Linked Attacks, should they return?

[whase]

Linked Attacks give a bonus to hit and avoid (and sometimes might) to units attacking an enemy in range of other allies. (For a full explanation look here) Its use increases with support level between those allies. Many FE games before have given allies with support levels bonuses to being nearby, but this is the first FE game to use linked attacks for support bonuses.

I have seen a lot of topics about discussing new elements 3H has introduced, but none about linked attacks. (Hope I didn't just miss them, I did try searching for them.) This made me wonder, how do people actually view this new mechanic? Do people generally agree on whether it's good or not, and whether or not it should become a new staple in Fire Emblem?

So please, discuss, what are your feelings towards Linked Attacks?

[LoneStar]

The way it works in Three houses makes sense. You get bonuses for your allies being in range to attack an enemy. But it gets annoying at times having to trade weapon swap some of them to get the bonuses. As opposed to how a similar mechanic works in the other games were you just had to be close to an ally.

I'd say for the general boost to Acc/Avoid/Mt that it should be given if you are close to an ally, and Gambit Boost occurs if the foe is in your allies' attacking range.

[BergelomeuSantos]

It's a pretty good mechanic for fighting Powerful Enemies and Maddening Mode as it slowly brings the enemy at the same level as you, but it isn't priceless as you would be ''wasting'' actions. And I like this! Because that's what a balanced mechanic should do in my opinion: Give and take something. But outside of that, it doesn't really affect gameplay that much.

Also, it really saved my hide at one of my joke runs (unarmed only) as it allowed my Hit Rates to get high enough against the Death Knight on every encounter.

[Zapp Branniglenn]

I like it because it's kind of a flanking system which had been in my game mechanics wishlist for awhile. In universe, the enemy has their attention divided by multiple opponents in range, thus limiting the directions they could dodge and pressuring them into making a bad move. I kind of disagree with it giving our own units avoid, since I can't think of an in universe reason for this. Ditto for enemy units being unable to take advantage of linked attacks, since it ought to be basic military procedure to flank the enemy. I'm also not cool on ranged attackers providing identical bonuses. Even from what I remember in DnD, you needed a special trait to do that as a bow user, and almost never as a mage. So now that archers and mages can fling from as many as four spaces away, it seems too powerful. And being able to do it with siege spells is just a meme, probably an oversight on the part of the developers.

But yeah, I'd be actively disappointed if this mechanic or a similar mechanic with a different name, did not appear in future titles. It makes sense in universe, it adds to gameplay depth where positioning units matter, and it's another reason not to try low manning the game

Edited April 22, 2020 by Glennstavos

[FoxyGrandpa]

Yikes, I wasn't even aware that the hit & avoid boosts was affected by the unit's attack range. I thought it was just the standard support bonuses of being 1-3 spaces near an ally & the attack range only affected Gambit hit.

Principally, I like the attack range mechanic because its like a neutered version of the pair up attack from Fates. However, I think standard linked bonuses should have increased might by 1-2 to make it easier to get kills w/ weak units & make positioning while attacking more important. It could be seen as OP since you can potentially stack a lot of attack, but I think its balanced out by limited deployment slots. 

 

 

[Ika Musume]

I can see why people like it, but it's just too broken and unusual. I feel like it makes Three Houses feel like less of a Fire Emblem game, even more than it already does to me. Don't get me wrong though, I love Three Houses and think it has a mazing gameplay but it just seems a little watered down. That's all.

Edited April 22, 2020 by Ika Musume

[anikom15]

I'm not a fan of this type of mechanic. Support bonuses are okay. There needs to be some mechanical advantage to support and I can't think of anything else aside from adjutant-type, but positional advantages like this should be based on terrain. Everything else should be geometrically natural (e.g. putting a unit next to another one closes an opening to attack, allowing you to limit the number of attacks a unit will get in EP). I usually clump my characters together to build supports. Getting linked attack bonuses from that is usually a positive side-effect, not an intention.

FWIW, I don't like the weapon triangle either, and I don't like flanking in D&D. I haven't played with a group that uses flanking in years. Basically anything you add that gives you an advantage reduces the effective advantages/disadvantages of other elements of the map, including the map geometry, terrain, traps, etc. This is okay to an extent (e.g.  attack stance), but things like the weapon triangle and D&D flanking (both 3e and 5e variants) provide such an advantage that it basically nullifies all other positional strategies.

My intuition suggests these sorts of mechanics encourage EP strategies, but from what I can tell, linked attacks don't apply during EP, so it nullifies that. It creates a weird asymmetry which makes the mechanic even less intuitive and useful.  I did like both guard and attack stances from FEs 13 & 14. I felt like it gave me a lot of strategies for PP as well as having some interesting side-effects if you don't think far ahead. Linked attacks don't really do this, unless you're an idiot and end up putting some soft unit in enemy range because you wanted a linked attack.

Edited April 22, 2020 by anikom15

[SatsumaFSoysoy]

Links go from a nice bonus to a necessity in Maddening. I liked it for helping add stability to strats, but perhaps I shouldn't have been stuck with ~50% hit rates on most everyone to begin with from a perspective of difficulty balance. It adds additional value to archers, who have struggled to be relevant in many games, but it has the side effect of adding to the centralization of certain mages over others. Those whose spell lists have 1~3 range spells or siege spells are better, and Links are another reason to why.

Overall, though, I much prefer Attack Stance from Fates. Guard Stance was still too broken despite attempts to nerf Pair Up from Awakening, but I feel that Attack Stance was almost perfect in its role, and required more thought in its use as you had to opportunity to quickly burst down a threat, but usually required you to be more careful about attacking order and position. With Links, it's usually just a matter of micromanaging inventories to have the right weapon/spell equipped to enable the Link, something especially easy with infinite trading.

[leesangstar10]

Personally I think it makes more sense than past supports bonuses. I feel like if an enemy is surrounded by army they should be at a disadvantage, even if they don't support each other. And giving extra dmg if close ally is near was good.

However, I don't like how they got rid of affinity. Ik that it doesn't make too much of a gameplay difference, but I liked it because it made each character more unique. 

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

I think they're really cool, as a replacement to either the "combat boosts within 3 tiles" of traditional supports, and the "increased stat boosts in pair-up" from Fateswakening. I like how it (along with gambits) discourages juggernauting/soloing, as you need to deploy lots of units for the boosts. It also gives extra utility to weapons like the Longbow and siege tomes for mindful players, so there's that. I would want to see Linked attacks return, at least in any games that also use a gambit system. Although I agree with those suggesting that enemies should get their effect as well, and that they should come into play on enemy phase (like traditional support boosts).

[whase]

Oh, votes are more spread out than I thought. Thank you all for sharing your opinions, there are some interesting points brought up.

I purposely didn't give my opinion in the opening post, so here's my opinion;

Personally, I love this system. It makes positioning and range much more important, and as many have said, discourages low-manning (which is my usual tactic in FE). I don't even mind that I'm constantly equipping other weapons on my units to get the boost.

There are some points I believe they could improve or change to make the system even better though;
- The boosts should always be active, for all teams, in all phases
- I believe this should be a standard boost, not based on support level (so keep support bonuses separate.)
- The longer the range is, the lesser the bonus should be, this somewhat solves siege tomes

[Jierda]

Well, I found this system to be the most interesting take on supports we've had in a FE game.

Still, there are a couple things I'd like to see changed/fixed:

- As many have said before, bonuses to Mt/Hit/Avo should also apply on EP. Currently, only such bonuses provided by an Adjutant do.

- Units with no support levels with the fighting unit should still provide a linked attack/gambit boost bonus, currently they provide none. The Serenes wiki says allies with no support grant a +3 Hit/Avo or +1 Might +5 Hit boost, but that is actually not true.

- Ennemies should also benefit from linked attacks/gambit boosts.

[Dark Holy Elf]

I like linked attacks quite a lot and definitely hope they return.

-They're a more intuitive use of support bonuses than some previous games, because they're always visible on the combat projection screen.
-They allow for more tactical decisions of where to move and place units to maximize your bonuses, especially to boost attacks which might otherwise be unreliable.
-They improve the reliability of strategies which I appreciate. Even attacks with relatively low base accuracy can, with enough support, be brought into the 90+ range.
-They reward good player phase play; contrast the support bonuses of GBA/Tellius which were most potent in evade stacking to get an invincible enemy phase juggernaut, which is much less tactical.

The second point is the key one, really.

[haarhaarhaar]

On 5/9/2020 at 8:34 AM, Jierda said:

Ennemies should also benefit from linked attacks/gambit boosts

Am I the only one who's experienced an enemy gambit boost? I definitely remember it happening on Maddening with two common enemies adjacent to my Byleth, in Hanneman/Manuela's paralogue. It's the only instance I can remember off the top of my head because it happened fairly recently, but I'm pretty sure it's happened before as well. I agree enemies should get linked attack boosts as well though.

I quite like Linked Attacks from the perspective of rewarding supports, but I also don't see why the boosts are limited to those who can have supports (on any team). Monsters probably shouldn't, cause it doesn't make sense in-game, but every other unit should at least be giving a hit boost to allied units engaging enemies in their shared range.