Why are swords more expensive?

[Rewjeo]

So, I've noticed that in most (if not all) Fire Emblems, swords are more expensive than lances which are in turn more expensive than axes. This has never made sense to me. Hit for hit, a sword is going to do the least as it is the weakest weapon type and it is used by units with (generally) lower STR. Axes will take fewer hits to kill something, and yet can be much less expensive. In FE8, for example, an Iron Sword costs 460 while an Iron Axe costs 270 and only has one fewer uses. If you're 3HKOing an enemy with a sword and 2HKOing with an axe (pretty accurate with Eirika/Garcia earlygame) then the sword is costing 30 gold an enemy while the axe is costing a whopping 12. If you're 2HKOing with a hand axe, each enemy costs 30 gold- the same as an Iron Sword- except I'm doing it with 1-2 range. The lances falls in between, but an Iron Lance will kill an enemy for less gold than an Iron Sword. With lances, though, the javelin IS more expensive per enemy than an Iron Sword.

tl;dr version: Swords cost more than lances cost more than axes, despite already being less effective at killing enemies per hit. This can actually make killing an enemy with a sword more than twice as expensive as with an axe. Why, then, make swords more expensive?

[a.f.k.a. Howard Hughes]

Because making a sword is much harder than making a lance? and axes....

Edited July 10, 2011 by Sho.M.the.Nyan.Count

[Freohr Datia]

It could have to do with how hard they are to make... I would think that axes looked hardest to make though while swords come afterward... Some lances don't look that hard but of course the higher priced ones do look pretty hard...

Idk if they're basing it off of real life situations though and what do I know? xD

[Thor Odinson]

I don't get it either. Axes and lances uses more metal to make than swords, too, though I don't know much about the European swordmaking process. KatanasKilling Edges, I get, since it is pretty complicated to make a good one, but not so sure about mass-produced Irons and Steels.

Maybe it's because they realised how much swords are better than the other physical weapons (save like, Killer Bow, 2wt, damn) in FE4 and is determined to reverse that, or something.

[riariadne]

Lances cost more than swords in Shadow Dragon and New Mystery, at least. Otherwise, I have no idea. Maybe IS really overrated hitting. =|

[Icon of Sin]

From what I heard of in a shop that sold weapons a few months ago, swords cost more to make since they require more metal. An axe might as well have a wooden shaft to reduce costs and the weight of the axe.

For instance, most of the axes they sold were around 200$. Swords started at 300-400$.

[Integrity]

Adding on to Dio's, a lance is just a long (wooden) shaft with a tiny (relatively) bit of metal at the tip.

EDIT: This might just be assumptions, but a sword also has much more edge to refine than an axe, and that takes time and practice to get right.

What I don't get is why bows are obscenely expensive compared to all other weapon types (at least in FE6+). Difficulty to produce, I guess?

Edited July 10, 2011 by Integrity

[Freohr Datia]

Yeah that probably has to do with their form and you need the perfect wood so it won't break so easily. I read this book that talked about all the effort that goes into bow-making but idk if that's what they considered in making the FE games

[Swordsalmon]

Spears were extremely cheap to make because of how simple they are (Fire Emblem lances are more like spears than mounted lances), and axes are also pretty simple. Now, actual battle-axes would be expensive to make, but working axes are common and can be used as an improvised weapon.

In contrast, a sword is made entirely for combat. No one is going to use a sword to hunt, fish, or chop wood. It's also a far more complicated and intricate process to smith a sword than most other weapons. On that basis, I can understand why swords are more expensive than axes or lances.

Though it's a bit off-topic, it's surprising how many characters throughout the series actually are sword-users. Swords were typically not the first choice for a combat weapon; they were usually the sidearm of the day. Pointy-stick-like weapons (Spears, pikes, etc) have always been the primary weapons in most ancient/medievil armies, and knights actually used maces far more than swords.

[Lord Raven]

To be fair, many of those sword users use two weapons.

To put things in perspective: the only "pure" sword users in FE6 (random Fire Emblem game, though it has around 55 recruitable chracters outside of trial maps, and pre-promotion) are Roy, Dieck, Chad, Rutger, Astohl, Oujay, Fir, Cath, and Karel. Dieck and Oujay gain axes upon promotion (and most people tend to use Axes when a Hero promotes anyway), Astohl/Cath/Chad are thieves so they're not really combat-centric, and Karel/Fir/Rutger are the only "pure" sword users. It's not "most" that are sword users, it's just a few that are primarily sword users... which makes sense with your description.

Edited July 10, 2011 by Mercenary Raven

[Icon of Sin]

What I don't get is why bows are obscenely expensive compared to all other weapon types (at least in FE6+). Difficulty to produce, I guess?

I think it might be because of the arrows more than the actual bow itself. The fun thing is that in most FE, missing with a bow won't lower the actual durability of the weapon, the only exception being FE5 (which did the same distinction with thrown javelins and hand axes).

In contrast, a sword is made entirely for combat. No one is going to use a sword to hunt, fish, or chop wood. It's also a far more complicated and intricate process to smith a sword than most other weapons. On that basis, I can understand why swords are more expensive than axes or lances.

Though it's a bit off-topic, it's surprising how many characters throughout the series actually are sword-users. Swords were typically not the first choice for a combat weapon; they were usually the sidearm of the day. Pointy-stick-like weapons (Spears, pikes, etc) have always been the primary weapons in most ancient/medievil armies, and knights actually used maces far more than swords.

Just to contradict you a little bit, but machetes (and variants) are very much like a short sword and are used to cut plants, such as sugar cane or bamboo. They obviously don't require as much work to forge and many of them have a handle made out of wood or another cheaper alternative to metal.

A sword not being a first choice is partly because of their price to make. Spears and axes being cheaper, they were usually used by the bulk of the troops.

Edited July 10, 2011 by Dio

[Integrity]

I'd say that that last point is represented by the bulk of the enemies you fight (early on) being Loldiers and Brigands - Lance- and Axe-locked, respectively. Doesn't answer why the players are, but :p

[Icon of Sin]

I wouldn't just say early on actually. Most of the Akaneia FEs are like this, minus walking the Path of Anri with all its dragons (and even then, you face barbarians and hunters) and Gharnef's lairs. Most of Thracia is also likes this, unless you fight the Scwarze Rosen's Dark Mages or Freege's high number of Thunder Mages. It's only later on that sword users tend to be common as Mercenaries.

Meanwhile, the player gets an odd match of units with knights, mercenaries, bandits, villagers, clergymen, magi, nobles and furry/feathery/scalyfolk, each used to their own weapons and fighting styles, more or less.

Edited July 10, 2011 by Dio

[Parrhesia]

Blades, at least in mediaeval Europe, held noble connotations. The polearm, if not a horseman's lance, was the weapon of a peasant. The frighteningly effective weapon of a peasant.

This would be my logic, until I realised that bows are more expensive and vastly more Agincourty than blades.

[Byte2222]

I always assumed the weapon costs were a realism thing. Swords are a long metal blade that will need a lot of work to cast and forge correctly and a spear is basically just a knife on a stick. Axes can be made more simply, make a block of metal and sharpen a bit of it, and I imagine weapon-smiths made a lot of axes for general use. Bows are always difficult to make since you need to find a resilient but springy wood, possibly leave it for months to dry, shape it without sawing, possibly glue and laminate it (particularly for good bows) and finish the wood. Replica warbows still cost £700 ($1100) today. And then don't forget that for weapon makers their sales revenue is their only income so weapons won't exactly be cheap.

[Rewjeo]

But, in FE, there is no advantage to a sword over any weapon to justify its cost.

[Swordsalmon]

Just to contradict you a little bit, but machetes (and variants) are very much like a short sword and are used to cut plants, such as sugar cane or bamboo. They obviously don't require as much work to forge and many of them have a handle made out of wood or another cheaper alternative to metal.

A sword not being a first choice is partly because of their price to make. Spears and axes being cheaper, they were usually used by the bulk of the troops.

Machetes haven't been around too long; certainly not in the time period Fire Emblem is based on. Also, I was wrong in that there were medievil 'utility swords', but these were more of cleaver-sized and not very viable for combat.

Swords as a whole weren't particularly useful in battle compared to the spear or mace. Any random peasant could be handed a spear and trained real quick, whereas good swordsmanship took a lot more time to be effective in battle.

But, in FE, there is no advantage to a sword over any weapon to justify its cost.

But the bonus against Brigands!

[Lux Aeterna]

I'm almost positive someone else has said this but I'll say it anyway.

-Swords are harder to make

-Swords involve more expensive material (metal vs. some kind of wood)

[Celice]

(or maybe it's because, in the universe of fire emblem gaming

swords are emphasized first, then spears, and lastly axes)

Edited July 11, 2011 by Celice

[Parrhesia]

That doesn't account for bows, which are the worst in gameplay, low in status and rarely highlighted.

[Celice]

And are separate from the weapon triangle.

<insert loud DING! here>

[Reikken]

swords have highest total stats. 90 hit = 45 skl. 5 mt = 5 str. 45+5=50 total. 75 hit = 37.5 skl. 8 mt = 8 str. 37.5+8=46.5 total. 50 > 46.5. winner. Throw in the lower wt, and the gap is even bigger to cover any complaints you may have.

bows have even higher total stats (2 > 1, range)

Edited July 11, 2011 by Reikken

[Junkhead]

Machetes haven't been around too long; certainly not in the time period Fire Emblem is based on.

You're overthinking it.

[HongLei]

Well I think it is because of who uses the swords, if you are a king you're army will want something that can be mass produced quickly and cheaply (spears). I think of bandits using clubs because they are cheap and resemble axes but I don't think Fe would sell nearly as well if the first few levels your sword wielding protagonist was beating the crap out of idiots with clubs. Swords would most likely be used by traveling mercenaries, because they make a living by killing stuff and if I was a merc I would want a weapon that would last a while, but still be convenient to carry, an axe would be too heavy and impractical to drag around. A spear would be practical in the sense of doubling as a walking stick, but too exposed to the weather, and would therefore not last as long. A sword is fairly light, can be stowed away in the sheath and is a weapon meant to last a while.

[Freohr Datia]

Not to mention spears are also cumbersome because of how long they are so they can feel pretty heavy too. Sounds like an interesting theory =o