Jump to content
Whitfield1999

Anyone else glad the weapon triangle is falling out of favor with intelligent systems?

Recommended Posts

Just now, Shadow Mir said:

Bold: Uhhh... what? Isn't that supposed to read "it's NOT as easy"?

Typo, yeah, it's meant to say it's not as easy, lmao.

4 minutes ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

I haven't played it yet, but Berwick Saga has Spears, the usual infantry stabby polearms, and Lances, which are heavy cavalry-only weapon like actual IRL lances. Lances in BS have a high Mt value, and additional Mt is added for every space moved before attacking on that turn, as if you're charging at the enemy that whole time and the momentum is transferred into your strike. Daggers in that game have also ignore Def but have really poor Mt and an increased chance of inflicting the Wounded and Crippled statuses compared to other weapons. As if you're finding that one opening in the enemy's armor and slicing it.

Well, to go further into depth, there are also anti-cavalry pole weapons (pikes, halberds, bills, and voulges) that you cannot use on horseback and are distinct from standard infantry spears which could be used with shields.  Regular spears are kind of a tricky category, honestly.  Somewhat off-topic, I recall someone tried to argue that Mipha using her trident with one-hand (or rather, holding it one-handed, because she'll use her second hand in some attacks) meant she was stronger than Link - using a spear with one or two hands is hardly a matter of strength, but rather of skill and preference.

At the end of the day, there's a reason they keep this relatively simple.  If you were to categorize every single kind of weapon there was, you'd either end up with classes using too many different kinds of weapons or weapon types being so restrictive that most units will probably only ever receive one weapon and the ability to carry different weapons would be mostly rendered moot.  And honestly, if realism was applied to a T swordsmen would just not be a thing in battles because a sword is a self-defense weapon, not a primary battle weapon that you use in formation with a few dozen other soldiers (of course, this is barring the Romans during a certain period of their history, but they switched back to the spear because it was more effective overall on the battlefield).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having not played Three Houses, my personal opinion is that if there's going to be differences within weapon types there has to also be differences between weapon types. Steel Sword vs. Iron Axe is one example of similar paper stats that I personally come across a lot when I'm playing the GBA games. To compare them (Sword/Axe):

Spoiler
+------+-----+-------+-------+
|      |  Mt |  Hit  |   Wt  |
+------+-----+-------+-------+
|  FE6 | 8/8 | 70/65 | 10/10 |
+------+-----+-------+-------+
|  FE7 | 8/8 | 75/75 | 10/10 |
+------+-----+-------+-------+
|  FE8 | 8/8 | 75/75 | 10/10 |
+------+-----+-------+-------+
|  FE9 | 8/8 | 70/75 | 12/10 |
+------+-----+-------+-------+
| FE10 | 9/8 | 85/80 | 11/11 |
+------+-----+-------+-------+
| FE11 | 8/7 | 90/80 |  8/6  |
+------+-----+-------+-------+
| FE12 | 8/7 | 90/80 |  ~/~  |
+------+-----+-------+-------+
| FE13 | 8/7 | 90/80 |  ~/~  |
+------+-----+-------+-------+
| FE14 | 9/8 | 85/70 |  ~/~  |
+------+-----+-------+-------+
| FE16 | 8/8 | 85/70 |  10/7 |
+------+-----+-------+-------+

Up through FE9 they're almost if not completely identical, at most differing by 5% Hit (and 2 Wt in FE9, but anyone who actually has the choice isn't going to notice that). By far the biggest difference is in FE14, with the biggest stat discrepancy on top of the Steel Sword's -3 AS and -5% Avoid. There are the cost and durability differences, but that's rarely ever brought up as a concern.

With this in mind, without the weapon triangle there's no point for a Hero to ever use any axe aside from a Hand Axe (and that's assuming it's not FE10 or FE14 where ranged swords are common). Swords are weaker and more accurate than equivalent axes, but they're also weaker and more accurate than superior swords. Unless there's something unique to higher-level axes you're better off sticking with the swords that you have better ranks in. The reverse isn't quite as true, especially in the later games, but how much incentive is there to increase your sword rank from base if a plain Iron Axe is already so similar to a Steel Sword?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a traditionalist. Swords > Axes > Spears > Swords, yes. Dark > Anima > Light > Dark, sure. The within-anima triangle, depending on game, that's okay. Don't do whatever the fuck Fates did.

I like it as a nice little way for the player to counterpick opponents, and think the game is gently better off for it - and building FEH around it was a great decision. But it's not a dealbreaker, not to have it. I'd rather it not be there than be the FE14 abomination.

Edited by Parrhesia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to my view on the topic, like I said, I don't think it's going to stay gone. The magic triangle, on the other hand, I wouldn't shed a tear over, because it was irrelevant and redundant anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ertrick36 said:

There's also the magic triangle to talk about, but I'm not really a physicist or meteorologist so I have no goddamn clue if fire would beat wind - with what I know about fire it would depend on if it's a grease fire or not and whether there's any nearby kindle for the fire to catch on.  Gameplay-wise I think it may complicate magic a bit too much.  I like when magic is more a class of its own and has special properties, instead of when it's paralleled to the physical weapons or just kinda bullied into a corner like it is in Fates.

The thought process is that wind + fire = bigger fire. Or maybe that a massive fire makes it's own wind (hence the term Firestorm).

6 hours ago, Ertrick36 said:

Well, to go further into depth, there are also anti-cavalry pole weapons (pikes, halberds, bills, and voulges) that you cannot use on horseback and are distinct from standard infantry spears which could be used with shields.  Regular spears are kind of a tricky category, honestly.  Somewhat off-topic, I recall someone tried to argue that Mipha using her trident with one-hand (or rather, holding it one-handed, because she'll use her second hand in some attacks) meant she was stronger than Link - using a spear with one or two hands is hardly a matter of strength, but rather of skill and preference.

A bit of column A, a bit of column B. Yes, skill is important, but spears are heavier than swords, so to use a spear with 1 hand, you have to use more strength than someone using a 1 handed sword.

Quote

At the end of the day, there's a reason they keep this relatively simple.  If you were to categorize every single kind of weapon there was, you'd either end up with classes using too many different kinds of weapons or weapon types being so restrictive that most units will probably only ever receive one weapon and the ability to carry different weapons would be mostly rendered moot.  And honestly, if realism was applied to a T swordsmen would just not be a thing in battles because a sword is a self-defense weapon, not a primary battle weapon that you use in formation with a few dozen other soldiers (of course, this is barring the Romans during a certain period of their history, but they switched back to the spear because it was more effective overall on the battlefield).

Agreed, it's Realism vs Playability.

If FE was realistic, Lords would be non-combatants, Axmen would be trash, most actual combat classes would use either Lances or Bows, there would be few (or no) female combatants, etc., etc., etc. This is a fantasy series, complete with magic and dragons. Doesn't sound like a fun game to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the Weapon Triangle being there in FE6 and the DS games, but besides that? I don't dislike it, but in most games with it it stops mattering past the early game unless you wanna use an Axe against a Sword.

In FE6 it works because that entire game is built around shaky hit rates and minimizing RNG, you want to leave as little things to chance as possible in FE6 and using the Weapon Triangle to your advantage is one of the many tools you can use to help with that. In the DS games it matters more as you will want to make sure that as your units grow they can make use of their Weapon Level Bonus while negating the enemies', which in those games that are built not around dodging and doubling enemies but around either one-shotting enemies or making multiple enemies attack a single unit once to wear them down and finish them off in one big hit, means a LOT.

On the other games, as i said before, it stops mattering really quickly outside of extreme examples like Axes Vs. Swords. I don't mind the Weapon Triangle being in those games but it feels a lot like a very artificial and hollow way of trying to make multiple melee weapon types in the game mean anything, like the devs KNOW the three melee physical weapons are all three flavors of the same thing so instead of designing them to be actually different they just add a RPS system.

I would much rather have IS try to make the three melee weapon types more genuinely different, like, just to spitball, making a game where outside of the basic Iron -> Steel -> Silver -> Brave types, only one of the three gets to have weapons of a specific effect, like say, make Killing Edges a thing but not Killer Lances or Killer Axes, make Horseslayers a thing but not Halberds or Zanbatos, make Hammers a thing but not Armorslayers or Heavy Spears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

one of the things im kinda noticing here is that a lot of people who dislike the WT/wouldn't mind if it was gone still want each weapon type to feel distinctly different from each other. And i think thats a good enough example of why the weapon triangle is important to FE and in fact should be given a stronger emphasis [on atleast one occasion]. because as it is the WT problem is that it isn't often potent enough. in most games with it the most youll get is a +/-10 to hit and +/- 1 to mt which can be easily overcome by a prepared player so it feels negligible. but in concept its basically there to accentuate the differences between weapons afterall in the same manner that giving them more distinctive statlines would. so instead why not take a page from heroes and have a hard 20% reduction or bonus to attack depending on the weapon. so say if a myrmidon in fe7 attacked a fighter and both had silver weapons the damage would go from this

18 from myrmidon

19 from fighter

to say something like this

20 from myrmidon

16 from fighter

and thats only applying that to attack, you could apply that to hit as well and go from this

108 to hit myrmidon

64 to hit fighter

to something like this

118 to hit myrmidon

59 to hit fighter

and thats just limiting the bonus or penalty to 20%. There is also the alternative of jacking up the preexisting bonuses and reductions. a +/- 10 instead becomes a +/- 50 for instance like the values the breaker skills in fates/awaking apply. instead having it be in the base WT system though. so

108 to hit myrmidon

64 to hit fighter

would theoretically go to

148 to hit myrmidon

24 to hit fighter

in this situation. which is excessively extreme but does a good job of accentuating weapon differences and 'the right time to use the right weapon'.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, NobodiePichu said:

because as it is the WT problem is that it isn't often potent enough. in most games with it the most youll get is a +/-10 to hit and +/- 1 to mt which can be easily overcome by a prepared player so it feels negligible. but in concept its basically there to accentuate the differences between weapons afterall in the same manner that giving them more distinctive statlines would. so instead why not take a page from heroes and have a hard 20% reduction or bonus to attack depending on the weapon.

I already discussed that in my post agreeing with Combat Arts: the numbers are small because they have to be in order to be reasonable when applied passively. Being able to gain 5 or more Atk/Def or 30 or more Hit/Avo is just too strong to be on something that can always be up. (On that note, FE13/14 Breakers are too strong.) Heroes also locks characters into a color, while mainline games often have either multiple weapons or Reaver weapons, so you do have to rotate characters if the triangle works against you (or stack combat buffs to high heaven but w/e).

Now admittedly, if this principle applied to just weapon stats it wouldn't be too bad, as Mt/Hit tend to stay within more reasonable bands without character stats propping them up. But there's another question for you: Where is the math behind your calcs? Show us the base Atk and Hit values so that we know what you're talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Whitfield1999 said:

Weapon triangles inherently limit your options by forcing you to play rock paper scissors.

If only there were weapons that could revers and increase the effects of the WT... oh wait.

9 hours ago, Ertrick36 said:

Other times it can prove too crippling for some units, such as in Fates how the already severely nerfed mages also have to contend with weapon disadvantage against armor knights and cavaliers.

Magic is one of the best ways to get shit killed in Fates. Mages just don´t have either SPD (Odin, Leo, Orochi) or no SKL (Nyx, promoted Elise). That´s not even accounting for the kids, who generally surpass their parents. And you just gave examples of two unit types that mages are useful against.

9 hours ago, Ertrick36 said:

On realism, [...]  I'll also point to hidden weapons and bows being part of the weapon triangle in Fates as a colossally unrealistic situation - bows have no unique advantages or disadvantages against other types of weaponry as they're ranged weapons (no archer would be a total sitting duck when engaged in melee, though, they would brandish a sword and fight if it came to it), and you'd be a fool to use throwing knives and throwing stars as actual weapons meant to kill your foes.  And just try to stab a skilled swordsman with a knife - the swordsman will laugh at you as they cut your knife-hand off.  Magic in this regard is kinda whatever in terms of realism, but I doubt spells would throw off arrows any more than they'd throw off knives.

Bows have the unique advantage of being a ranged weapon. The closer you get to an Archer the better he can shoot you. If Fire Emblem was about realism Bows would have 1-x range, different types of ammunition and Archers and Bow Knights would be the best units. 

Also, talking realism, no one that wields a knife is going to walk up to a swordsman and challenge them to a duel. What classes use them? Thiefs, Ninjas and Maids/Butlers. Two of these will realisitcally slit your throat while you sleep or just walk around unsuspecting and the other two use it for... cooking in which they would put poison to kill/weaken your heroic swordsman.

2 hours ago, L3xandr3 said:

Axmen would be trash

The Varangian Guard would like to know exactly why you think they suck.

Edited by Imuabicus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Ertrick36 said:

Well, to go further into depth, there are also anti-cavalry pole weapons (pikes, halberds, bills, and voulges) that you cannot use on horseback and are distinct from standard infantry spears which could be used with shields.  Regular spears are kind of a tricky category, honestly.  Somewhat off-topic, I recall someone tried to argue that Mipha using her trident with one-hand (or rather, holding it one-handed, because she'll use her second hand in some attacks) meant she was stronger than Link - using a spear with one or two hands is hardly a matter of strength, but rather of skill and preference.

At the end of the day, there's a reason they keep this relatively simple.  If you were to categorize every single kind of weapon there was, you'd either end up with classes using too many different kinds of weapons or weapon types being so restrictive that most units will probably only ever receive one weapon and the ability to carry different weapons would be mostly rendered moot.

To bring up Berwick again, Spears and Lances both use the same weapon rank, Lances are restricted simply by lacking the skill that lets you use them in addition to Spears. Daggers and Blades are similarly considered subtypes of Swords sharing the same weapon rank.

And for one-handed vs. two-handed weapons, why not have the distinction? One-handed spears could let you use a shield for extra defense, whereas a two-handed spear would offer potentially greater offense. Or in the case of swords, how about someone who can dual wield a one-handed sword and a dagger? That ought to play a bit differently from someone using a hefty two-handed greatsword.

I would entertain an FE where having a good understanding of a more involved equipment system is essential to success. This would be but one aspect of it. Alongside shields as alluded to above, probably body armor which would be restricted based on class and unchangeable mid-battle to differentiate it from other forms of equipment, buyable horses and flier mounts having HP and unique stats, the usual accessory slot, maybe keep those 3H Battalions. Shift some of the importance away from growths into gear. Not saying I'd want it forever, as a one-off with this unique flavor is fine.

 

2 hours ago, X-Naut said:

I already discussed that in my post agreeing with Combat Arts: the numbers are small because they have to be in order to be reasonable when applied passively. Being able to gain 5 or more Atk/Def or 30 or more Hit/Avo is just too strong to be on something that can always be up. (On that note, FE13/14 Breakers are too strong.)

Agreed. If you emphasized the Weapon Triangle too much, I'd think it'd become a black hole which would be a net negative on strategy, and I wouldn't be wanting of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, X-Naut said:

I already discussed that in my post agreeing with Combat Arts: the numbers are small because they have to be in order to be reasonable when applied passively. Being able to gain 5 or more Atk/Def or 30 or more Hit/Avo is just too strong to be on something that can always be up. (On that note, FE13/14 Breakers are too strong.) Heroes also locks characters into a color, while mainline games often have either multiple weapons or Reaver weapons, so you do have to rotate characters if the triangle works against you (or stack combat buffs to high heaven but w/e).

Now admittedly, if this principle applied to just weapon stats it wouldn't be too bad, as Mt/Hit tend to stay within more reasonable bands without character stats propping them up. But there's another question for you: Where is the math behind your calcs? Show us the base Atk and Hit values so that we know what you're talking about.

the math would would be taking the base stats of the myrmidon class and the fighter class from fe7, so 4 str 9 skl 0 lck in the myrms case and 5 str 2 skl 0 lck in the fighters case, and the silver sword silver axe stats from the same game so 13 80 for the silver sword and 15 70 for the silver axe. admittedly though i got the calculation wrong for weapon accuracy base modifiers in fe7 which is 15 hit not 10 hit in blazing blade. hit is calculated in fe7 as skl*2+lck*0.5+hit+support+tactician stars, but since we dont have to worry about lck since both classes have a base of 0 in fe7 and support or tactician stars dont apply in this calculation it becomes skl*2+hit for simplicities sake so myrm to hi become 98 well fighter to hit is 74. damage is much easier since its just str+mt to 17 damage for myrm and 20 damage for fight. in base fe7 WT bonuses turn that into a revised 18 113 for myrm and 19 59 for fight. if instead of the regular WT modifiers however we apply a 20% modifier to both damage like in FEH and expand that to hit, that is to say x+(x*0.2) or x-(x*0.2), then it becomes 20 118 for myrm and 16 59 for fight. if we used fe7 as a baseline anyways. and sure heroes has 1 colour restrictions for units but most tier one units and some tier 2 units tend to be locked to one weapon anyways, and for late game it helps encourage training a unit in newly acquired weapons upon promotion to be more flexible in countering enemy and weapons they wield so i dont see the downside there. id even go as far as to say that it should be a 30% modifier instead turning the fe7 example into 22 127 for myrm and 14 51 for fighter. and it wouldn't hurt the early game either if its a percental modifier since late game modifiers would be more prominient. say the fighter in the previous example had 20 str and 10 skl which would turn his output into 40 damage 90 hit with a silver weapon. going back to the 20 percent modifier to lowball it that 40 90 instead becomes a 32 78 when up against a sword, but conversely a 48 108 against a lance. and this is without taking into account dodge which you could also modify with 20% to further emphasize the WT but that might be a step too far so id keep it to hti and damage.

and in regards to the 50 hit modifier idea, well im not enthusiastic about that one like the 20% modifier but i do think it emphasizes why the WT is atleast handy to fe design. cause you are right that passively you dont want things too extreme but i feel thats more so a case for why you dont remove the WT and rely on weapon stat differences instead which are what i would consider the passive modifier in damage calculation. the WT is an active modifier dependent on what weapons going against what so giving it greater strength [say 3 damage and 30 hit modifiers instead of 50 just to pull it back] gives it more influence and weight in game design and player decisions.

not to say id be insistent on its inclusion, i really enjoy echoes. But echoes compensates for a lack of weapon triangle by having the classes be hyper specialized [barons are defense sinks, gold knights are flat aside from high mov, dread fighters are spd sinks etc]. three houses is in my opinion the wrong way to do it since it turns things into a snore fest by keeping classes more even, and the fact that they felt they need to sneak the WT back in to compensate through breaker skills on everything in maddening and cindered shadows is a good example of why the WT works more often then not [hence why i think it should be given more omph].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

 

I would entertain an FE where having a good understanding of a more involved equipment system is essential to success. This would be but one aspect of it. Alongside shields as alluded to above, probably body armor which would be restricted based on class and unchangeable mid-battle to differentiate it from other forms of equipment, buyable horses and flier mounts having HP and unique stats, the usual accessory slot, maybe keep those 3H Battalions. Shift some of the importance away from growths into gear. Not saying I'd want it forever, as a one-off with this unique flavor is fine.

I did like shields in Three Houses.

It's actually a reason why I like FE7, Mines and Light Runes are quite-useful pieces of equipment only brought down by their extreme rarity and I'd like them to return.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, L3xandr3 said:

A bit of column A, a bit of column B. Yes, skill is important, but spears are heavier than swords, so to use a spear with 1 hand, you have to use more strength than someone using a 1 handed sword.

I'm gonna say it's not necessarily general raw strength, but rather a certain set of muscles and muscle memory.  Thing is, it sounds like you're talking about using a spear with a grip that's a good ways away from the center of balance.  If you try holding a broom by the very tip of the haft completely horizontal, of course it's gonna take a considerable amount of strength to hold it like that - that's just how physics work.  But there are ways to hold a spear one-handed that won't require much strength at all, and in a resting position you should always carry it at the center of balance.  The nice thing about spears compared to swords is that you can easily slide your hand up or down the haft, even with just one hand.  It's a matter of knowing where to hold it at what times.

And to further discuss, no, there isn't much need for strength in thrusting the weapon.  You need good fitness/stamina to do that, but strength is of secondary or tertiary importance compared to other factors in this respect.  I think it's not accurate to say it's "skill" so much as training and practice that makes for a good spearman.

20 hours ago, L3xandr3 said:

If FE was realistic, Lords would be non-combatants, Axmen would be trash, most actual combat classes would use either Lances or Bows, there would be few (or no) female combatants

I take issue with all of these statements.  This is not at all the reason why realism would bog down the game.  Moreover I'm gonna take back what I said - realism can make for a fun game if used correctly, as games like Kingdom Come Deliverance and Mount and Blade are honestly quite entertaining games - it's just when you get too bogged down trying to craft the absolute most realistic game ever is when it becomes troublesome.

Lords did take to the field to wage wars.  Not all the time, as they would have to also ensure they're still around to issue commands to their troops, but they did.  If they didn't then dukes and kings would not have died on the field of battle - we wouldn't have seen to the deaths of Charles the Bold or King Harold, two famous cases of higher-caste nobles dying on the battlefield.  It really just depend, but lords did train for war and fight on the battlefield directly.  If there was a time when they might not have, it'd probably have been post-Medieval period when all the noble families were firmly established and have become even more absurdly wealthy than they were before.  But in Medieval times lords did indeed fight.

Axemen would not be trash, or else axes would never have even been a type of weapon used on the battlefield.  Spears would reign supreme on a battlefield, and swords are great for personal defense, but the advantage of axes is the force they can strike with.  You can actually use them fairly nimbly, just not as nimbly as swords.  Even taking into consideration they aren't quite as nimble, there are two ways to get around that.  Either you get a shield or you get a bigger axe.  Yes, seriously, I'm saying you get a bigger axe.  Not fantasy bigger, where they make the axe head absurdly large for some reason, I mean you turn it into effectively a polearm like a Dane axe.  The extended reach of a Dane axe means you can strike from a safe distance, but it also has more power meaning it's basically impossible to parry it with a one-handed sword.  But the biggest advantage to using a weapon with lots of blunt force is dealing with armored foes.  A slashing or piercing weapon simply cannot get through plate armor or good quality chain mail (I'm talking riveted, high-grade steel chain mail) - you can maybe get a bodkin arrow to get through the chain mail, but the only way you'll get through plate armor with an arrow is if you get lucky or if, in melee combat, you half-sword.  But if you have a blunt-force weapon like a mace or an axe (axe isn't as good because its blade means its force is more easily deflected by the rounded plating of most 15th Century plate armor, but still) then you don't need to pierce the armor - you can jostle the wearer and the blunt force will transfer to wherever you strike without needing to pierce through the armor.  Axes also do have a design that allows them to hook things, so you could use it to wrench a weapon from someone's hand (or simply push it aside) or you could grab at an enemy and pull them towards your formation, enabling your allies to easily swarm them.  There are other uses for axes as well, but overall axes are not trash weapons in the real life.  If you're talking about those dumb speedo-wearing buffoons called "fighters" in the games, yeah they'd suck, but it's because they use oversized axes and don't wear armor, not because axes are inherently a bad weapon.

Most "combat classes" is a bit of a misnomer, but it is true that most troops would use spears or bows.  Thing is, though, that most troops were not regular soldiers, but levied peasants who were given a measly wage if they were lucky, handed a weapon, and told to stick with their mates as they marched against what feels like an almost certain doom.  It wasn't only because of spears generally being better for fighting in formation, but also because spears were exceedingly cheap to produce compared to swords, meaning they could be more easily mass-produced and given to every soldier in the army.  You have to keep in mind that for much of the Medieval period there were no standing armies.  You really just had three sources of soldiers - your few well-trained knights (who were nobles in their own right), your peasant levies, and mercenaries with questionable methods and allegiance.  The last one is tricky because at times they would be willing to turncoat if offered better deals by the opposing side of a conflict, and they may end up turning on that side as well.  There is also the fact that when they weren't fighting some nobleman's wars they'd be raiding the countryside and robbing merchants and peasants along the roads, and it might not be the smartest idea to give them funding to do that even more.  At the same time though maybe you would want to keep them employed so that they won't pillage your subjects.  Either way, not as reliable as your knights, your vassals, and your levies, as they're much less likely to turn on you or cause trouble.

On the point about forces being mostly men, you mistake me when I say "realism".  I don't necessarily mean the kind of historical realism you see in Mount and Blade where they attempt to accurately emulate Medieval society in a new world.  I more mean in the sense of how fighting with swords, spears, axes, and other weapons is concerned, at least for the sake of this discussion.  Or if you mean to imply that women can't fight, well, we can have all manners of discussions as to why we didn't see women as combatants as often as we've seen men historically, but women absolutely can fight - you can find women practicing HEMA and participating in HEMA tournaments, and they can do quite well.  And of course you also have women in various military organizations in the real world, and you have women in history who've fought duels and battles.  But of course, I'm not sure in what way you meant that women not being combatants was "realistic", so if you don't mean it in the latter way then don't take this as me thinking you think that way (though if you do then I'm not gonna cry, kick, and scream and say that you're sexist).

18 hours ago, Imuabicus said:

Bows have the unique advantage of being a ranged weapon. The closer you get to an Archer the better he can shoot you. If Fire Emblem was about realism Bows would have 1-x range, different types of ammunition and Archers and Bow Knights would be the best units. 

They'd also have damage drop-off for the further away they shoot at enemies.

When I made the comment about "unique advantages/disadvantages", I meant against certain kinds of weapons.  They're no more powerful against a spear than they are against a sword, precisely because they're ranged weapons so all melee weapons have basically the same performance against them.  In a fight between a dude with a sword, spear, or axe versus a dude with a bow, you'll want to be the guy with the bow every time.  That is, unless the other guy has armor, in which case you'll want to run for the hills.

Oh, and with how experience would work, could you just imagine how heavily favored the game would be towards anyone that uses a bow?  Cavalry, too.  LTCers would literally just use archers and knights.  If there'd be a game that'd be appropriate for making bows OP, it'd be one that drew inspiration from Southeast Asian countries as they more strongly emphasized bows than western cultures did (though they still played a very strong role in Medieval combat there - they were strong everywhere).

This reminds me of a game I really love, Fallout: New Vegas, and how the leader of one of the factions basically wants to recreate the old Roman Empire (he even calls himself "Caesar").  Mainly how for some reason they want to abandon firearms, but instead of opting to use bows they only use javelins.  Like, they have basically their two pilums that they carry into battle as ranged weaponry, and they're fighting against people with high-powered .50 cal sniper rifles and machine guns.  Not that bows would make it all that more fair for that little wannabe empire, but it'd be better than just expecting your raw muscles to stop bullets as you charge the enemy, lmao.

18 hours ago, Imuabicus said:

Also, talking realism, no one that wields a knife is going to walk up to a swordsman and challenge them to a duel. What classes use them? Thiefs, Ninjas and Maids/Butlers. Two of these will realisitcally slit your throat while you sleep or just walk around unsuspecting and the other two use it for... cooking in which they would put poison to kill/weaken your heroic swordsman.

Well, I'm just judging based off what's being fed to my eyeballs, not what they could be - and I'm just seeing them yeeting knives at samurai and mercenaries and those samurai and mercenaries falling instantly to such attacks.

But I guess they'd have to give them combat viability to be useful.  Still would probably be better if they used swords, but then there's less setting them apart from all the other classes that use swords, lmao.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Ertrick36 said:
Spoiler

I'm gonna say it's not necessarily general raw strength, but rather a certain set of muscles and muscle memory.  Thing is, it sounds like you're talking about using a spear with a grip that's a good ways away from the center of balance.  If you try holding a broom by the very tip of the haft completely horizontal, of course it's gonna take a considerable amount of strength to hold it like that - that's just how physics work.  But there are ways to hold a spear one-handed that won't require much strength at all, and in a resting position you should always carry it at the center of balance.  The nice thing about spears compared to swords is that you can easily slide your hand up or down the haft, even with just one hand.  It's a matter of knowing where to hold it at what times.

 

I was more thinking along the lines that you need some strength to avoid the spear being jostled out of your grip by hitting with it, or it being hit. Yes skill is more important. I'm not arguing that. You need some strength to move the thing around without dropping it.

Quote
Quote

And to further discuss, no, there isn't much need for strength in thrusting the weapon.  You need good fitness/stamina to do that, but strength is of secondary or tertiary importance compared to other factors in this respect.  I think it's not accurate to say it's "skill" so much as training and practice that makes for a good spearman.

 

See above.

Quote
Quote

Lords did take to the field to wage wars.  Not all the time, as they would have to also ensure they're still around to issue commands to their troops, but they did.  If they didn't then dukes and kings would not have died on the field of battle - we wouldn't have seen to the deaths of Charles the Bold or King Harold, two famous cases of higher-caste nobles dying on the battlefield.  It really just depend, but lords did train for war and fight on the battlefield directly.  If there was a time when they might not have, it'd probably have been post-Medieval period when all the noble families were firmly established and have become even more absurdly wealthy than they were before.  But in Medieval times lords did indeed fight.

 

Yes they can fight, but more oft then not, they aren't in the thick of it. They're surveying the field and giving orders. If needed they'll fight, but more oft then not, they're non-combatants.

Quote
Quote

Axemen would not be trash, or else axes would never have even been a type of weapon used on the battlefield.  Spears would reign supreme on a battlefield, and swords are great for personal defense, but the advantage of axes is the force they can strike with.  You can actually use them fairly nimbly, just not as nimbly as swords.  Even taking into consideration they aren't quite as nimble, there are two ways to get around that.  Either you get a shield or you get a bigger axe.  Yes, seriously, I'm saying you get a bigger axe.  Not fantasy bigger, where they make the axe head absurdly large for some reason, I mean you turn it into effectively a polearm like a Dane axe.  The extended reach of a Dane axe means you can strike from a safe distance, but it also has more power meaning it's basically impossible to parry it with a one-handed sword.  But the biggest advantage to using a weapon with lots of blunt force is dealing with armored foes.  A slashing or piercing weapon simply cannot get through plate armor or good quality chain mail (I'm talking riveted, high-grade steel chain mail) - you can maybe get a bodkin arrow to get through the chain mail, but the only way you'll get through plate armor with an arrow is if you get lucky or if, in melee combat, you half-sword.  But if you have a blunt-force weapon like a mace or an axe (axe isn't as good because its blade means its force is more easily deflected by the rounded plating of most 15th Century plate armor, but still) then you don't need to pierce the armor - you can jostle the wearer and the blunt force will transfer to wherever you strike without needing to pierce through the armor.  Axes also do have a design that allows them to hook things, so you could use it to wrench a weapon from someone's hand (or simply push it aside) or you could grab at an enemy and pull them towards your formation, enabling your allies to easily swarm them.  There are other uses for axes as well, but overall axes are not trash weapons in the real life.  If you're talking about those dumb speedo-wearing buffoons called "fighters" in the games, yeah they'd suck, but it's because they use oversized axes and don't wear armor, not because axes are inherently a bad weapon.

 

Aside from the occasional Battle-axe, it's just tools. Most peasants wouldn't have the cash for proper weapons, and their lord's probably wouldn't waste that cash to arm them. So it'd be woodaxes. Hatchets are faster, but aside from throwing it, a sword's better. Halberds and poleaxes are... Not quite what should be considered axes. More like polearms.

A Battle-axe is a decent weapon, but only as a secondary arm, like a sword is.

Quote
Spoiler

Most "combat classes" is a bit of a misnomer, but it is true that most troops would use spears or bows.  Thing is, though, that most troops were not regular soldiers, but levied peasants who were given a measly wage if they were lucky, handed a weapon, and told to stick with their mates as they marched against what feels like an almost certain doom.  It wasn't only because of spears generally being better for fighting in formation, but also because spears were exceedingly cheap to produce compared to swords, meaning they could be more easily mass-produced and given to every soldier in the army.  You have to keep in mind that for much of the Medieval period there were no standing armies.  You really just had three sources of soldiers - your few well-trained knights (who were nobles in their own right), your peasant levies, and mercenaries with questionable methods and allegiance.  The last one is tricky because at times they would be willing to turncoat if offered better deals by the opposing side of a conflict, and they may end up turning on that side as well.  There is also the fact that when they weren't fighting some nobleman's wars they'd be raiding the countryside and robbing merchants and peasants along the roads, and it might not be the smartest idea to give them funding to do that even more.  At the same time though maybe you would want to keep them employed so that they won't pillage your subjects.  Either way, not as reliable as your knights, your vassals, and your levies, as they're much less likely to turn on you or cause trouble.

 

Combat classes = combatant. It doesn't matter if it's a random peasant or your best knight. The bulk of medieval - renaissance combatants used some form of polearm (Spear, Pike, Cavalry Lance, Halberd, etc.) or projectile weapon (Longbow, Crossbow, Musket, etc.), with a sword or the like being used as a secondary or for carrying in civilian life.

Spoiler

On the point about forces being mostly men, you mistake me when I say "realism".  I don't necessarily mean the kind of historical realism you see in Mount and Blade where they attempt to accurately emulate Medieval society in a new world.  I more mean in the sense of how fighting with swords, spears, axes, and other weapons is concerned, at least for the sake of this discussion.  Or if you mean to imply that women can't fight, well, we can have all manners of discussions as to why we didn't see women as combatants as often as we've seen men historically, but women absolutely can fight - you can find women practicing HEMA and participating in HEMA tournaments, and they can do quite well.  And of course you also have women in various military organizations in the real world, and you have women in history who've fought duels and battles.  But of course, I'm not sure in what way you meant that women not being combatants was "realistic", so if you don't mean it in the latter way then don't take this as me thinking you think that way (though if you do then I'm not gonna cry, kick, and scream and say that you're sexist).

Chill.

Women fighting or otherwise doing "a Man's work" was frowned upon (or strait up taboo) until recently in most parts of the world.

As for their performance in combat, men are typically better at physical combat then women. The average male is stronger than the average female. It's Biology, not sexism. Are there exceptions? Yes. A female bodybuilder is clearly going to be stronger than a computer geek.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, L3xandr3 said:

Chill.

This comment irks me.  Lay off that tone, okay?  You may think this is a calm, rational thing to say to someone you're debating with, but it's condescending and presumptuous, as you're making the assumption that I was angry about what you said.  I wasn't angry - maybe I was being a bit condescending myself, and I apologize for that, but I was not in the slightest bit angry.

We've been on this point long enough that it's derailed from the original point of the topic, so I won't respond to the rest of what you said.  But maybe have some more respect for the people you debate with, yeah?  Because otherwise you will make people angry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

its derailed from the main topic this fast? its like any long topic in every forum ever

---------------------

On 12/15/2020 at 1:53 AM, Whitfield1999 said:

Don't get me wrong, in FE4 the weapon triangle made a lot of sense. Every game afterwords however, the weapon triangle feels tacked on and kinda just screws with the balance of the game.

I always felt like weapons naturally balanced themselves out anyways, Axes have a lot of might but are heavy and slightly inaccurate. Swords are very light and accurate with relatively low might, plus there's a ton of specialty swords. And lances are in the middle between axes and swords in term of accuracy, weight and might.

 

What are y'alls opinion of the weapon triangle?

my take:

1. its not falling out of favor. not appearing for 2 games (even tho one of them is gaiden remake, which shouldnt be counted) doesnt mean anything when the series already release 10+ games (thats not counting remakes , spin off)

also the interview with of one of directors already explain their (IntSys) take to any gameplay mechanic: basically they will keep trying something new and find new combination in every installment

2. why limit yourself to "weapon triangle". For the next mainline game, they might as well make it weapon quadruple, weapon polygon, etc etc. there is if you had any problem with some weapon type being left being left out in the loop. or you cant stomach it, not a loop. but like a star with every type have its own different effect not just strengthening or weakening

3. you cant completely erase the weapon triangle by concept. which "A is strong against B but weak to X". its there in every game with RPG or strategy element ever (not to mention FE is both). play games like FF? theres weakness and strong. play ol' Command and Conquer? its there too. Only the term and the application was different. just see three houses. no weapon triangle? theres still skill to simulate it. like people have said, higher difficulty even include it in enemy like a basic skill.
if you ask me, then that would mean weapon triangle is actually higher form of playing strategy games.

Edited by joevar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Whitfield1999 said:

Ah yes, rock paper scissors, truly a higher form of strategy.

see, you limit yourself in ROCK (1) paper (2) scissor (3)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why if its not higher form, then three houses higher difficulty should abolish that skill which gives bonus to weapon type in enemies. which force you to include more plan in weapon type

 

theres only "people" in FE games. unlike its cousin Wars series, or any strategy games. which have tanks, aircraft, etc etc

while FE has Flier, people still see it as "character/people" thats why to help differentiate it, theres class, weapon type, and so on

 

but if you only want to reply with sarcastic remake, i guess that explain a lot

Edited by joevar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/14/2020 at 12:49 PM, BrightBow said:

Really? News to me. Where did it fall out of favor? Even Warriors has it, apparently.

Warriors shoehorning the weapon triangle in a game without a balanced roster to support weapon triangle, I'd argue is a reason, its fallen out of favor recently.

Edited by Emperor Hardin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd argue that's more a reason it's stayed around, because of Grandfather Clause and the fact it looks strategic, even if it's only scraping the surface of strategy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Whitfield1999 said:

Ah yes, rock paper scissors, truly a higher form of strategy.

Rock-paper-scissors is non-strategic, not due to its simplicity, but because you don't know what you're opponent will play. In Fire Emblem, you know what you're facing, and can plan around it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, joevar said:

but if you only want to reply with sarcastic remake, i guess that explain a lot

I only made that sarcastic reply because you made it so easy.

Like X-Naut said, the weapon triangle is surface level. Most of the time all it takes to facilitate the weapon triangle is to switch your weapons around with a button click and that's it. It's so surface level and tacked on in it feels more like a trick into making the player think they are doing something strategic then them actually employing strategy.

Edited by Whitfield1999

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/16/2020 at 9:15 AM, Ertrick36 said:

That is, unless the other guy has armor, in which case you'll want to run for the hills.

I seem to remember something about specifically designed arrowheads, just for penetrating armor?

On 12/16/2020 at 9:15 AM, Ertrick36 said:

Oh, and with how experience would work, could you just imagine how heavily favored the game would be towards anyone that uses a bow?  Cavalry, too.

I was making my comment specifically with the english Longbowmen and the mongolian Cavalry in mind.

 

The WT was just split into three pieces in TH - a permanent buff to your HIT, CRIT, EVA, classes having faire skills for their supposed main weapon and with the introduction of enemies having breaker skills an attempt at trying to give it meaning. The only other game it might me stronger is Fates, because there it´s effects are a lot more direct and you can manipulate it.

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.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...