Depth in Fire Emblem?

[Imuabicus der Fertige]

Recently I had a little conversation about Fates and in said context the comparison Chess v Fates was brought up, with special mention about the tactical/strategical depth of Chess, which got me thinking, what is depth in FE, or is FE a deep game (game not story, to be clear)? To put it here as a disclaimer, this is not intended to be a pissing contest on which game is the Mariana Trench.

A definition I dug up from Dr. Google for Depth in Chess (for chessprograms as I understand): Thus, depth is the number of half moves the search nominally looks ahead.

As far as I understand, this means the higher the depth the further a chessprogram can at maximum look into all potential moves from the current position, while not necessarily looking at all the potential paths, due to them being unpromising or unlikely.

Now I don´t think the comparison Chess v FE holds up due to imo too many significant differences between the games, but there are some similarities, even if I can only really think of two, as well. For one we have pieces, our units and they, just like chess pieces are among other things defined by their ability to move a certain way, a certain distance as well as more less their class (which begs the question: is promoting a Knight, the same as promoting a Villager). FE just like Chess, is based on what´s in essence a grid. That´s all I can really think of but I also don´t really know that much about Chess.

As for the differences. For one FE units are far more pronounced than Chess pieces. They have base stats, growths, maybe skills or personal skills, an admittedly customizable inventory, personal weapons, promotional bonuses, support bonuses, eventually pair-up bonuses, perhaps a personal list of abilities/magic/combat arts, battalions and by virtue of their classes they may or may not ignore terrain and they may also have weaknesses, heck some have a weakness based on their race (Awakening and Fates shapeshifters I believe retain their respective weakness even in other classes). Additionally, a FE unit is never beat, until their HP reaches 0, unlike Chess. As mentioned, FE also features, let´s just call it a “grid”. But this grid too is far more pronounced than a Chessboard. We have terrain with bonuses and maluses, some terrain inhibits or even prevents movement, there is terrain that spawns more enemies. Furthermore, no FE features just 1 map and outside of remakes, maps are often unique or if they are reused enemy compositions on said map will differ. We can also interact with the maps we are given, whether that is by lowering bridges, place traps, trigger traps, stationary weaponry, Dragon Veins etc. All FE´s feature some kind of economy the player has control over – whether that is just managing your funds, or being able to gather materials to cook, smith, plant, sell etc. We can also, to varying degrees smith the weapons we give our goons, thereby increasing their effectiveness. You cannot Draw in FE. FE does not have intelligent enemies – intelligent as in human (I´m excluding former iterations of pvp here). I may have missed some.

There seems to be many more, some of them more complex things, than anything Chess has to offer, in FE, yet when I was first confronted with the idea, I immediately thought of Chess > FE (that may have just been me, I guess). Which disturbs me to an inexplicable level because, all of the differences I had mentioned before: classes, weapons, skills, in short builds, as well as strategies for maps, can be planned ahead, some of them even requiring you to do so.

However, there is also one difference, I haven´t mentioned yet, that I believe is key in the difference of perception of Chess and FE on how complex these games are. Looking at the quote in the beginning, it mentions a half move, which is essentially a player making a single one move. A whole move would then be both players taking their turn, in other words a half move would be one player phase. A whole “FE move” would then be player and enemy phase. But one move in Chess is just that then – two pieces each take one action – in FE this one move would then be the entirety of your and the enemies army taking their action, even if just waiting. In other words, the efficiency possible with a FE move is potentially much higher than that of a Chess move – one turning a chessboard is impossible (I am aware of the (Reverse) Fools Mate), but in some FE´s not so. Similarly, a FE half turn, has much more to consider, a unit may have more than one enemy in range, may be threatened by effective damage in a certain area, etc. But this not just for one piece in one turn, but for every unit you technically/theoretically must consider everything they may reach or may be reached by. FE´s higher move potential and efficiency thus makes the game (seem?) much, I guess, easier, as opposed to Chess´ potential for long term play.

So, are FE games “deep” games or am I running around in my own head too much?

[Fabulously Olivier]

FE games are absolutely deep enough to the extent that it matters. The comparisons to chess are unjustified, because chess is a pure strategy game. It doesn't have to account for RPG mechanics.

 

If FE were an insanely difficult franchise that sought to limit viable strategies (and therefore viable units) as much as possible, it would be a worse and less replayable game, not a better one.

[Reality]

abstract strategy games are kind of a different iceberg

Fire Emblem's depth problem is probbably due to the "eaiser" comparision with non RPG strategy/tactics video games.

Defender's advantage is one thing but "mind control the enemies to suicide into your highest def unit due to their target cloesest AI" is a bit too much. 

[Fabulously Olivier]

7 minutes ago, Reality said:

abstract strategy games are kind of a different iceberg

Fire Emblem's depth problem is probbably due to the "eaiser" comparision with non RPG strategy/tactics video games.

Defender's advantage is one thing but "mind control the enemies to suicide into your highest def unit due to their target cloesest AI" is a bit too much. 

Is it though? The goal of a tank is to tank things. If the game's artificial intelligence works towards that, that is good game design.

[Imuabicus der Fertige]

On 4/17/2021 at 6:23 PM, Fabulously Olivier said:

The comparisons to chess are unjustified, because chess is a pure strategy game. It doesn't have to account for RPG mechanics.

Which is something I agree with, but unless I´m misunderstanding something here, part of an RPG is also changing your characters equipment. That too, if your changing a characters equipment accounts for what you´ll encounter, would be strategy.