FE Fates vs other FEs

[Dark Holy Elf]

While I obviously like Conquest a lot more than @lenticular, I do agree with the assessment that needing to consume both turns of the paired characters to end pairup really isn't much fun, and it would have been interesting if they'd given you more tactical flexibility.

It doesn't even need to be particularly powerful as an option. For instance, two ways they could have done it:

-"Separate" must be chosen before moving. After that, only one character can take a turn, so if they want to move forward they will not benefit from the separated character's attack stance. (This would also make separate + dancer a very weak option.)

-Slightly more powerful, but still weaker than some people seem to be assuming: "Separate" can be done after moving, and does not end the turn of the character who activates it, but does prevent them from moving further (in the same way trade does). They can attack and benefit from attack stance, but there's no range bonus. If this is deemed too powerful, then make it so the just-separated character is unable to provide attack stance support for that turn. I guess if your Dancer is paired up you can use this to immediately give the other character an extra move and action, but that's no different than the utility a dancer would provide normally, and it counterbalances the fact that a paired up dancer doesn't do you much good during the part where they're actually paired up.

Both methods would provide a way to end pairup without losing offensive tempo for that turn; that is, you would still get one action. As is, Separate requires you give up your action entirely that turn, making it almost unusable except, as mentioned, during breaks in the action between enemy engagements. I always disliked the asymmetry with Pair Up (the action) and felt like it was part of Awakening's conspiring to make you just stay paired up all the time (which I hated).

[Imuabicus der Fertige]

On 9/25/2021 at 5:25 AM, lenticular said:

Again, though, you're talking about things that are specific to Fates, when that isn't the point I'm trying to make. If the system that I'm proposing isn't compatible with Fates-style debuffs then great, don't put it in a game that has Fates-style debuffs. The vast majority of games in the series manage just fine without them. Personally speaking, they were another element of Fates that I didn't enjoy, so I'd be quite happy with them never coming back. I'm not saying that I want a game that's like Fates but with this one thing changed. I'm saying that I want a game that's nothing like Fates but maybe it could borrow one or two ideas that I liked while reworking them into something completely different.

I´m going to drop this here, seeing as the discussion has gone completely without references, though two things to think about: one, the vast majority of the series also doesn´t have beneficial Pair-Up. And two, as far as I´m aware even the GBA rescue mechanic doesn´t allow for dropping and attacking, despite GBA rescuing worsening your stats (I think).

On 9/25/2021 at 6:30 AM, Dark Holy Elf said:

They can attack and benefit from attack stance, but there's no range bonus.

What range bonus do you mean? 

[Eltosian Kadath]

I feel like the way @lenticular and @Dark Holy Elf are describing separating units is missing an important part of the dynamic in the original game, that you can use the transfer and switch mechanics to move that burden of turns onto other units. If you have a pair that needs separating you can move them to a location you want to attack, and transfer the partner (or even switch first to have the one in the back get the attack) over to an unpaired unit to then get an attack with an attack stance off with them, if the one unit that transferred to had yet to act, you could use a switch and transfer to do the same thing with them. Eventually you have to have someone transfer and separate which ever units ended up paired after your maneuvers, but you have a lot of control over who has to spend their turns when separating. Now you do have to incorporate these kinda maneuvers into your tactics, and if you have too many of you units trapped in pairs, or have spread your forces too thin, you might not be able to pull it off.

 

Overall I think @AnonymousSpeed did a good job of summing up what I like about the Fates system, I almost wrote something much more detailed, but essentially the same early on in this thread.One minor things I would add is that I think Revelations works well as long as you set yourself some kind of challenge run that lets you play around with Fate's systems.

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

4 hours ago, Eltosian Kadath said:

Overall I think @AnonymousSpeed did a good job of summing up what I like about the Fates system, I almost wrote something much more detailed, but essentially the same early on in this thread.One minor things I would add is that I think Revelations works well as long as you set yourself some kind of challenge run that lets you play around with Fate's systems.

I found Revelation Hard mode to make for a really fun, low-pressure Ironman. The near-absence of skills on enemies dumbs things down, but that's not always a bad thing. My biggest hangup with Conquest is the feeling that "ugh, I have to check every enemy for skills". Like, I can respect the tight gameplay and map design it offers, while honestly finding the swarm of mechanics mentally fatiguing at a certain point.

[Dark Holy Elf]

10 hours ago, Imuabicus said:

What range bonus do you mean? 

I thought there was an implication that with some proposed ways of doing separate, your pairup would be able to move, separate, and then the character who had just been "dropped" (potentially a square forward) would get a turn, thus extending normal range possible. But I can't find the quote that gave me that impression so maybe I was just misreading.