Is Great Knight a bad class?

[AnonymousSpeed]

Great Knight is clearly the worse promotion for cavaliers, but Great Knight is clearly the best promotion for Knights. However, that requires you actually use a knight, which can be fun, but is generally a bad idea. So, aside from Duessel, is it ever a "good idea" to use a Great Knight, or does using one mean you screwed up at some point along the way?

[JimmyBeans]

I think if we are talking clearly optimal play, removing any notion of aesthetic pleasure, I think Duessel is the only one you ever use. At the very least Gilliam is very easy to use so it is a great option for him. 

In my last sacred stones run I made Kyle a great knight and had him devil axe up to Garm axe rank and had a blast so I think there definitely is some value in a playthrough that isn't trying to be optimal, which is like.... every playthrough.. Seriously I feel like we talk about optimal play way more than we actually play that way.

[Clear World]

Optimal play, definitely a no.

For practical purposes (which ignores situations in which a player decides to self-handicap themselves), it's hard for me to find justifications to want to use them. As much as you might say Generals are worst than Great Knights, Generals are at least better than Great Knights in battle. General have their unique skill, better promotion gains & better caps. So in theory, if there are situations in which movement wasn't really needed, the General would be better, like defensive situations or arena battles. (Though, I still think Generals could use improvements)

If the Great Knight had 7 movement instead of 6, I believe they would be viable compared to the paladin. Maybe to balance the increased movement, Great Knight could be the most penalized class by terrain compared to all the other classes. This is just one simple example.

Also, I don't like their aesthetic or animation. It just feels so dull for me. It doesn't even convey that feeling of power like the general.

[𝐅𝐞𝐧𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐥]

4 hours ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

Great Knight is clearly the worse promotion for cavaliers, but Great Knight is clearly the best promotion for Knights. However, that requires you actually use a knight, which can be fun, but is generally a bad idea.

it depends, mainly on weapon levels and what you have available at the moment in terms of gear.

the main advantage they have over Generals is movement range obviously, so you can cover different areas "faster" and eventually get to the chapter's end earlier, but in turn they lack the Great Shield ability, wich can be a real lifesaver at times, especially when it comes to tanking.

then again, there's cavaliers that might end up being more suited for the Paladin role rather than Great Knight, and viceversa. same goes for knights and trainees.

4 hours ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

So, aside from Duessel, is it ever a "good idea" to use a Great Knight, or does using one mean you screwed up at some point along the way?

people usually tend to forget all the different little details and factors to consider while playing these games, because it's not always all about stats and skills. while they might eventually help, they're not the only things that the game has to offer.

in my opinion, if you're playing inside a fortress against a bunch of archers with a General rather than a Great Knight, then you might be doing it right. same goes if you're playing in a wide open field with trees while using a Great Knight rather than a General.

if you're playing in a desert map against an army of mages with either Generals or Great Knights deployed, then you're probably just shooting yourself in the foot. but hey, that's just me~

[♠Soul♠]

6 hours ago, JimmyBeans said:

Seriously I feel like we talk about optimal play way more than we actually play that way.

jajjaajajajaj relatable

Don't even see why GK wouldn't be "optimal". They have access to the whole weapon traingle and better promotional gains, with the added weakness of armour effectiveness (which isn't even that common). The only thing it's losing out on is extra mobility, but it's not like faster maps is necessarily a direct correlation to playing "optimal" or effecient.

[Shadow Mir]

On paper, I'd say no. But in practical terms, I'd say yes, because most of the time the choice is relevant, I'd be promoting cavaliers, and it's very hard to justify making a cavalier a Great Knight when they lose movement, which defeats the purpose of them being mounted in the first place. Slightly better stats and axes don't make up for this.

Edited July 24, 2021 by Shadow Mir

[samthedigital]

14 hours ago, AnonymousSpeed said:

Great Knight is clearly the worse promotion for cavaliers, but Great Knight is clearly the best promotion for Knights. However, that requires you actually use a knight, which can be fun, but is generally a bad idea. So, aside from Duessel, is it ever a "good idea" to use a Great Knight, or does using one mean you screwed up at some point along the way?

It feels like you have an ulterior motive for asking the question. The answer to the topic title is no depending on how you define bad. From my reading it seems that you're trying to show that GK is not a good class if we don't count Duessel because it's never efficient to actually have another GK on a macro scale. It's just that I don't find this to be an effective way of evaluating classes.

[ping]

Great Knight is a good class, but Paladin is better. ...I think that's what it boils down to, right?

Gilliam is a better unit for his ability to go GK. Every infantry unit would improve if they had the option to promote to GK (well, you could argue otherwise if it would replace Neimi and Gerik's Ranger choice). Duessel is only "hurt" by his class in the sense that he'd be better as a Paladin, but at that point, Seth is "hurt" by not being a Wyvern Knight. GK!Franz is a good unit, just not as good as Pala!Franz.

I'd still have preferred if GK had 7 Move, but we all want a lot of things. A character losing Move upon promotion "feels wrong".