Klein and Igrene on HM are pretty clutch alongside Sue and/or Shin. They can both Brave Bow at base, have good stats and can One round quite a number of foes.

Edited February 13, 2015 by Jedi

[The Protagonist]

Klein and Igrene on HM are pretty clutch alongside Sue and/or Shin. They can both Brave Bow at base, have good stats and can One round quite a number of foes.

But FE6 swarms you more than any other FE, making enemy phase more crucial than ever.

Still, point taken.

Edited February 13, 2015 by The Protagonist

[Jedi]

But FE6 swarms you when more than any other FE, making enemy phase more crucial than ever.

Still, point taken.

Enemy phase is important yes, not going to say no to that, but the chip and kill power bows have in this game makes their player phase contributions really good.

[Snowy_One]

The problem with giving them range is how if effects enemy phase. Archers might not be useful to the player but they're pretty useful to the enemy. They have a much better hit ratio than most other weapons and can take out Pegasus easily. But the real issue would be giving them all three range means there's that much more attacks a unit is likely going to have to tank on enemy phase. If every archer has three range then a lone unit could easily face up to twelve attacks is there's several archers in the level. I think giving them a short range option similar to a long range option for other classes, and just beefing up the stats of player archers is all that's needed. It's been said multiple times before that there are good archers in the series. They just need to start off with good bases.

That's a stupid complaint as it's assuming that there are not only a ton of archers per-level (12 in a level? Seriously), but more than what would normally be possible to strike, all capable of striking, and all in a single, concentrated, area. Unless the game is seriously being spiteful it's just not going to happen.

[Jotari]

That's a stupid complaint as it's assuming that there are not only a ton of archers per-level (12 in a level? Seriously), but more than what would normally be possible to strike, all capable of striking, and all in a single, concentrated, area. Unless the game is seriously being spiteful it's just not going to happen.

That's not the maximum number nor is it the number of archers I'm suggesting there could be,(I meant if there's several not is, which makes no sense). The. maximum number of attacks you can possibly get from within 3 range is 24. I halved the number since we're not likely to see so many archers. And I didn't necessarily mean over one enemy phase. Giving archers that much more range will inevitable lead to more swarming regardless as to what the number is. Most units can't survive more than four attacks anyway and with such ranger even if you retreat with a weakened unit, the archer(s) will be able to catch up and finish the unit off. Giving archers a permanent range buff will give them some more player phase benefit but it will only further amplify the focus of enemy phase.

[Snowy_One]

That's not the maximum number nor is it the number of archers I'm suggesting there could be,(I meant if there's several not is, which makes no sense). The. maximum number of attacks you can possibly get from within 3 range is 24. I halved the number since we're not likely to see so many archers. And I didn't necessarily mean over one enemy phase. Giving archers that much more range will inevitable lead to more swarming regardless as to what the number is. Most units can't survive more than four attacks anyway and with such ranger even if you retreat with a weakened unit, the archer(s) will be able to catch up and finish the unit off. Giving archers a permanent range buff will give them some more player phase benefit but it will only further amplify the focus of enemy phase.

If you're not talking about over one enemy phase then the complaint is pointless since the player can heal up or clear out come the next player-phase. A unit cannot suffer more attacks than there are attackers (well, assuming they don't double of course) and it is simply unlikely that there will be enough archers in the first place to make a noticeable difference between 2-3 range for bows on the EP.

However, also think about this. Any unit wielding a 1-range weapon is going to be targeted and unable to attack anyways. That is not a small amount to whom the range-increase is not going to really affect. Additionally bow-users will not suffer a penalty since they can counter at 3-range now. This just means that the only people whom would directly notice are people using thrown weapons and magic. We WANT thrown weapons nerfed anyways! Also, this would greatly affect the strategies of players just rushing ahead towards the end caring little for anything that isn't an EP counter-kill... The sort of strategy we want to start seeing people variate away from.

So it sounds like you're just whining because this might upset the current primary strategy for tier players ATM. Most of the units who were middle to low-tier won't be meaningfully affected by this since they couldn't counter in the first place and fliers, dancers, and units whom the player would have just rush ahead, I.E. the high-tier units that tend to dominate, would receive a hit bringing them back down...

But this is also assuming that they swarm in large numbers which they probably won't. So what you're saying probably won't happen and, even if it did, it would pretty much only affect the units we wanted nerfed and weakened anyways.

[Baldrick]

On a slightly off-topic note, 3 range archers would make armour knights more useful, since they'd have the best chance of surviving several enemy attacks at once.

[thanibomb]

Maybe only give 3 range to Snipers over a certain level? Make it an acquired skill like Bowfaire. It won't help much in early or mid game but its better than nothing. By the time you face enemy Snipers over level 15 you should be prepared for them anyway, even if it would make late game enemies much more challenging to fight.

Or just give us a variety of Longbows and Shortbows with a 1-2 range option with greatly decreased might.

[Jotari]

If you're not talking about over one enemy phase then the complaint is pointless since the player can heal up or clear out come the next player-phase. A unit cannot suffer more attacks than there are attackers (well, assuming they don't double of course) and it is simply unlikely that there will be enough archers in the first place to make a noticeable difference between 2-3 range for bows on the EP.

However, also think about this. Any unit wielding a 1-range weapon is going to be targeted and unable to attack anyways. That is not a small amount to whom the range-increase is not going to really affect. Additionally bow-users will not suffer a penalty since they can counter at 3-range now. This just means that the only people whom would directly notice are people using thrown weapons and magic. We WANT thrown weapons nerfed anyways! Also, this would greatly affect the strategies of players just rushing ahead towards the end caring little for anything that isn't an EP counter-kill... The sort of strategy we want to start seeing people variate away from.

So it sounds like you're just whining because this might upset the current primary strategy for tier players ATM. Most of the units who were middle to low-tier won't be meaningfully affected by this since they couldn't counter in the first place and fliers, dancers, and units whom the player would have just rush ahead, I.E. the high-tier units that tend to dominate, would receive a hit bringing them back down...

But this is also assuming that they swarm in large numbers which they probably won't. So what you're saying probably won't happen and, even if it did, it would pretty much only affect the units we wanted nerfed and weakened anyways.

I'm not tier player. Efficiency, LTCs and tier lists mean nothing to me. I've just finished playing a HHM playthrough where I finally decided to over use the much praised god tier Paladins. It resulted in me promoting Sain, my first paladin in Pale Flower of Darkness where he was killed by a mage at the very end of the chapter and I was so eager to be done with it already I just continued on without him. Then I benched Kent because he didn't have any promotion items. I just know that the biggest issue with keeping units alive in Fire Emblem is that the AI will select your weakest unit and focus all their attacks on that single unit. More range simply means more attacks which will lead to more player unit deaths. Taking a ton of hits and then fleeing, the archer will still likely be able to get you now unless your a mounted unit moving in a straight line. It would also put healers and a much bigger risk as they can be sniped much easier. As it is I think healers should have a 1-2 range stave to help them on the front lines better. That being said,

Maybe only give 3 range to Snipers over a certain level? Make it an acquired skill like Bowfaire. It won't help much in early or mid game but its better than nothing. By the time you face enemy Snipers over level 15 you should be prepared for them anyway, even if it would make late game enemies much more challenging to fight.

Or just give us a variety of Longbows and Shortbows with a 1-2 range option with greatly decreased might.

This I agree with. I'm not totally against the idea. I think if it's a late game feature or just an ordinary skill then it would shake up the formula in a good way (if you check my signature you'd even see it's the mastery skill I have for Marksman). In fact I'd love to see this as a single level. I just think that if it's something all bow users can do throughout the entire game, it'll lead to even more swarming than there already is and swarming in general is the biggest problem I have when playing Fire Emblem (not problem as in everything must change problem, problem, this gets my units killed large portions of the time problem).

[NekoKnight]

That's not the maximum number nor is it the number of archers I'm suggesting there could be,(I meant if there's several not is, which makes no sense). The. maximum number of attacks you can possibly get from within 3 range is 24. I halved the number since we're not likely to see so many archers. And I didn't necessarily mean over one enemy phase. Giving archers that much more range will inevitable lead to more swarming regardless as to what the number is. Most units can't survive more than four attacks anyway and with such ranger even if you retreat with a weakened unit, the archer(s) will be able to catch up and finish the unit off. Giving archers a permanent range buff will give them some more player phase benefit but it will only further amplify the focus of enemy phase.

That's my concern for a range buff for all bows. It will help the player some but the enemy a lot more. It's not as big a deal for beefier characters but for your fliers an squishy characters, it is significantly harder to defend them. The enemy doesn't need to worry about keeping all their units alive, you do.

If this were a property of only Snipers, I could get behind it but most people want a buff to bow users in general.