Should archers have 1-range with bows?

[Stones]

There is a big difference between 2-3 range bows and 2-3 range archers. I think giving archers and snipers extra range, but mounted archers like bow knights or nomads should have 2 range. I also think the Mini Bow is fine because you can’t double at 1 range and it’s not effective against fliers. Close Counter is fine too but it should be gotten at A bows or something, C is a bit early.

[DukeC4]

Eh. Just make Bows the strongest 2 range weapons in the game. Give the player the option to nuke a threat and figure out a way to get them out of harm's way. Problem solved. 

[Axie]

as with many other issues, they way fates did it is pretty much ideal. just add close counter, maybe some more 3-range bows, and it works. giving bows too much range means giving enemy archers too much range, and enemy archers don't need any more help.

[Murozaki]

There is no definitive answer because anything can work so long as the game is properly balanced around it.

If the game is properly balanced around it Archers without 1-range can work. If the game is properly balanced around it Archers with 1-range can work.

Of course, this only speaks of theoretical new games, when it comes to remakes or discussions of how the balance of already existing games in the franchise could be improved, i feel the answer is almost always no.

Edited February 2, 2021 by Murozaki

[highonbartresspeed]

On 2/1/2021 at 12:33 AM, DukeC4 said:

Eh. Just make Bows the strongest 2 range weapons in the game. Give the player the option to nuke a threat and figure out a way to get them out of harm's way. Problem solved. 

This doesn't fix it though. Even if bows had 100 might and 100 crit on everything they're still gonna be bad if it means that unit has no enemy phase. There should just be a 1-2 range bow. Make it like it is for every axe and lance unit where you use a good bow to spring for the kill and then have somebody trade the 1-2 range bow so that they don't just take punishment all enemy phase

[Axie]

having no enemy phase is fine if the game isn't geared towards most enemies being cleared on enemy phase. i always found archers incredibly useful in new mystery and all three fates games, and to a lesser extent binding blade - though that lesser extent is mostly about who uses bows because frequently in that game i find myself wishing i had a strong sniper or just given in and trained sin instead of insisting on using wolt just for his pretty face and then immediately forgetting about it once i get wolt/roy A. WORTH IT.

anyway where was i. oh, archers being useful. adding things like mini bow and close counter help a bit but ultimately, if the game is too enemy phase focused, archers will always play second fiddle to melee people (mages too, unless it's one of those games where they remember to give them defense or where dodging matters).

[joevar]

they should, but it all comes down to balancing i guess? if enemy archer tend to shoot player archer then they are fine since they can counter too.

complaining archer cant close counter makes me realize, melee cant range counter too, so it should be okay after all. (altho melee attacker tend have more defense than archer tho)

On 2/1/2021 at 12:30 PM, Stones said:

There is a big difference between 2-3 range bows and 2-3 range archers. I think giving archers and snipers extra range, but mounted archers like bow knights or nomads should have 2 range. I also think the Mini Bow is fine because you can’t double at 1 range and it’s not effective against fliers. Close Counter is fine too but it should be gotten at A bows or something, C is a bit early.

im of the same opinion. snipers having longer range than mounted should be a thing. it should make sense since mounted archer in reality is about mobility while something that gets called sniper usually more stationary for longer reach accuracy without sway while aiming.

Edited February 4, 2021 by joevar

[Shrow]

I think archers should at least get 2-3 range in future instalments. They're often outclassed by mages and 1-2 range melee weapon users and this will make them a more unique class. And I do mean 2-3 range for archer classes in general. No unique weapon that gives 2-3 range nor a promotion class that gives +1 range nor a skill, these are band-aids that don't fix the issue.

Yes this comes with many balance problems though, giving a unit 3 range on default effects the entire game;

1. When sending a unit frontline, generally they'll be fighting 1 or 2 units in close combat, now think about how many units on average attack that frontline unit from range? Usually a mage, an archer, or an 1-2 melee type class will also be able to attack them, now grab that average number and increase by x1.5. That means your frontline Hero could be attack by not only a Paladin, a Warrior, spear-thrower and a mage, but also 3 more archers to boot. So we'll have to address that.
    
2. Pegasus Riders are screwed. They're viability wanes back and forth between the different FE games, going from battle goddesses to ferry units to useless. Using them can be a pain due to archers, with 2-3 range archers its going to be impossible to use them. I propose there be a change to Pegasus vulnerability, removing entirely isn't a terrible option but the best would be to remove the damage increase and simply give the Pegasus a debuff for taking damage from an archer. Something like -4 movement and -50% defence (lasts one turn). This puts them in a bad position and they'll need to retreat to safety but not send them to instant death. Regardless of 2-3 range archers I think this change should be made. Enemy side pegasi won't retreat due to AI. Same goes for wyvern riders.
    
3. The archers themselves need to be reduced in stats, being able to attack at 3 range means attacking from safety and quite frequently. Compared to the rest of the classes; Archer's important stats should be low to medium attack, medium to high speed, medium to high skill. Their purpose would be to be able to shoot out lower defence targets but can't damage higher defence enemies. Knights and Cavaliers will be fine fighting them while mage's, Pegesi, clerics will struggle to fight them. Myrms, mercs, pirates, soldiers and other archers, won't be too harmed by them.
    
4. This buff to archers would also buff armored classes like Knights\Generals (who need it) since they can afford to take hits from archers\snipers, likely not even taking damage from them. Meanwhile other close range classes will be nerfed from this change since they'll have a much harder time walking up to attack someone. Unless they have enough defence to suppress the archers. Myrm's are gonna have a real hard time but they themselves need a buff as well since they get outclassed by Merc's usually (This is a topic for another time). Mage's are also going to have to be more careful.
    
5. Create an un-shootable terrain, terrain that not only blocks movement from ground and sky but also blocks attack range. A sort of void terrain that can't be shot over like a high wall or something. This means they don't need to make 3 length walls just to stop archers from shooting over.
    
6. Class restrictions. For characters with high speed and attack its important to stop them from using a bow at all costs since it can break the game's balance. Consider how many archers the player can recruit, what characters can class change into archers and what classes get to use bows. Ideally it shouldn't be many.

Overall its possible to balance this class without too many problems. I can think of interesting enemy placements using 3 range as this ads another dimension of difficulty to the game. This class is a player phase unit so they don't need 1 range, but supplying a mini bow with 1-2 range to the player won't break the balance.

Note: I have not played Three Houses, I have no idea if that game fixed any problems mentioned here. Please read this from the perspective of someone familiar with the DS games and GBA.

[Margarine]

I actually quite like the long range of bows given to archers in SoV and Three Houses, I feel like it opened up the archer to being a lot more involved in tactics since I always felt that archers had to be used very conservatively in combat to avoid being rushed by the enemy.

Hand axes I never found to be something that replaced bows since bows give the advantage of being effective against flying enemies. While hand axes have their uses, they also tend to generally be much less accurate and more used to give specific units additional range, rather than as a competitor for the bow.

That being said I think I would like for archers to generally have the weakness of not being able to directly counter if attacked from a range of 1, since being vulnerable up close is one of the things I felt always defined archer units and makes the tactical decision to use them go hand in hand with the proper placement of archers. Maybe as a skill for individual units to have it'd be nice, in addition to the 1 range bows the series already has, but I'd refrain from allowing them to counter direct attacks.

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

3 hours ago, Shrow said:

Class restrictions. For characters with high speed and attack its important to stop them from using a bow at all costs since it can break the game's balance. Consider how many archers the player can recruit, what characters can class change into archers and what classes get to use bows. Ideally it shouldn't be many.

Then, why not have Bows default to 2-range, but give the Archer and Sniper classes Range +1? This is what Three Houses does. Other classes would still use them as a niche, to take down fliers. If the "Range +1" combined with "high attack and speed" is too powerful, just give Archer low bases in one or both of those areas, so that reclassing units take a hit.

3 hours ago, Shrow said:

Create an un-shootable terrain, terrain that not only blocks movement from ground and sky but also blocks attack range. A sort of void terrain that can't be shot over like a high wall or something. This means they don't need to make 3 length walls just to stop archers from shooting over.

I think the Tellius games did this - some walls you could shoot/magic through, others you could not. I'm all for them making a comeback, so long as the game makes the difference clear from the prep screen.

 

3 hours ago, Shrow said:

Pegasus Riders are screwed. They're viability wanes back and forth between the different FE games, going from battle goddesses to ferry units to useless. Using them can be a pain due to archers, with 2-3 range archers its going to be impossible to use them. I propose there be a change to Pegasus vulnerability, removing entirely isn't a terrible option but the best would be to remove the damage increase and simply give the Pegasus a debuff for taking damage from an archer. Something like -4 movement and -50% defence (lasts one turn). This puts them in a bad position and they'll need to retreat to safety but not send them to instant death. Regardless of 2-3 range archers I think this change should be made. Enemy side pegasi won't retreat due to AI. Same goes for wyvern riders.

Are Pegasus Riders ever useless? They always have great mobility, and while bows/ballistae are a threat, I don't think it's ever to a degree that the class becomes unusable. Even in FE4, where fliers are derided for not getting the "Road" boost or being able to Rescue; there are still lots of areas and enemies that only they can reach, and they all default with access to the best weapon (Brave Sword) in the game. I don't really see this Bow nerf as necessary (aside from, say, RD Crossbows, which are practically a programming oversight).

[NinjaMonkey]

37 minutes ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

(aside from, say, RD Crossbows, which are practically a programming oversight).

How exactly? A crossbow is essentially a medieval gun, in that the strength of the user is an irrelevant factor in how much damage it does (which is how it's implemented in RD).

Edited February 5, 2021 by NinjaMonkey

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

3 minutes ago, NinjaMonkey said:

How exactly? A crossbow is essentially a medieval gun, in that the strength of the user is an irrelevant factor in how much damage it does (which is how it's implemented in RD).

I'm not opposed to the "not accounting for user Strength" when calc'ing crossbow damage. The issue is that the effectiveness formula is 3 x Mt. So Bows damage against fliers is "Str + 3 * Mt - Def", while for Crossbows, it's "3 * Mt - Def". And Crossbows have much higher Might, spelling instant death for any flier (aside from Wyverns, who aren't bow-weak anymore), even those who could survive a comparable Bow attack. Which doesn't make a ton of sense - if Strength makes the arrow of standard bows shoot faster, why isn't it also multiplied when calculating effective damage against fliers?

Look, maybe they intended a transformed royal bird to be felled by one shot of a Crossbow (Mt = 28, Eff. Mt. = 84, Dmg = 84 - Def), while surviving a hit from a comparable foe with a Silver Bow (Mt. = 15, Eff. Mt. = 45, Dmg = Str + 45 - Def). But it comes across as really weird design.

[Florete]

On 2/3/2021 at 5:04 PM, highonbartresspeed said:

This doesn't fix it though. Even if bows had 100 might and 100 crit on everything they're still gonna be bad if it means that unit has no enemy phase. 

 

23 hours ago, Axie said:

having no enemy phase is fine if the game isn't geared towards most enemies being cleared on enemy phase.

Why do people keep saying archers "have no enemy phase?" What if the enemies are archers? And you can always put them at the end of ranged enemies range. Just say "limited enemy phase."

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

53 minutes ago, Florete said:

 

Why do people keep saying archers "have no enemy phase?" What if the enemies are archers? And you can always put them at the end of ranged enemies range. Just say "limited enemy phase."

Yeah, Archers (well, bow users in general) are the best for luring in fliers with Javelins. And they can be decent anti-Mage options.

[𝐅𝐞𝐧𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐥]

On 1/31/2021 at 7:40 PM, Benice said:

Do you think that bows should have 1-range or greater than 2-range consistently, or is it better for them to have more?

it depends on the game's settings.

however, since throwing/magic weapons usually have 1~2 range, bows could have 2~3 by default instead in order to add some variety.

otherwise, it would all be about balancing gameplay mechanics between bows and spellbooks, and eventually wich unique features each ranged class could have(for example, archers being able to use ballistas).

[Dark Holy Elf]

On 2/4/2021 at 5:21 PM, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

I'm not opposed to the "not accounting for user Strength" when calc'ing crossbow damage. The issue is that the effectiveness formula is 3 x Mt. So Bows damage against fliers is "Str + 3 * Mt - Def", while for Crossbows, it's "3 * Mt - Def". And Crossbows have much higher Might, spelling instant death for any flier (aside from Wyverns, who aren't bow-weak anymore), even those who could survive a comparable Bow attack. Which doesn't make a ton of sense - if Strength makes the arrow of standard bows shoot faster, why isn't it also multiplied when calculating effective damage against fliers?

Look, maybe they intended a transformed royal bird to be felled by one shot of a Crossbow (Mt = 28, Eff. Mt. = 84, Dmg = 84 - Def), while surviving a hit from a comparable foe with a Silver Bow (Mt. = 15, Eff. Mt. = 45, Dmg = Str + 45 - Def). But it comes across as really weird design.

Completely agree with all this. Crossbows being 3x mt vs weakness feels like both nonsense flavour-wise (a barely-trained archer can one-shot a laguz royal?) and the result of lazy programming/design. If they'd dropped their weakness multiplier to 2x it'd be much better balanced (and there's precedent for this, e.g. Sacred Stones having a mix of 2x and 3x weaknesses).

 

On 2/4/2021 at 12:36 PM, Shrow said:

Pegasus Riders are screwed. They're viability wanes back and forth between the different FE games, going from battle goddesses to ferry units to useless. Using them can be a pain due to archers, with 2-3 range archers its going to be impossible to use them.

There are already at least two games with 3+ range enemy archers... and fliers are good in one and outright overpowered in the other, so I wouldn't be too worried about this. Granted, both do have ways which mitigate the effect of archer weakness (Echoes enemies use low- or even zero-might weapons frequently, while 3H fliers have Dismount and Canto). Also agree with @Shanty Pete's 1st Mate that fliers have never been useless (or even particularly close).

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

13 hours ago, Dark Holy Elf said:

Completely agree with all this. Crossbows being 3x mt vs weakness feels like both nonsense flavour-wise (a barely-trained archer can one-shot a laguz royal?) and the result of lazy programming/design. If they'd dropped their weakness multiplier to 2x it'd be much better balanced (and there's precedent for this, e.g. Sacred Stones having a mix of 2x and 3x weaknesses).

The radical in me wants to change to FE4-style effectiveness* - doubling Attack, rather than tripling Might. This would generally weaken Crossbows and certain Bows (i.e. Leo using Lughnasadh), while increasing effective damage from tomes, and most effective weaponry, beyond the earlygame. Thereby, all weapons would abide by the same effectiveness formula, without Crossbows being overtuned. But even reducing Crossbows to Might-times-2 damage would be an improvement. 

*And yes, I recognize that this is how crits work in Genealogy, and effective damage is basically an "auto-crit". My proposal would keep modern (damage times 3) critical hits, while using the FE4-style crit to calculate the base damage from effective weapons.

[Dark Holy Elf]

1 hour ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

The radical in me wants to change to FE4-style effectiveness* - doubling Attack, rather than tripling Might. This would generally weaken Crossbows and certain Bows (i.e. Leo using Lughnasadh), while increasing effective damage from tomes, and most effective weaponry, beyond the earlygame. Thereby, all weapons would abide by the same effectiveness formula, without Crossbows being overtuned. But even reducing Crossbows to Might-times-2 damage would be an improvement. 

*And yes, I recognize that this is how crits work in Genealogy, and effective damage is basically an "auto-crit". My proposal would keep modern (damage times 3) critical hits, while using the FE4-style crit to calculate the base damage from effective weapons.

This does strike me as a better way of doing things! It leads to fewer wild swings, and is also more intuitive and easier to calculate. Right now, if I'm leaving a flier in range of an archer (or a similar weakness-hit situation), I have to go to the archer's status screen, look at their attack, check their weapon might, double it (to reflect the increase from 1x to 3x), and add it to their existing attack. If weakness was 2x atk instead, that gets reduced to "go to the archer's status screen, look at their attack and double it". There's something to be said for making the mechanics simpler in a game like this, especially if there's little/no loss of tactical play.

[Shrow]

On 2/4/2021 at 7:28 PM, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

Are Pegasus Riders ever useless? They always have great mobility, and while bows/ballistae are a threat, I don't think it's ever to a degree that the class becomes unusable. Even in FE4, where fliers are derided for not getting the "Road" boost or being able to Rescue; there are still lots of areas and enemies that only they can reach, and they all default with access to the best weapon (Brave Sword) in the game. I don't really see this Bow nerf as necessary (aside from, say, RD Crossbows, which are practically a programming oversight).

 

On 2/6/2021 at 12:19 AM, Dark Holy Elf said:

There are already at least two games with 3+ range enemy archers... and fliers are good in one and outright overpowered in the other, so I wouldn't be too worried about this. Granted, both do have ways which mitigate the effect of archer weakness (Echoes enemies use low- or even zero-might weapons frequently, while 3H fliers have Dismount and Canto). Also agree with @Shanty Pete's 1st Mate that fliers have never been useless (or even particularly close).

Hmmm am I miss-remembering?

Personally Shadow Dragon DS was the only game I played in which a Pegasus Rider (Ceada\Shiida) was good.
In Sacred Stones, Fates\Awakening and SOV; I found them to be pretty weak. Low Defence, Low attack, Low health but having pretty good speed and decent skill. With stats like that, they required a lot of babysitting, they were useful for throwing javelins form a safe distance and snagging last hits on enemies but if I forgot about the archers for even one turn, my unit would get OHKO'd. Should also be noted that as a mirrored effect enemy side pegasi are very little of a threat.This all doesn't apply as much to wyvern riders since they're basically just flying mercs.

With that being said I haven't played either game for a good chunk of years so maybe I'm not remembering their viability as much.

On 2/4/2021 at 7:28 PM, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

Then, why not have Bows default to 2-range, but give the Archer and Sniper classes Range +1? This is what Three Houses does. Other classes would still use them as a niche, to take down fliers. If the "Range +1" combined with "high attack and speed" is too powerful, just give Archer low bases in one or both of those areas, so that reclassing units take a hit.

Yeah that works.

[X-Naut]

On 2/6/2021 at 12:19 AM, Dark Holy Elf said:

Completely agree with all this. Crossbows being 3x mt vs weakness feels like both nonsense flavour-wise (a barely-trained archer can one-shot a laguz royal?) and the result of lazy programming/design. If they'd dropped their weakness multiplier to 2x it'd be much better balanced (and there's precedent for this, e.g. Sacred Stones having a mix of 2x and 3x weaknesses).

It would also make sense from a logical standpoint, as you could argue that part of the crossbow's Mt is an artificial Strength stat.

 

1 hour ago, Shrow said:

Personally Shadow Dragon DS was the only game I played in which a Pegasus Rider (Ceada\Shiida) was good.
In Sacred Stones, Fates\Awakening and SOV; I found them to be pretty weak. Low Defence, Low attack, Low health but having pretty good speed and decent skill. With stats like that, they required a lot of babysitting, they were useful for throwing javelins form a safe distance and snagging last hits on enemies but if I forgot about the archers for even one turn, my unit would get OHKO'd. Should also be noted that as a mirrored effect enemy side pegasi are very little of a threat.This all doesn't apply as much to wyvern riders since they're basically just flying mercs.

With that being said I haven't played either game for a good chunk of years so maybe I'm not remembering their viability as much.

Mobility is easily the strongest stat in a turn-based strategy game, and with often the highest mobility around fliers have to be high risk because they grant a very high reward for using them properly. Playable pegasus knights can often be made very strong in spite of their weaknesses, and the enemies have gotten better in more recent games due to better class bases and less oppressive to them weight systems.

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

11 hours ago, Shrow said:

Hmmm am I miss-remembering?

Personally Shadow Dragon DS was the only game I played in which a Pegasus Rider (Ceada\Shiida) was good.
In Sacred Stones, Fates\Awakening and SOV; I found them to be pretty weak. Low Defence, Low attack, Low health but having pretty good speed and decent skill. With stats like that, they required a lot of babysitting, they were useful for throwing javelins form a safe distance and snagging last hits on enemies but if I forgot about the archers for even one turn, my unit would get OHKO'd. Should also be noted that as a mirrored effect enemy side pegasi are very little of a threat.This all doesn't apply as much to wyvern riders since they're basically just flying mercs.

With that being said I haven't played either game for a good chunk of years so maybe I'm not remembering their viability as much.

Pegasus Knights tend to be "just okay" in casual play, but become "really good" in efficiency settings, or just if you know what you're doing. Consider Vanessa, for instance, in the Sacred Stones. Her stats aren't especially impressive outside of Speed, and being lance-locked sucks in her first couple chapters. But she's vital for rescuing Ross, and getting the southwest village, in chapter 2. Chapter 4, she can get to the SW corner (and Lute) sooner than anyone else. Chapter 5, there's a metric butt-ton of villages to get to, and Vanessa can go over them and over walls. Chapter 6, she can rescue one of the threatened villagers, or else block the spider's progress. Chapter 7, she can bait the Mage, so stealing his Energy Ring is easier. And on top of all this, she can Rescue/Ferry basically anyone in your army you want. Ultimately, Pegasus Knights tend to be good not for their stats, but for all the utility stuff they can do that few others in your army offer.

Except Caeda, who also has rocking combat, because Wing Spear OP.

[Interdimensional Observer]

13 minutes ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

Pegasus Knights tend to be "just okay" in casual play, but become "really good" in efficiency settings, or just if you know what you're doing. Consider Vanessa, for instance, in the Sacred Stones. Her stats aren't especially impressive outside of Speed, and being lance-locked sucks in her first couple chapters. But she's vital for rescuing Ross, and getting the southwest village, in chapter 2. Chapter 4, she can get to the SW corner (and Lute) sooner than anyone else. Chapter 5, there's a metric butt-ton of villages to get to, and Vanessa can go over them and over walls. Chapter 6, she can rescue one of the threatened villagers, or else block the spider's progress. Chapter 7, she can bait the Mage, so stealing his Energy Ring is easier. And on top of all this, she can Rescue/Ferry basically anyone in your army you want. Ultimately, Pegasus Knights tend to be good not for their stats, but for all the utility stuff they can do that few others in your army offer.

And, you can throw stat boosters on Vanessa, which won't entirely fix her low Def or Bow weakness, but it can reduce them. And if you can cover those kinds of weaknesses enough that they stop being so bad, then she becomes quite good, as nobody except other fliers has her degree of mobility.

Although, GBA FE is the weakest point for Pegs. Erinys is okay, but Phee can be great and Karin was blessed for me can really really shine, what with Deen coming notably later and him being the only good flier competition. Well, that, low stat caps, and dismounting. Then we fastforward to Marcia and Tanith in PoR, and the only "weak" thing about Pegs there, is their weakness for laughing at the fool who calls them weak.

Awakening and fliers ran into a serious problem of bad map design and enemy quantity. And the ability to pair a footed juggernaut to a ferry flier, fly for an action to where you want to be, and then swap at the destination to leading with the grounded colossus.

[Jotari]

1 hour ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

Awakening and fliers ran into a serious problem of bad map design and enemy quantity. And the ability to pair a footed juggernaut to a ferry flier, fly for an action to where you want to be, and then swap at the destination to leading with the grounded colossus.

Awakening fliers also have access to the absolute best player skill in the game in the form of Gale Force though. And true while you can pick it up on Dark Flier and then carry it over to any other class, Dark Flier itself is a pretty good class with how strong magic is in that game (particularly for the handful of, albeit end game and DLC, units that can pair it with Shadow Gift).

[Interdimensional Observer]

9 hours ago, Jotari said:

Awakening fliers also have access to the absolute best player skill in the game in the form of Gale Force though. And true while you can pick it up on Dark Flier and then carry it over to any other class, Dark Flier itself is a pretty good class with how strong magic is in that game (particularly for the handful of, albeit end game and DLC, units that can pair it with Shadow Gift).

True.

But if you haven't an army of GF users with insane stats to wipe scores of enemies off the map each turn, and instead have to do a lot more solitary enemy-phasing, then staying on foot is slightly easier on my mind whilst not costing a skill slot for Iote's Shield/Bowbreaker.

[Shrow]

13 hours ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

Pegasus Knights tend to be "just okay" in casual play, but become "really good" in efficiency settings, or just if you know what you're doing. Consider Vanessa, for instance, in the Sacred Stones. Her stats aren't especially impressive outside of Speed, and being lance-locked sucks in her first couple chapters. But she's vital for rescuing Ross, and getting the southwest village, in chapter 2. Chapter 4, she can get to the SW corner (and Lute) sooner than anyone else. Chapter 5, there's a metric butt-ton of villages to get to, and Vanessa can go over them and over walls. Chapter 6, she can rescue one of the threatened villagers, or else block the spider's progress. Chapter 7, she can bait the Mage, so stealing his Energy Ring is easier. And on top of all this, she can Rescue/Ferry basically anyone in your army you want. Ultimately, Pegasus Knights tend to be good not for their stats, but for all the utility stuff they can do that few others in your army offer.

I remember doing a lot of this back then. Using Vanessa to stop the spider from killing the villagers is something I did but I remember that Vanessa can't actually fight the spider all that well and needs healing to avoid dying from it until someone can come help.

I'l admit though, I'm not giving Pegasus knights and flying units in general enough credit for their work.

The bigger reason I imposed the Bow nerf was because of the 3 range, though I realize this could be done instead with making larger maps to give flyers room to move around rather then nerfing 3 range bows.