The Void

So why should I use bother using Rolf that much if I can win quick enough without going out of my way to baby him? How are archers "fine" in "casual play"? What's stopping somebody playing "casually" from benching Rolf and going around chucking Titania at people?

And why not? Do you say that as somebody who doesn't "handicap" yourself (as in going out of your way not use Jagen characters that much, going out of your way to use Rolf and other units that much, etc.)?

That Thracia 776 topic led to me thinking about this. Would you agree FE could be more difficult than it is now? And that FE hasn't been all that difficult through the years? With even T766 not being all that difficult if you aren't going in blind? What would you say are FE's problems that lead to the series being too easy (if you say it is)?

Didn't those chapters not have any level ups? Really though, with how high the growths have gotten over the years I'd say that's more of the issue than reclassing.

He's the same size as Eliwood at most and looks as old as Hector at most. How does he look like he's in his 20s?

Why was JaffarXNino brought up? Since was Jaffar that much older than Nino? Can anybody explain how they know he isn't say, 15 years old?

So is there a FE where a chunk of the playable units aren't mediocre (at best) or redundant?

Honestly, if it's harder to use more characters that much in Binding Blade than in various other FEs like Blazing Sword, then I say those FE games are easier overall.

None of the Fire Emblems are really balanced. A series like Fire Emblem can't be balanced without being overhauled. There have always been units more effective at getting the player through FE's maps than others. Your Haars against your Wolts.

1. Fire Emblem was never meant to be exactly like Medieval Europe. Especially not Awakening, what with how Frederick dresses. Among other things. 2. Firearms have been found in Europe that go back to the 1400s. If you say that doesn't count as Medieval, then I say Awakening isn't really "Medieval" and firearms could have been part of the setting. Anyway, at least one problem with firearms in FE is how they would differ from other long range weapons. They could be added, but I'm sure it wouldn't happen without the Tome groups being cut into.

Don't forget: 1. Some guy from a village being able to be a better fighter than a notable member of either Plegia or the Valmese Empire. 2. Horse riding in a skirt or leotard that long. 3. A illiterate girl being able to use a Fire tome while a scholar can't. 4. Not cutting your hair even when it's way down past your shoulders (see Titania). 5. Only a minorty of the playable units actually wears that much body armor. Etc.

You forgot to point out that various Lords don't really show that they're really all that upset about the whole killing soldiers thing. Sigurd really wasn't shown to be upset about killing any of his countrymen in Chapter 5.

You got a point with Frederick, but not all of those characters are normal humans.

Sigurd and Lewyn were talking about Agustria's civilians (which has noncombatants). And he certainly isn't shown to be all that upset in Chapter 4 (where he's interfering in another country's civil war) and Chapter 5 (where he's fighting his own countrymen).

FE games don't really dwell on the whole killing people thing as far as the Lords goes. Oh sure, one of the Lords might complain about it in a chapter or more. But beyond that? Eh. Did Sigurd get upset that much for all the soldiers who died against members of his army who weren't also fellows that he actually knew that much like Eldigan?

Because killing your soldiers is the actions of a man who isn't cartoonishly evil and is filled with redeeming qualities in a video game. Can you tell me what doing that was shown to have accomplished?

And again, Tibarn and Micaiah were enemies at the time. FE Lords aren't required to cry themselves to sleep or yell at their soldiers every time they or somebody in their army kills some guy or gal in the opposing army. And no, they really don't have that much. You know who is a good boy and who is a puppy kicker in various FE games even with characters like Camus being around. In RD, Jarod and his army was cartoonishly evil, most of the Senators were cartoonishly evil, the playable characters from Begnion weren't, Levail and other soldiers are just following orders, various members of Team Ashera aren't from Begnion. That's not what I would call a good track record.

1. Tibarn and Micaiah were enemies. The Avatar and Chrom were not. 2. RD didn't have much grey morality when it came to Begnion. FE games don't have that much.

And other FE Lords aren't praised when they kill or take part in battles where enemy soldiers are killed?

What did Blazing Sword and Binding Blade do to deserve remakes? And Blazing Sword didn't have that much to do with Binding Blade. Most of the playable characters in both games aren't related, so a generation system wouldn't add that much.

FE4 doesn't have a good story. Neither FE7, come to think of it.

Fire Emblem has always had it's designs be stylized rather than be what soldiers actually dress and groom like. For example, there's how not all of the women their hair or wear pants.

1. Mounts can't double. 2. Mounts can't counterattack on the Enemy Phase. 3. Mounts get stat penalties for Pair Ups. 4. Generals and Great Knights are merged into one class. 5. At least one playable Archer/Hunter gets higher base strength. 6. Archers/Hunters get more move than all non mounted units.

All of the reinforcement spots are clearly marked on the map.

Did any of them say what makes a true Fire Emblem?