On Archers, Snipers, and Hunters.

[Jedi]

archers (irl) are not meant to engage in solo combat. they're supposed to just rain down a bunch of arrows. fire emblem is already taking liberties with introducing the concept of snipers.

True that and if they even did get into solo combat by some reason they usually have a close range weapon as well.

maybe we could have some kind of towers or something that can only be manned by archers? They get extra range and 2 or so attacks from it.

Edited August 9, 2013 by Folgore Red II

[Elieson]

I think pulling other unit types and adding in more than like 3 archers per game would make them more prevalent. I mean who's gonna use archers when you get just as many, if not more, horseback units?

[Jedi]

I think pulling other unit types and adding in more than like 3 archers per game would make them more prevalent. I mean who's gonna use archers when you get just as many, if not more, horseback units?

You get rare people like me who uses every character at some point or don't care about going fast in an FE but.. Yeah you do have a point.

[King Marth]

I think pulling other unit types and adding in more than like 3 archers per game would make them more prevalent. I mean who's gonna use archers when you get just as many, if not more, horseback units?

I think that all this would do is have people simply use the best Archer at their disposal. I can imagine that most people will only use one archer(if any) on their team due to the limitation on how many units are allowed and the fact that archers are not very good due to being locked to 2 range combat.

I always felt that arrows should pierce armor myself, due to the preciseness needed on a good shot you could probably get in between armor pieces. [i know from doing IRL Archery and such]. Even more effective damage along with a good str boost is what I personally feel. Maybe bump up the range to 2-3 with longbows being 2-4

Sounds interesting, although it doesn't really give the archer a distinct niche that separates it from other units, as mages can pretty much do the same thing.

[charlie_]

Peeps who said Fee is not the funnest unit in FE4 is lying

Rescue on a Horse!

nah that'd be fury

but yeah archers need stats, and even then they need to have some reason to use over other bow wielding classes.

Edited August 9, 2013 by Essbee

[dondon151]

maybe we could have some kind of towers or something that can only be manned by archers? They get extra range and 2 or so attacks from it.

TRS has tower tiles that are like forts and also give +1 range to bow users

[charlie_]

True that and if they even did get into solo combat by some reason they usually have a close range weapon as well.

maybe we could have some kind of towers or something that can only be manned by archers? They get extra range and 2 or so attacks from it.

this just sounds like ballistas

[X-Naut]

True that and if they even did get into solo combat by some reason they usually have a close range weapon as well.

maybe we could have some kind of towers or something that can only be manned by archers? They get extra range and 2 or so attacks from it.

Bring back height differences from RD, bows gain +1 range for every [insert height metric here] above the enemy. If it's just towers and they're not common then you might as well just add more ballistae.

[Anouleth]

Having height differences give range wouldn't affect anything, since more than half the time, you're fighting uphill rather than downhill. I can't imagine towers to be that useful, either. Flexibility of positioning is one of the most important things in Fire Emblem; it's why Canto and movement and dancers are so powerful. Towers force archers to give that up, and would probably make no difference at all to them, even assuming that the player had frequent access to them.

Nothing, in other words, that we haven't seen before with Ballistae.

[Genuine Uncertainty]

Yeah the height difference idea wouldn't be the best as most of the time in FE, you are the one who is attacking, and often attacking forts/hills/whatever. On top of that, there are very few defend maps overall (although I do think they present an interesting challenge and if done well are amazing). Awakening had one-ish defense chapter, where you defend Emmeryn. And no chapter where the objective is "defend"

[Jedi]

I guess the tower idea was a tad silly. Maybe if they added more defense chapters in FE you could have some kind of fortifications or something that boosts certain classes though.

That is also probably pretty silly now that I think about it.

[General Horace]

make archers worth like half a deployment slot and cavaliers worth two

[Samias]

In Radiant Dawn, I actually liked the concept of ledges in a defend chapter for choke points. Anyone with 2-range could block a point with very little danger of being hurt, which was basically the shining moment of Leonardo, Meg, and Fiona's existence whether you leveled them up or not, because the enemy can't climb the ledge if you occupy it. Making the height of the terrain impact accuracy again is something I'd like to see return, as well as areas where archers can keep enemies from advancing. I realize that 1-2 weapons can also be used in the same manner, but maybe if bows exclusively got a range increase from high ground (due to an archer being able to fire and arrow further than a javelin or hand axe can be thrown I guess) it would give you more of a reason to use archers, without as many problems a flat +1 range increase can cause for map design.

Also, IS needs to stop including ways to cheese a defend chapter in one turn. I like waiting out 2-E and 3-13 but admittedly it's way too easy to just use Haar or Elincia to end 2-E whenever you want. I hope in the future, IS comes up with some map designs where movement isn't the end-all be-all.

[Jedi]

In Radiant Dawn, I actually liked the concept of ledges in a defend chapter for choke points. Anyone with 2-range could block a point with very little danger of being hurt, which was basically the shining moment of Leonardo, Meg, and Fiona's existence whether you leveled them up or not, because the enemy can't climb the ledge if you occupy it. Making the height of the terrain impact accuracy again is something I'd like to see return, as well as areas where archers can keep enemies from advancing. I realize that 1-2 weapons can also be used in the same manner, but maybe if bows exclusively got a range increase from high ground (due to an archer being able to fire and arrow further than a javelin or hand axe can be thrown I guess) it would give you more of a reason to use archers, without as many problems a flat +1 range increase can cause for map design.

Also, IS needs to stop including ways to cheese a defend chapter in one turn. I like waiting out 2-E and 3-13 but admittedly it's way too easy to just use Haar or Elincia to end 2-E whenever you want. I hope in the future, IS comes up with some map designs where movement isn't the end-all be-all.

I agree with this entirely.

I see 2 ways to get around "cheesing" the defend maps, 1 is make the reinforcements never ending like Thracia 776's chapter 4. 2 Have no "If you defeat this boss you win" or to play a prank, have that as an alternate objective but make the boss like a Black Knight unstoppable/unkillable figure.

Edited August 10, 2013 by Folgore Red II

[Anouleth]

In Radiant Dawn, I actually liked the concept of ledges in a defend chapter for choke points. Anyone with 2-range could block a point with very little danger of being hurt, which was basically the shining moment of Leonardo, Meg, and Fiona's existence whether you leveled them up or not, because the enemy can't climb the ledge if you occupy it. Making the height of the terrain impact accuracy again is something I'd like to see return, as well as areas where archers can keep enemies from advancing. I realize that 1-2 weapons can also be used in the same manner, but maybe if bows exclusively got a range increase from high ground (due to an archer being able to fire and arrow further than a javelin or hand axe can be thrown I guess) it would give you more of a reason to use archers, without as many problems a flat +1 range increase can cause for map design.

Also, IS needs to stop including ways to cheese a defend chapter in one turn. I like waiting out 2-E and 3-13 but admittedly it's way too easy to just use Haar or Elincia to end 2-E whenever you want. I hope in the future, IS comes up with some map designs where movement isn't the end-all be-all.

It's true that Meg and Fiona were strongest in roles in which they didn't have to actually fight anything or do anything other than stand around picking their noses, but I think when most people say that Meg and Fiona need to be stronger, they usually mean that they should be able to get within five feet of an enemy without instantly evaporating, not that they should have more opportunities to stand around reminding you of how absolutely useless they are as anything but a doorstop.

Mobility has always been a strong asset in strategy games, the problem is that mounted units have just as good stats as everyone else, except for move which is much higher. Or, in the case of Haar and Elincia in 2-E, they actually have better stats than everyone else. Marcia is just as mobile, but nobody is going to try to 1-turn using her. And even if Brom sprouted wings, he'd be incapable of killing Ludveck. So movement definitely isn't the "end-all be-all".

[The Void]

So, here's a list that I've made of suggestions to improve Archers/Hunters/Snipers that I've seen:

1. Give Archers/Hunters the most range of all non-magical units. Have all Archers have 2-3 range by default and increase it to 2-4 at promotion.

2. Archers/Hunters get more exp. from attacking and killing enemies than various other units.

3. Give multiple playable Archers/Hunters a higher base strength than various other units.

4. Bows get more mt. than various weapons that aren't axes or magic.

5. Give Archers/Hunters a movement skill. It could be one that lets them move again after attacking. Or you could give them higher movement.

6. Add bonuses for them attacking from forests or forts.

Edited August 11, 2013 by The Void

[Sasori]

I agree on the movement part. I was always a little confused when fe11 and fe13 gave them a sucky 5 move which is the same kind that generals need to put up with. Archers tend to be light armoured and bows can't be much heavier then other weapons so I don't know how it makes sense.

They need higher bases too. Nearly every starting archer has a horrible start which sometimes even growths can't make up for.

Also archers have the problem that other classes can do the same job they can, but only better. Mages, javelins and hand axes have the benefit of attacking at range, but they can attack up close too. They did make the trowable weapons weaker in the ds games and awakening, but duel strikes in awakening made the lack of mt less important.

Its a shame since I have a soft spot for archers.

Edited August 11, 2013 by Sasori

[Phoenix Wright]

So, here's a list that I've made of suggestions to improve Archers/Hunters/Snipers that I've seen:

1. Give Archers/Hunters the most range of all non-magical units. Have all Archers have 2-3 range by default and increase it to 2-4 at promotion.

2. Archers/Hunters get more exp. from attacking and killing enemies than various other units.

3. Give multiple playable Archers/Hunters a higher base strength than various other units.

4. Bows get more mt. than various weapons that aren't axes or magic.

5. Give Archers/Hunters a movement skill. It could be one that lets them move again after attacking. Or you could give them higher movement.

6. Add bonuses for them attacking from forests or forts.

i think if 1-3 and 5 were implemented simultaneously, it'd fix archers pretty well.

I agree on the movement part. I was always a little confused when fe11 and fe13 gave them a sucky 5 move which is the same kind that generals need to put up with. Archers tend to be light armoured and bows can't be much heavier then other weapons so I don't know how it makes sense.

They need higher bases too. Nearly every starting archer has a horrible start which sometimes even growths can't make up for.

it's pretty much because they get an effective range of six tiles. if movement were to be more logical, i'd say archers, thieves, and mages should start with 6 mov, infantry 5, mounted/fliers 7, armored 5. knights get no movement bonus upon promotion.

there's no arguing with the fact that archers need higher bases. this needs to happen.

[Baldrick]

Galeforce is actually appropriate class balance-wise, even if it makes no sense whatsoever. Maybe call it Rapid-Fire?

[Jedi]

Galeforce is actually appropriate class balance-wise, even if it makes no sense whatsoever. Maybe call it Rapid-Fire?

Upshot, which the term is used for the last shot of an archery contest could work. Could indicate the shot then UPSHOT activates you have ONE MORE. -Shrugs- twas a though.

Edited August 12, 2013 by Folgore Red II

[Baldrick]

The upshot of using that term is that FE archers are given more of a link to real-life archers

[Elieson]

Guys guys what if, snipers earned Galeforce, but could only use it as a sniper?

[Jedi]

Guys guys what if, snipers earned Galeforce, but could only use it as a sniper?

Works for me. I'd be all for that honestly

[JSND Alter Dragon Boner]

lame joke time

> Has Galeforce at base

> Can't reclass into Dark Flier

[Phoenix Wright]

lame joke time

> Has Galeforce at base

> Can't reclass into Dark Flier

FTFY gotta 4chan right bro

does anyone else think the usage of bows could be more desired if it were exclusively for archers -> snipers/bow knights? and bow knights would be exclusive to hunters/nomads/archers

Edited August 12, 2013 by Phoenix Wright