Scaramuccia

Engine cost isn't a big part of the cost for games like ToTK(even if there is a room for discussion how much effort they spend upgrading it - fuse system, for example is a huge thing to develop) - the real cost is to create the world. There are other projects that use similar size open sandbox worlds, but they don't handcraft them to the level BOTW did it. And ToTK looks the continuation of the same logic - every location in this huge world is handcrafted and polished - it is a crazy amount of work and the main reason that there is not that many such games on the market.

With a focus on base building in the latest titles Fire Emblem Rimworld war crime simulator sounds like a good idea.

Make lore really deep - you have 5 minutes supports all of which are about world history, there is logic and sense in every chapter, there are many mini bosses that you see only in a single map, but all of them have backstories you are forced to learn in dialogs during chapter.

Engage is a bit hard to judge as due to the AI behaviour difference thief on hard and thief on maddening are two different classes.

I don't see that huge difference between Chloe and Lapis if you value units on their own. Yes Chloe comes earlier, but by around ch 10 they could be built very similar and work in a very similar role. I could understand a rank or two difference, but S vs C is confusing. Also there is a strong argument for Etie - you probably want to run a dedicated archer as there are many many fliers in the game and she could be built as a reliable solution to enemy fliers problem.

Feels so wrong on so many levels. I suppose difficulty is maddening, but what is the criteria for it? Endgame potential, overall potential, how critical is the unit/emblem to finish the game, do you care about team composition or evaluate units based on their own power, are you comparing invested units or underinvested units, ltc/non-ltc etc.

Hit is very good and not easy to get in nearly every FE. Most of engravings you considered weak provides absurd amounts of hit.

Engage showed some interesting ideas how to balance classes. First, movement is considered a much more valuable thing than before - armor is 4, infantry 4->5(basic/advanced), cav and fliers 5->6. This is a big difference from usual 4 to 8 spread. Another important thing - class type skills. Only infantry gets them - and some of them are very good. This could be implemented easily in later titles - +1 mov is good but when alternative is no cav weakness and powerful skill it doesn't sound that good. Another Engage specific thing are emblem effects that depends on the user class type - this promotes using variable line up you may want some mystics/coverts/whatever in your team not because the class is strong, but because you want an emblem effect that will be available only on this class type. This idea is harder to implement in other titles, but could definitely be mimicked - imagine pair up effects class type dependent.

Engage is a bit too early to judge as the game itself is very polarizing, but I think Hortenzia and Goldmary have big polarizing potential.

There are so many good maps that it is hard to select a favorite. I could literally name a random number like 19 and remember some good things about. I think it is easier to name maps that were just OK for me - I've just finished 20 and 6, 9, 13, 16 are probably the only ones to put at the bottom tier(and it is B bottom tier, not D). And even this I am not sure about as 13 for example have this funny "could I reach that house" moment.

Quite the opposite I would like to disable DLC emblems in the midgame.

Can't promise to watch the stream so ignore my suggestion if you have other candidates, but I think that Céline/Martial Master could be an interesting pick.

The biggest issue with tier lists right now - people don't differentiate based on the level of investment. In engage the difference between invested and underinvested unit could be huge. And we are not talking about growth units like Anna - Ivy is a perfect example as you either invest into fixing her flaws and get a great flying mage or get a mediocre units with low hit and low speed. But I saw many people saying Anna is great as you give her Micaiah, when forge, engrave, good emblem and she is S tier. And Boucheron(many early units could be in this place) is terrible as he falls back without enough experience and are not doing enough damage mid game with a +1 steel weapon and no emblem. Both statements are technically correct, but they don't mention that if you give Boucheron Micaiah, forge, engraving and emblem he will be quite OK in mid game. I think any reasonable tier discussions should involve two tier lists - for an "invested" performance and "non invested" performance. As investment is so powerful in Engage.

I fought similar. But after checking math it isn't a big difference even for an "average character". In 3h I would call 45 str character as good, but not exceptional and in Engage same applies 35 str. This is 10% per level. In 3h best classes are 15, good are 10. In engage even if you ignore Berserker - there are several 20 and 15 is everywhere. So we have at least 5 difference. But don't forget leveling - in 3h you use many classes before getting your endgame class. And they all have lower growths. In Engage you promote much faster. As a result you get more level ups with better growths - there is an example of math for it in the thread and it shows that this effect is approximately 5% per level. Suddenly we get 10 vs 5 +5. Which looks like a balance. So growths are not the reason why weapon mt is more valuable in Engage than in 3h.

Training skirmishes are an option - you just need to survive it to get bonus xp in the end. But Micaiah and especially Great Sacrifice spam is the best leveling option.