Tables

Class mastery abilities: Can't stack. Skill rank bonus abilities: Can stack. As far as I know, that's it. The Class mastery rule mostly makes sense since the majority of class mastery abilities which are also innate class abilities are things that wouldn't make sense to have on someone twice - Vantage twice or Unarmed Combat twice would be pointless. Fiendish Blow is really the one big exception, and it kind of sucks since it would give Dark Bishop a bit of a niche to stay in, rather than just being a stepping stone to get Lifetaker before promoting to Dark Knight. So @Tombstone88 this means you can stack weight reduction skills, as well as double -faires (as is well known), double Sword Crit +10% on Swordmaster, and... er, I think that's about it actually.

Gfaqs has a list stickied on their forum. https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/204445-fire-emblem-three-houses/77970442

Very useful guide. Would love to see more research, especially into battle EXP, but I'm sure that will be a much trickier nut to crack. I was beginning to suspect that support EXP didn't vary by difficulty - I've quickly noticed my highest level units on Maddening are all of my mages, who are already a solid 2-4 levels ahead of the rest of my team. Nice to see that confirmed.

Just did a bit of testing to confirm, used my Maddening save which is in the week 17/11 to 22/11, and dropped down to test each difficulty in turn. I suggest looking at Catherine (Sword strength, Authority neutral) and Cyril (Reason weak, Authority neutral) for east comparison figures. Baseline figures Normal - Gains 24/28/32 for weak/neutral/strength respectively Hard - Gains 20/24/28 for weak/neutral/strength respectively Maddening - Gains 16/20/24 for weak/neutral/strength respectively So yeah, definitely difficulty based. It makes sense though - you gain WAY more skill EXP in battle in Maddening since enemies take more hits to kill and there are more enemies. Not to mention you gain normal EXP so much more slowly, so it's more fights before you can promote, meaning more time gaining EXP towards classes. Compensating for that by dropping the amount you get per week helps keep your skill EXP balanced. Only 4 per week per skill may not seem like a huge drop, but even assuming you're only training a main team of 10 characters, that's 80 EXP per week, often ~3 times per month - so about 240 skill EXP less per chapter, give or take. You probably earn about that much extra just from additional rounds of combat each chapter, so overall it probably balances out - but it's a pretty interesting way of doing it I feel. It also makes me wonder if using weekly goals as the main method to train weaknesses is still optimal on Maddening. On hard I always felt it was the right move, since you earn about 71% of the EXP you'd get from training a strength in the same, which is better than most other methods (e.g. for tutoring, even with statues active, you'd gain 4 EXP vs. 8, which is 50%; or in battle with no class bonuses, it's 1 EXP vs. 3, only 33%; even with max class bonus of +3 it's 4 vs. 6, 66%). Now it's down to about 66%, which is... still probably the best way overall, but there's definitely going to be cases where it's better to do other things to train weaknesses.

With the release of Maddening difficulty I feel like this list may be worth revisiting. I'm currently playing through quite slowly, only up to chapter 6, so don't have a great feel for everything, but I do already feel that enemy phase performance is probably going to be more important on Maddening - enemies seem to die a lot more slowly, plus there are more enemies and same turn reinforcements, so being able to take hits and deal them back hard feels like it'll be more relevant. On top of that I feel like you can master classes more quickly, because more enemies + more rounds of combat to get kills = more chances to gain class EXP. Not sure how much impact that has on skills yet, but I do think things might shift a bit.

No. It just gets mentioned as a battle that took place, and you get told the result. Then you move on to taking the fort afterwards.

I absolutely don't think Soldier should move down. Reposition is incredibly powerful, I don't think it's any exaggeration to say it's the single most game changing class mastery ability, and it can be learned quickly. It's made even stronger than it was in Heroes due to things like Canto, which means you can easily use Reposition with little or no sacrifice to a units positioning. It doesn't have to be mastered immediately though - if one prefers they can get the Cethleanne statue bonus first and then switch back and finish mastering Solider. The "blind playthough" point I feel is not really valid - in a blind playthrough you don't know the value of mastering each class, you don't know the difference in growths etc. It's not really an environment where you can reasonably compare the value of mastering classes. And while yeah, the Intermediate classes do give slightly better stats, it's not really by much. Typically it's about 3-4 points of stats, and increased movement for many of them. The higher move is definitely the big thing you miss out on for the likely 1-2 extra maps it takes to master Soldier.

For timon:

I've made changes based on discussion here. Pegasus Knight High > Top Cavalier Upper Mid > Lower Mid Dark Mage Low > Lower Mid Paladin Upper Mid > Lower Mid Assassin Lower Mid > Low Foretress Knight Shadow Realm > Low Priest Lower Mid > Low Currently considering Thief down - I felt like I was missing a number of interesting stealable stuff, especially on my BE-E and BE-C runs. I'd like to repeat my question from before: Can you steal "legendary" type equipment, for example (BE-E spoilers): If you can't I'm definitely thinking Thief down to Upper Mid. I'm also thinking possibly of renaming some of these tiers, maybe splitting Low/Lower Mid into three tiers since they're pretty big right now.

I believe it's +3 from the paralogue, +3 from chapter 10, and +1 per statue, for a total of 13. A pretty excessive amount but there you go.

Some arts are learned as normal arts, and can be used in any class, e.g. Subdue, movement arts and Triangle Attack. Others such as Hunter's Volley, War Master's Strike, Astra etc. can only be used in the class that gives them, and they don't have to be equipped like a normal art - you just have access as a bonus 4th art.

Lethality down is definitely something I don't really have an issue with. Activation rate is pretty bad, Assassinate is exclusive to the Assassin class - although Assassin is arguably the best sword focused class so there's that but Assassinate isn't great either anyway. I think I've seen one useful Lethality in my time playing, so dropping that down to low I think is fair.

This is one specific example, and even then, I don't really see why it matters. Again, a 10% drop in speed growth is an average of 1 point lost every 10 levels. Heck, there's a 35% chance (regardless of growths) that you don't even lose ANY speed from reclassing to Paladin for 10 levels. 1 point of speed can make you miss some doubles, yeah. 1 point of strength can also make you miss some kills, 1 point of defence can make you unable to survive an enemy combination etc. It is really not a big deal. This isn't really a fair comparison, because Wyvern Rider is by far the best physical advanced class. It also has a completely different skill focus, needing Axe+Flying instead of Lance+Riding. I could say the same thing about Sniper, or Assassin, or really just about any other physical advanced class.

You're correct. It was going to be lower mid, basically more useful than Pavise but from a more niche class. For some reason I must have failed when copying across from Excel. Yes, QR does, but I already talked about that. With Miracle, I suppose that's true. I can't say I think too much of Miracle, so low tier seems pretty reasonable. For some reason when I started making the list it was in upper mid. Then I started explaining that and was like "why the hell did I put this here" after writing one sentence. Hmm, I didn't know about that. That does seem like it's fairly significant. I think it's hard to judge for me since I've never actually mastered Dark Mage - when Mage is an option it's hard to justify, right? With Steal, several Master Seals before you can get the Secret Shop, a few Elixirs and various accessories. It's probably not THAT much, actually. Does anyone know if you can steal unique item accessories from bosses that have them, such as (ch. 12 Edelgard): If you can I think that justifies the placement on the list, even if it's something you only occasionally want to bring. If not, maybe I should move it down. Current movement considerations based on replies: Cavalier (Desperation) down to Lower Mid (think I agree, the skill is good in theory but I barely used it in my playthroughs) Priest (Miracle) down to Low (not certain about this one, think I agree) Pegasus Knight (Darting Blow/Triangle Attack) up to top (I'm 50/50 on this one still, I agree it's either top of high or bottom of top though) Dark Mage (Poison Strike) up to Lower Mid (I think I probably underrated because it's overshadowed by Mage, but I feel it's fairer to judge on its own merit) Adding the missing Fortress Knight (Pavise) to Lower Mid or Low. (Niche class, decent skill) Anyone has any additional thoughts on these? The -10% speed growth is massively overstated, honestly. It hurts a bit but really not much - if you're in Paladin for about 10 levels, you end up losing an average of 1 speed compared to a class with no speed penalty. Speed is the most important stat, but it isn't the only important stat. If you look at its other growths, they're decent, better than Sniper for instance - compared to Sniper you get 20% HP, 5% Str, 5% Def and 5% Res extra, while Sniper gets 15% Dex and 10% Spd. Overall I'd say those sets of growths are about equal honestly. Anyway, this isn't really relevant to the thread, but I do dislike people overblowing how important class growths are, and acting like the -10% spd growth Paladin has is a death knell when it's really just a minor inconvenience, a small price to pay for having 8 move in an Advanced Class for 10 levels. -20 hit for every space beyond 2 range, I believe the rest of the formula was stated above. This only applies to bows, magic doesn't care about range. No, for several reasons unfortunately. This took a while to write, combat arts are much more varied in where and when they're learned so it's harder to compare fairly, and honestly, they become less important beyond the early game to the point where even after three and a half playthroughs I feel like I've barely used half of them.

Can't really say with Pegasus Knights, they are definitely an advanced class for enemies. It could be that they planned to have three tiers for pegasii, but then decided to drop down to just two, and did different things for enemy and player pegasii. Confusion from breaking a single barrier piece wears off after one attack or at the start of enemy phase, so they will still attack. Stunning from breaking all barriers wears off after the enemy phase, so they won't attack.

I see a lot of people talking about which classes are worth mastering, is it worth mastering classes at all etc. and had the brilliant idea of making a psuedo tier list on how valuable classes are to master. This list is mostly just my views, backed up by experience playing the game on Hard/Classic, but feel free to disagree. I'm sure there's a lot of placements that could change. Since this is just for fun, and I don't have endless time I've decided not to rank within each tier, though if there's interest I suppose that could also be done. I wrote this to both inspire discussion, and be a psuedo guide to what classes are worth mastering - and to be a decent guide, it would definitely help to hear other opinions. Placement is based on two main factors: How valuable is it to master this class, and how viable is it to master this class. This list was initially based on Hard Classic, but with the release of Maddening mode is now updated for Maddening Classic, New Game, without DLC. Considering the above two points: Class types which come late in the game are often going to be tiered lower because their mastery abilities are valuable for less time. For example, Quick Riposte may be extremely powerful, but you will likely only have access to it for 2-5 chapters, give or take. On a similar note, how useful a class tends to be will also slightly influence placement - this is because strong classes are much easier to use and master, and less of an issue to spend time using to master. On the other hand, if a class is bad, then diverging into it for a while to get its skill is a negative against the skill as it takes a bigger investment to obtain. But since this is focused mainly on the class mastery skills and not the classes themselves, how good classes are won't be a HUGE factor in general. Oh, and note that this does contain character unique classes, so bear that in mind if you're concerned about spoilers. So without any further ado, here's the list: And more detailed, with explanations: And that's everything. Hope that this was either helpful or interesting.

On top of what class they default to when joining, there is also looking at other things which indicate a natural class for them. I believe that when you are in the reclass/certification menus after the timeskip, their default outfit will match one classes outfit. Similarly you can see what classes they appear as when you face them as enemies, particularly when you face them for the final time. Either of these could be called their "canon" classes. I'm not sure if many of them differ, off the top of my head I think Cyril (Sniper vs Wyvern Lord) and Dorothea (Dancer vs Warlock) do.

Falcon Knights are also really good. Wyvern Lords are just a little better. Wyverns give 3 strength and 3 defence more in terms of major stats, in exchange for just 1 speed. Falcon Knight has better dex and res, but those tend to be less valuable stats. Overall it isn't a big gap between them, so for females I would recommend just going for whichever is easier in terms of weapon ranks.

I haven't seen anyone list these before, although given how popular this game is I expect it has already been done. I tested a few Seminars out, and feel confident I've sussed out most of how they work: Stat gain Seminar EXP is not fixed, it is dependent on the skill level difference between the teacher and each attendee, as well as if it is a strength or weakness. For the purpose of below, every half letter improvement is being counted as 1 rank. So e.g. the difference between E+ and C rank is 3 ranks Skill ranks teacher is above students - base Skill EXP gained 11 ranks - 80 EXP 10 ranks - 72 EXP 9 ranks - 64 EXP 8 ranks - 56 EXP 7 ranks - 48 EXP 6 ranks - 40 EXP 5 ranks - 36 EXP 4 ranks - 32 EXP 3 ranks - 28 EXP 2 ranks - 24 EXP 1 rank or less - 20 EXP This is then multiplied by an amount depending on if it is a students weakness, strength or neutral skill. Weakness - x0.5 Neutral - x1 Strength - x1.5 For example, suppose I have my Byleth with A Swords and B Authority run a Seminar. Felix, who has D Authority, A+ Swords attends. First, we calculate how many skill ranks above Felix my Byleth is. He's -1 ranks above for Swords (i.e. below), and 4 ranks above for Authority. Next, we simply look those values up. Anything 1 or below is 20 EXP for swords, and 4 ranks is 32 EXP for Authority. Finally, we multiply by strengths and weaknesses. Felix has a strength in Swords, so we multiply by 1.5, and a weakness in Authority, so we multiply by 0.5. This gives final values of +30 EXP in Swords, and +16 EXP in Authority. We would of course repeat for every other attendee if we wanted to calculate what they gain, if needed. Attendees I haven't researched this in detail, but I have a few observations. May not be 100% correct however: You always get a minimum of 3 people attending, and a maximum of 6. Byleth always attends, unless he is teaching, because "apparently" he cannot be in two places at once. Lazy sod. The biggest priority for places (asides from Byleth) always seems to be study goals. Anyone who has at least one study goal that matches the seminar will attend, if there is space. Yes, this is very easy to cheese if you want to choose the exact 6 people/5 + Byleth you want to attend. Just make sure to change the goals back afterwards. If there are fewer than 3 people with a matching goal, it seems that people whose strengths match (and no weaknesses in the other goal) get prioritised. I'm not sure how it breaks ties beyond that. If there are more than 6 people with a matching goal... uhh some get picked. The game suggests students with motivation are more likely to attend, but I haven't really observed it clearly. If it's really a factor, it's a small one. Everyone who attends gets +50 motivation. Seminars have earned a bit of a reputation for being one of the worse ways to spend your Sundays (another case of fiction emulating reality), and I think there's definitely some truth to that. You can in theory earn a huge amount of skill EXP from a single seminar, but in practice if there are skills you care about training, normally they'll already be quite high on the characters being trained - so you end up getting ~30 skill EXP in relevant stats. Compared to what you can get in battles (EXP, skills, supports, money, other rewards), that just isn't worth it. And compared to what you can get exploring the Monastery, you get more EXP overall sometimes depending on how much you want to focus motivation and tutoring in specific skills, but don't get any of the other rewards you can get from exploring. I think Seminars do have a niche as the lazy but decent option, however. Sadly, switching all of your goals around to optimise them is REALLY not a lazy strategy, which is pretty sad. But at least you can do it for maybe 1-2 key characters, and if there's someone you don't care about taking up a Seminar spot you can just switch them out. Anyway, this is really me just rambling now - I was posting mostly to get the facts and numbers out - but feel free to talk about strategic use of Seminars below if you want.

Sometimes, yeah, but not a huge amount. They're heavy which limits doubling - but on the other hand they're pretty expendable for arts when you need a bit more power, but not enough to justify busting 1/4 of a relic in a single attack.

Iron, and forged Iron, have been my bread and butter on most characters. Including the cost of buying the smithing stones needed to repair, and factoring in they have higher durability, Iron forges are barely more expensive than just buying basic iron weapons (e.g. Iron Swords are 40 uses for 520G, so 13G each. Repairing an Iron+ forge costs 3 stones + 310G, so 610G in total, and has 45 uses - 13.6G per use). But in exchange you get +1 might and +10 hit (and for bows -1 weight) which helps a lot with both reliability, and the extra damage is nice sometimes. Asides from that, I tend to carry around a smattering of other strong weapons for when you need more power. Silver(+), Killer, relics etc. Generally everyone has at least one high power option for when it's needed.

Post timeskip, and on my second playthrough, I just went to promote Hanneman into a Gremory. Apparently, that's a female only class. I had no idea until just now - probably because it seems like he's basically the only male unit who specialises in magic out of the two routes I've played (GD first, BL second). Guess it's time to decide if I want to just stick with his advanced job, or work on Horse rank...

Yes, they do. As for why... ask IS I guess? The whole system for gaidens is stupid in Shadow Dragon.

Just because they appear in the game as enemies, it doesn't mean they're in any kind of playable state. Enemy officers have very limited move sets compared to playable heroes (including no specials, awakening finishers, dual specials etc), far less dialogue including supports, no extra costumes and so on. It's not like the character appearing as an enemy means they're fully ready to go as playable characters. Not saying KT's business practices in general aren't scummy, but I always find it weird that people pick this one out despite how disingenuous of a point it is.

I recently shared a lot of thoughts about this over on GFaqs, mostly mechanics focused. That thread was talking more about a sequel but I think it fits reasonably well here as well. Most of these thoughts are very similar, but I've expanded the support character section a lot since then. 1) Heavy tweaks to stats, skills and weapon balance I won't go into detail about the problems here for those who aren't aware - but in short, a few skills for both weapons and characters dominate the game, and weapon power ends up so high that most stats just don't matter at all, making all of the individuality of each character's stats just come down to "X has higher luck than Y so X is better" if they have the same moveset, and otherwise the only relevant stat being luck. So there's a significant number of possible changes here. I'd actually prefer to see a bit of a return to lower numbers for stats, similar to more classic FE games, but realistically that probably won't happen. So let's assume stats simply don't change much - the same kind of stat distributions happen in FEW2 as now (but no 999 HP cap as that's unnecessary). However, to make many stats more significant, we have to tweak other mechanics, or how they work: a) Reduce weapon might considerably. For example: Bronze as 10-15. Iron as 20-30. Steel as 40-60. Silver as 70-105. Brave as 110-165. Hero as 180-270. Personal weapons first are raised to 165 (by scroll), then to 270 (by Opus). This is high enough that having a good weapon can still have a very significant impact on damage, but allows differences in strength stats to have a realistic impact on damage. Currently, adding strength on to a 720 power weapon does basically nothing, but adding it to a 270 power weapon is far more noticeable. Obviously to accommodate this change, enemies would have to have lower HP/Def, especially later in the game, but minor changes like that are relatively easy. b) Tweak the stat some skills run on, or make them run on several stats. Luna has always traditionally depended on skill in FE games, so why not keep it that way here when skill is a relatively less important stat? Some skills could also depend on speed, to make that more significant as well. c) Reduce the damage limit for getting S ranks. It's a bit too easy currently, which makes defensive stats unimportant. If you had to actually pay attention to defences when picking characters, things might be a bit more balanced. d) General rebalancing of many skills. Luna is broken in its current form, I think most people know that. I've suggested formulae for it in the past that would make it scale much less oppressively. Lethality as well. But also, bump up the effectiveness of some of those less good skills: Make the stat+10 skills instead a stat +20% (with maybe a minimum +5 bonus so they're still of use at low levels) so they're still viable even at higher levels. Some of the situational damage boosters could be larger as well, like Awakening. 2) Pair Up, Support characters and multiple weapon types One thing that almost every FE game has, is characters who can use several weapon types. In a sense, FEW vaguely allows you to do this as you can swap characters in a pair up - but that really isn't the same thing, is it? But also with pair up existing, having several weapons on a character feels a little redundant. Fortunately, I've thought of a system that would have several benefits, which I call "Support characters", that also has many other potential benefits. I'll explain what these are first. Support characters would replace the current pair up system, you would no longer be able to pair up two playable characters and switch the vanguard at will. Support characters would be a wide library of non-controllable characters who are optionally assigned to each character at the start of battle (or using a default from the previous battle, similar to weapons+items). Like the current pair up partners, they don't usually appear directly on the battlefield but will appear briefly for their dual action (e.g. dual strike). They cannot be dismissed to act separately, but can be swapped with another playable character's support character when nearby. A character that is normally playable can be assigned as a support, if they are not otherwise deployed in the battle. Since support characters don't fight and there would be a lot more of them than playable characters, they gain EXP at a greatly increased rate, perhaps around 3x normal character EXP gain. However their levels have relatively smaller impact. Since support characters do not function like full characters, a lot of the work in creating them would be stripped out: They would have considerably fewer animations, only a few voice lines in battle, and only one costume. Considerably less effort to create them means you can realistically create a LOT more of them: The current game has 32 playable characters, you could realistically probably make 10+ support characters in the time it takes to fully develop just one character. And they could still be potential candidates for DLC or free updates to make them into fully fleshed out characters further down the line as well. Plus, they could still have support conversations and support levels with playable characters, potentially. Speaking of supports, to compensate for less support gain via pair up fighting, increase the amount gained by simply being deployed in the same map, and also gain support based on fighting near each other, not just while paired up. Essentially, support characters would allow a lot of characters who may otherwise have no chance of appearing in the game get in, at the cost of perhaps a small number of full character slots. You would also have the potential to deploy up to 8 characters with pair up partners into every map, which might make the game feel a bit more like a traditional FE game with a large army of unique characters. Speaking of pair up, the bonuses from your support character would work very differently. Every support character would still give a bonus to stats, but this bonus would be based now on the level of the support character, increased slightly by support rank you have with them. Dual Specials are gone (they're cute once or twice and the voice clips are nice, but otherwise they're OP and slow the gameplay down too much), and as for other effects, that depends heavily on the character. Increasing support level would no longer increase the rate that the dual strike/guard gauge charges, instead the single dual gauge that replaces it would always fill at a constant rate - but with higher support levels can be "overfilled" a certain amount, 1/3rd of a gauge extra per support level (meaning A support lets you double fill it, allowing e.g. two dual strikes in quick succession). Instead of a pair up partner giving access to dual specials, dual strikes, dual guards etc., supports here would give access to one main bonus depending on the character you support. Each support character would have one of five types (along with their corresponding dual action): Attack (Dual Strike), Defence (Dual Guard), Mobility (Dual Charge), Healing (Dual Heal) and Augment (Dual Rally). Many of these are new, and even the ones that aren't need some explaining (see spoiler below) This system would be a big difference from what we've got, but it would hopefully serve a few interesting purposes: It helps differentiate the support character from each other by varying what they can actually do, it makes choosing your support character interesting, it makes pair up somewhat less insane in power by separating out many of its potent effects and forcing you to choose just one. Now, with pair up not letting you simply switch characters, we can move on to the next part of this thing I'd like to see: Weapon swapping, or multi-weapon wielding, or whatever you'd like to call it. After promotion, each character would get a second moveset. Yes, these would probably mostly be clones of other characters, sorry. I'd prefer two unique on everyone, sure, but that just isn't realistic. However I envision that no character would share BOTH movesets with someone else, so at least everyone would be arguably more unique than FEW? Anyway, in battle you'd have the ability to swap weapon and use your second moveset and weapon type. One downside to this might be, to force decisions on the player, your second weapon would go in the same slot as your item otherwise would. So you can bring a second weapon type, but in exchange you sacrifice the ability to heal. Additionally, some characters after promotion, such as Ryoma, may not get a second weapon type but still get an alternate moveset - in that case, they would have the option to not equip a second weapon and just use their first for both - a small advantage in terms of weapon optimising, and allowing them to keep using their item slot. Not much more to say about this, especially. Everyone would still only have one personal weapon. 3) Other miscellaneous improvements * Improved AI commands menu One minor frustrating thing in the game is having to constantly pause and change AI targets every time they achieve something, or just ignore the fact they could be being more helpful and simply let them roam wild. Since FE is a strategy and tactics game first and foremost, let's add a few extra options here: a) Queue orders on a unit. Order them to kill target enemy A, then capture fort B, then guard that fort, all before even starting the mission. Now you can play missions with fewer distractions. b) More advanced orders on units. Kill target or defend ally/fort exist, which is nice. Let's add a few others, such as patrol area, making a unit move around a designated zone and attack any enemies that come near, an interrupt to go heal option so they can do task X, but if someone ends up below half health they break off and go heal them, things like that. Also, things like attacking/defending specific outposts and the like, c) For players who prefer to just jump right into battle without spending a minute or two crafting their strategy, orders without pausing. When an AI character finishes their order, you currently get a textbox of them basically saying they're done. Let's have that message hover with a button prompt you can hold down, to bring up a quick menu and assign a quick instruction for their next action on the fly.You could have a number of basic options from this such as "Attack nearby enemies", "Attack a nearby fort", "Come to me", "Defend your current location", "Defend the allied base" etc. Quick, simple things that don't require pausing, so you can keep the action going. * Showing enemy stats in game. Why not? The game is already good enough to give us levels, just cut out a bit more of the guesswork. * Movement stats that are actually proportional to movement speed. This one seems so obvious in retrospect. Flying units with 20 move are obviously not moving 4 times as fast as Infantry units with 5 move, so how about we actually just get propotional values here? For reference, the rule is roughly "add 15-16 to the move stat" if you want to compare, e.g. flyers are about 35/20 times as fast moving as infantry - so why not just show infantry as 20 move, fliers as 35 move, cavalry as 30 and Frederick as 25? Probably a bunch of other minor stuff.