Question about how in-depth you approach the games

[Avioncore]

When you're playing FE, and planning out how you're either going to approach a map, or the next turn, how involved do you get with checking what every enemy could do? Like how deeply do you consider things? Is it: quickly check enemy attack, speed, and skills and throw a strong unit out to tank and deal with what position you're in after enemy phase on the fly, "cross that bridge when we get to it" mentality, or do you meticulously consider which of the enemies will likely hit/miss, crit, who will get every single kill and if they miss who will take it, make back up plans in the case of some super rare percent chance of things going south, etc. for literally every scenario and turn?

Basically should one approach the game that meticulously or just take small risks and not worry about it? I feel like the latter sucks the fun out of the game and causes you to progress at a snail's pace.

[lenticular]

Short answer: it depends.

It depends on my mood, on the game I'm playing, the difficulty level, if I'm doing a challenge run, all sorts of things. Sometimes I want to just play a fun romp where I throw everyone at the enemy without really thinking much or at all. Sometimes I want the extreme crunchiness of spending half an hour thinking things through and coming up with contingencies for contingencies before I actually move a single unit. Usually I'm somewhere between the two. And I'll choose the game/difficulty/challenge based on what I'm in the mood for.

[Samu_77]

In a game like Genealogy where every turn the game asks if I want to save then I'm pretty lax about my move, or if I'm playing Awakening I'm so familiar with the game that I just charge through it. In a game like Fates Conquest on higher difficulties I know that enemies will have like, multiple skills and positional changes that I need to check like everything. If I'm playing an Ironman then I'm going to be checking just about everything to make sure I'm not getting obliterated (although I will miss something once every now and then.) It also unironically depends on how irritating something can be to check. Like when you have to manually check a menu, sometimes more then one each time by hovering over a unit and then seeing what they have it gets tedious after a while, so like sometimes I'll mess up and my Jagen will take a Horseslayer to the face. If it's like Engage where I get all of the information I need at a quick glance then I can plan more because it's more convenient. Enemy range toggle is also super convenient

[Jotari]

Before turn wheel I would check most of everything, after turn wheel I check basically nothing. This has made going back to pre rewind games a rather embarrassing experience.

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

So, when I start the map, I generally run through the list of enemies, for aspects of interest. Stuff like stealables, killer weapons, siege tomes, and status staves. This helps me prep: "oh, if there's an Elixir, I should bring my Thief. Oh, if there's a Sleep Staff Bishop, I should bring a Restore Staff." Stuff like that. I also like to have a clear plan for turn 1, which determines how I lay out my units. "Okay, I'll send Miledy down towards the Village, have Bartre one-shot the enemy Mage with Fir in support range, and Dance for Douglas so he can greet the Cavaliers on enemy phase."

Beyond that, though, I tend to take things "turn-by-turn". Where possible, I'll send the "frontmost" units further ahead to take whatever enemies are in ramge, while my "backliners" finish off the closer-by enemies that I drew in last turn. Who goes after whom depends on matchup quality. Like, say there are two Nomads. Percival can one-round either one, while Noah and Treck combine to defeat a single one. In that case, it'd be a waste to have Noah and Percival combine for a kill, because then Treck can't finish off the remaining Nomad.

What degree of "planning everything out" is appropriate and warranted will, of course, vary from player-to-player. I'm probably more cautious than most, although I'd like to think I've moved away from the "turtling" of my younger days. ...At least, outside of a strict Ironman context.

[Zapp Branniglenn]

I'm in the middle of a pretty intensive rom hack right now. Every turn is a fresh hell of needing to knock out threats on player phase while also softening the next wave on enemy phase. And oh look, there's the reinforcements from the starting position here to see if I did it all fast enough to cover my flank. The steps are usually:

1. High priority target selection. Can't have my paladin on the front while that halberd is in play. The bolting mage or ballistae is close enough to take out - can I move my frontline up to support that kill or are we leaving them alive? Answer is usually to move up.
2. Look at my backline of units / the units with the least Mov. They have the shallowest pool of targets that they can reach. Figure who they'll be taking on first, because we don't want them having an empty turn unless they have staff utility or mounted rescue that could prove useful in case of failing a dodge/hit.
3. Bet on that crit? Support boosted killer weapons can get up to 40% crit chance. If they can knock out the toughest guy in one hit, that's ideal compared to two of my guys spending their turn to take out the same enemy. If the crit failed, then I ended up spending two units anyway.
4. By now half my units have moved or I'm about to move once that space is clear of that enemy. The rest are mopping up injured targets and setting up to make the enemy phase safe. More bodies is its own way of managing risk. If it's a high deployment map I've typically got one or two units I'm okay with losing. Because they don't have supports with my crew or their stats are only just barely working out for this point of the game. They're usually taking up the most bold positions. If they survive, great. But their reward is probably sticking their nose into the next meat grinder lol
5. Someone died and I'm not okay with that: Game is bullshit

Edited November 4, 2023 by Zapp Branniglenn