Would you be interested in having to care for Mounts in an FE Game?

[Samz707]

Assuming the next FE game did have some sort of base-system, would you be interested if you actually had to care for your mounts? as well as having to buy more of them.

You could name them and they'd have their own stats, this also means that if someone promotes to a mounted unit, you actually have to get them a mount rather than them suddenly having one.

So maybe a particular Pegasus, Wyvern, or Horse would be "Fast", so they can move a few extra spaces between turns, maybe another is "Vicious" so it does more damage but has a chance of beserking and forcing it's rider to charge the enemy when attacked.

Additionally, possibly animal racing would be a non-violent alternative to Arenas using your mounts to race other Pegasus, Wyverns, Horses or War-elephants for gold.

Additionally, it'd be possible for the mount or the rider to die without the other dying too. (So you could lose a rider then you'd have a beserked pegasus attacking the enemy that you can't control or you'd lose a mount and have an injured rider.) because Perma-death wants your tears when your favourite animal dies infront of you.

[eclipse]

No I'm not interested in certain Berwick Saga mechanics in FE.  This is one of them.

[Samz707]

12 minutes ago, eclipse said:

No I'm not interested in certain Berwick Saga mechanics in FE.  This is one of them.

Wasn't aware it was in Berwick Saga, how does it work there?

[SSbardock84]

Eh, not really. Too much more of this stuff and the games won't be Fire Emblem anymore. 

[eclipse]

9 minutes ago, Samz707 said:

Wasn't aware it was in Berwick Saga, how does it work there?

Your mounts can die, and you can reassign mounts via the stable in town.  They can also be healed with a certain character (perhaps in other ways, not sure).  And mounted classes need a mount, or they become their dismounted variants.

[Punished Dayni]

I mean, with Berwick it is something you'd have to consider for in the strategy, but I always thought it was a thing that would complicate matters too much as strategies being dependant on the mount being alive could be absolutely fucked by some unlucky hit/crit.

Part of me would like the mounts having stats or traits actually or having to get them for your units, but only if this was a title that didn't deal with classes to begin with and the mounts would be something you'd have to give to your units (same with armour, all of this being tied up with a 3H-esque levelling system). But again, that would be something very far out there, maybe more than the illusive Wii title was supposed to be.

[Benice]

1 hour ago, Samz707 said:

Wasn't aware it was in Berwick Saga, how does it work there?

Certain classes CAN rdie horses, but you have to buy horses for them. The horses have health bars and can die:; they are quite expensive and are a luxury to have. Expensive horses provide buffs, have bigger health bars, etc.

[Saint Rubenio]

1 hour ago, eclipse said:

No I'm not interested in certain Berwick Saga mechanics in FE.  This is one of them.

How DARE you

1 hour ago, Samz707 said:

Wasn't aware it was in Berwick Saga

Don't be too shocked. The "Kaga Did It First" meme exists for a reason. You'd be surprised by the amount of FE stuff that can be found in Kaga's Saga series.

 

On topic: I'm someone who enjoys complexity, so yeah, I'd like a mechanic like this! I mean, I already do like it in Berwick Saga! The more FEs resembled BWS, the happier I'd be, personally.

Still, I understand not everyone agrees with me there. Dismounting, at least, should definitely make a return, though, to give infantry a chance to shine. As it is, there's just no objective reason to ever use infantry over mounted units and fliers. Especially since reclassing is becoming more and more prevalent - why stay on the ground when you can go flier and do the exact same things with better stats and movement?

[vanguard333]

8 minutes ago, Saint Rubenio said:

On topic: I'm someone who enjoys complexity, so yeah, I'd like a mechanic like this! I mean, I already do like it in Berwick Saga! The more FEs resembled BWS, the happier I'd be, personally.

I don't; I find that all too often, complexity gets mistaken for depth and the result ends up being complex mush; given a choice, I would always prefer something simple and deep over something complex and shallow. 

 

I don't think I would want a system where you have to buy and care for mounts. That said, I think something akin to a mount-HP system could be interesting. Perhaps something like, if a mounted unit gets hit with an effective attack, not only do they take bonus damage but, if they survive, they are forced to dismount and remain dismounted for the rest of the fight. It would give flying units even more reason to be wary of arrows at least. 

[Saint Rubenio]

1 minute ago, vanguard333 said:

I don't; I find that all too often, complexity gets mistaken for depth and the result ends up being complex mush; given a choice, I would always prefer something simple and deep over something complex and shallow. 

I can understand where you're coming from. I suppose I should've said I enjoy complexity when done right. Berwick Saga did it right, in my opinion. But then there's something like Tactics Ogre, which has like 6 different schools of magic that all do the exact same thing, and 6 different types of equipment that only increase stats slightly, but still force you to spent far too long gearing everyone up. I dropped that game because, under all the preparation fluff, all I ever did was spam the overpowered bombs on the boss so they'd die before all my units did.

I'm also not against something "simple but deep" like you describe. Heck, my favorite FE (if we're not considering BWS as FE because of the Kaga connection) is New Mystery, which is, mechanically, a really simple game. There isn't much more than just moving, attacking and using staves. But the maps are so well made and the difficulty is handled so wonderfully that the game's a joy to play through. It benefits from the simplicity, too: between that and the fast pace of the game, it's really easy to pick up and play.

[Benice]

Going into Berwick saga, I thought I was gonna dislike having to buy horses, but I liked it because mounted units were still better than armored or infantry, but were also valuable and rare resources. I thought that it was a good way to balance the different unit types, (well, armored units were still not so good most of the time, but Marcel saved my life a lot, I'm not going to complain) and it is something I'd like to see in future games. Although I'd prefer it if the types of horses you got weren't RNG controlled.

[vanguard333]

32 minutes ago, Saint Rubenio said:

I can understand where you're coming from. I suppose I should've said I enjoy complexity when done right. Berwick Saga did it right, in my opinion. But then there's something like Tactics Ogre, which has like 6 different schools of magic that all do the exact same thing, and 6 different types of equipment that only increase stats slightly, but still force you to spent far too long gearing everyone up. I dropped that game because, under all the preparation fluff, all I ever did was spam the overpowered bombs on the boss so they'd die before all my units did.

I'm also not against something "simple but deep" like you describe. Heck, my favorite FE (if we're not considering BWS as FE because of the Kaga connection) is New Mystery, which is, mechanically, a really simple game. There isn't much more than just moving, attacking and using staves. But the maps are so well made and the difficulty is handled so wonderfully that the game's a joy to play through. It benefits from the simplicity, too: between that and the fast pace of the game, it's really easy to pick up and play.

Interesting. 

What did you think of my idea of simplifying it so it's more that a mounted unit loses their mount for the rest of the battle if hit by an effective attack?

Speaking of Berwick Saga, isn't it the case that there are infantry-specific weapons in the game? I was once told by someone that pikes and in fact a whole subset of lances were infantry-exclusive. That actually would be a good way to better balance mounted units: limit what weapons they can carry by making it that at least one weapon of each type is infantry-exclusive. 

[Zanarkin]

please, can we please stop making fire emblem games into sim games? I just want to have my turnbased strategy game back. Having mini games and stuff is fine and all, but if you are going to have it make it completely optional, no super op items that can only be obtained through them either. Three houses is a pain in the ass to play through again. Although stuff is skip able, it will severely weaken you to skip shit.

Edited May 6, 2020 by Zanarkin

[Saint Rubenio]

1 minute ago, vanguard333 said:

Interesting. 

What did you think of my idea of simplifying it so it's more that a mounted unit loses their mount for the rest of the battle if hit by an effective attack?

It seems like a bit of a middle-ground between Berwick Saga's system and FE's lack of a system. It doesn't require as much attention from the player, but it'll definitely bite fliers and riders in the butt if they try to solo maps. I dig it!

I'll just say it'd probably be better if it was just a plain healthbar for the horses. Restricting it to effective attacks makes it so that you have to fill maps to the brim with effective weapons for the system to be relevant.

3 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

Speaking of Berwick Saga, isn't it the case that there are infantry-specific weapons in the game? I was once told by someone that pikes and in fact a whole subset of lances were infantry-exclusive. That actually would be a good way to better balance mounted units: limit what weapons they can carry by making it that at least one weapon of each type is infantry-exclusive. 

Well, most spears are available for riders, except for the pike. Riders also have an exclusive weapon type, the lances (spears in BWS are like standard FE lances, while BWS lances are a different thing. It's kinda confusing, if you're coming from FE). However, there are no riders in the game that can use axes or magic, so I suppose you could say those are exclusive to infantry.

What BWS does that actually gives infantry their chance to shine is that rough terrain is much more prevalent than in FE. For example, nearly all the maps have at least a few cliffs, which horses outright cannot traverse. All horsemen have knight movement type, too, which makes them slower than infantry on rough terrain. Then there's also all kinds of terrain in every map that does not impede infantry, but does slow down cavalry. Things like that.

Just now, Zanarkin said:

please, can we please stop making fire emblem games into sim games? I just want to have my turnbased strategy game back. Having mini games and stuff is fine and all, but if you are going to have it make it completely optional. Three houses is a pain in the ass to play through again. Although stuff is skip able, it will severely weaken you to skip shit.

Okay, but isn't this... kinda sorta completely off-topic?

[vanguard333]

2 minutes ago, Saint Rubenio said:

It seems like a bit of a middle-ground between Berwick Saga's system and FE's lack of a system. It doesn't require as much attention from the player, but it'll definitely bite fliers and riders in the butt if they try to solo maps. I dig it!

I'll just say it'd probably be better if it was just a plain healthbar for the horses. Restricting it to effective attacks makes it so that you have to fill maps to the brim with effective weapons for the system to be relevant.

Well, most spears are available for riders, except for the pike. Riders also have an exclusive weapon type, the lances (spears in BWS are like standard FE lances, while BWS lances are a different thing. It's kinda confusing, if you're coming from FE). However, there are no riders in the game that can use axes or magic, so I suppose you could say those are exclusive to infantry.

What BWS does that actually gives infantry their chance to shine is that rough terrain is much more prevalent than in FE. For example, nearly all the maps have at least a few cliffs, which horses outright cannot traverse. All horsemen have knight movement type, too, which makes them slower than infantry on rough terrain. Then there's also all kinds of terrain in every map that does not impede infantry, but does slow down cavalry. Things like that.

Okay, but isn't this... kinda sorta completely off-topic?

1) Thanks. I appreciate it; especially the feedback. The HP idea is cool as well, though how would the damage be calculated? Would it be the same damage that's inflicted on the rider? Would they have their own defence/resistance stats? Would it be kind-of like how battalion damage is calculated?

2) Thanks for the clarification. 

3) I think his point was that maintaining horses would add to the "sim" aspect of FE that he doesn't like, and that's how it's on-topic. 

[Samz707]

20 minutes ago, Zanarkin said:

please, can we please stop making fire emblem games into sim games? I just want to have my turnbased strategy game back. Having mini games and stuff is fine and all, but if you are going to have it make it completely optional, no super op items that can only be obtained through them either. Three houses is a pain in the ass to play through again. Although stuff is skip able, it will severely weaken you to skip shit.

I mean yeah it'd need to not be too intrusive.

I've not played much of Three Houses at the moment but I'm not really a fan of running around the monestarry.

Ideally you'd still play most of the game like a traditional FE game, just access all this stuff from a menu or something in-between levels. (I guess like how changing everyone's inventories is accessed through a quick simple menu in-between battles in Echoes.)

I like the idea of this but I get your point about maybe the devs making it so  it'd be too much of a hassle to actually be fun doing, if they make it too in-depth to the point where it takes a ton of running around/going through menus/animations to do.

 

Edited May 6, 2020 by Samz707

[Zanarkin]

7 minutes ago, Saint Rubenio said:

Okay, but isn't this... kinda sorta completely off-topic?

depends, i'm indirectly answering your question by suggesting taking care of mounts would amount to a sort of simulation game. Which i don't particularly care for in fire emblem games

[Saint Rubenio]

Just now, vanguard333 said:

The HP idea is cool as well, though how would the damage be calculated? Would it be the same damage that's inflicted on the rider? Would they have their own defence/resistance stats? Would it be kind-of like how battalion damage is calculated?

For the sake of simplicity, I'd say just take the Berwick route: all damage the rider takes is dealt to the horse as well. Horse has its own health bar, and when it's depleted, the horse goes down. Horse cannot be healed (at least not by conventional means), because then it'd be too easy to keep it alive.

The point is that the rider has to be careful because, even if he has a constant supply of healing, any hit will bring him closer to a forced dismounting.

1 minute ago, Zanarkin said:

depends, i'm indirectly answering your question by suggesting taking care of mounts would amount to a sort of simulation game. Which i don't particularly care for in fire emblem games

Ah, I see... well, me personally, I didn't mean "take care of mounts" as in "have a minigame where you pet the horse", but rather consider the horses a resource that you have to work to preserve (as in, keep an eye on their health so they don't die on you in the middle of the battlefield). make them more than just a plain movement boost, as it is in most FE games.

[Zanarkin]

2 minutes ago, Saint Rubenio said:

Ah, I see... well, me personally, I didn't mean "take care of mounts" as in "have a minigame where you pet the horse", but rather consider the horses a resource that you have to work to preserve (as in, keep an eye on their health so they don't die on you in the middle of the battlefield). make them more than just a plain movement boost, as it is in most FE games.

In that sense, i could get behind the idea. It would be interesting to give mounted units a few more things to worry about, given how good they tend to be. Specially when it can be so easy to ignore weaknesses in some games.

[Pengaius]

Perhaps, if it's completely optional and offers no strategic benefit when done or any loss if ignored. Maybe something like ride a mount around in a pen for 2 minutes just for the heck of it, or have x character ride the horse around and get a small dialogue option with potentially humorous results. Or again, if in a base camp location, have the game randomly designate one unit to be riding a horse around parts of the camp, instead of just standing in the same place for a month. 

So, pointless diversion is fine. But LTC PRO STRATS FAST SUPPORT FOR OPTIMAL PAIR UP GAINS FASTER FAST FAST, I BOUGHT THIS GAME TO PLAY AS LITTLE OF IT AS POSSIBLE is not. 

[Samz707]

20 minutes ago, Pengaius said:

Perhaps, if it's completely optional and offers no strategic benefit when done or any loss if ignored. Maybe something like ride a mount around in a pen for 2 minutes just for the heck of it, or have x character ride the horse around and get a small dialogue option with potentially humorous results. Or again, if in a base camp location, have the game randomly designate one unit to be riding a horse around parts of the camp, instead of just standing in the same place for a month. 

So, pointless diversion is fine. But LTC PRO STRATS FAST SUPPORT FOR OPTIMAL PAIR UP GAINS FASTER FAST FAST, I BOUGHT THIS GAME TO PLAY AS LITTLE OF IT AS POSSIBLE is not. 

I would like to have some benefits but I guess minor stuff like "Some mounts can move 1-2 squares more than others or do 1-4 extra points of damage."

Though it'd be a pain to balance I guess, to have it worth doing but also not absolutely vital.

Definitely wouldn't want it to be so large you do more of it than actual fighting.

Edited May 6, 2020 by Samz707

[Kurt Irving]

I am so down. I just found and downloaded Berwick saga and was playing it last night, I didn't realize someone had finally gotten around to completing it. I realized it has equipable horses and was a little less pleased with my efforts. I think it has a lot of great mechanics. Horses mercenaries repairing some good, well distributed skills though the level system is tedious. I don't like how noticeably worse the enemy portraits are but I do like how strong and numerous they are. Gallius on map three hit me at like the worst time and I love it. I only lived because I hit a lucky 20 point hit he ran back to the cave and used the Vulnerary and then I blocked him in and used pulverize. I was however mad that I couldn't mug the other dude for the swordbreaker, I wanted it so bad I cheated for it only to reread and realize you can't take rare items. I hoard them don't ask. I was never going to use it. Leon is Og. One of my faves. Death match every thing for the equip exp at least. If he dies he was too weak anyway. The ultimate engine I have in mind and outlined is way grittier and realistic than FE or Berwick but I would probably be the only way who plays it and making a game just to play it for yourself seems pointless. So I am chilling.

[CatManThree]

4 hours ago, eclipse said:

Your mounts can die, and you can reassign mounts via the stable in town.  They can also be healed with a certain character (perhaps in other ways, not sure).  And mounted classes need a mount, or they become their dismounted variants.

Gives me XCOM vibes for some reason lol. Not sure why.

Anyway a mechanic like this is something that would most certainly not work in a traditional FE game of any sort. It being in Berwick is understandable as to my knowledge the game is drastically different from even the original TRS, and is more or less mostly its own thing. This would allow a mechanic such as this to probably be more appropriate.

[Light Strategist]

I'd like it but only if it was somewhat minor.

It doesn't feel right to have an avatar that's a mounted unit and then that mount's never interacted with in any way for example. Maybe just have it for the player and they can have so many mounts of each species or something to give them something else to do if they don't quite want to progress with the story. Maybe they could also get things like surges from Awakening and Fates that could give boosts to their own stats that might help provide ideal boosts for the rider in combat. Just to provide a few ideas.

Racing could a fun alternative/compliment to arenas if there was a stamina mechanic for them that's applied both in and out of races to provide some element of strategy in choosing who to place a wager on.

I dunno. I think there could be a nice element of strategy to it providing it's not TOO much of a time sink. It'd need to be able to be optional in the confines of the middle difficulties so it only matters truly for the highest level play for example.

[Dragoncat]

I'm content with mounts getting names and maybe more color options and that's it. It's a neat idea though.