Mechanics that you want

[Emblem Lugh]

No, gender roles are awful, the only way they should be "used" in here would be to make a massive moral against them, or to verbally shit on the people who support them. Gender roles are discrimination, remember?

While that is somewhat true, it's better to say that 'forced' gender roles are discrimination.

[General Banzai]

I think FE7 and FESS had a good use of the Warp Staff, in that it was there but had only 5 uses, limited range, and was only available near the end of the game.

[Snowy_One]

No, gender roles are awful, the only way they should be "used" in here would be to make a massive moral against them, or to verbally shit on the people who support them. Gender roles are discrimination, remember?

I don't think this is the right topic to handle this in. I will post a reply here, but if you wish to continue this, please PM me. I am more than willing to talk about it. Also, I highly suggest watching the Extra Credits (found on Penny Arcade TV) episode on this as they handle and address the issue better than I could ever hope.

Discrimination is different than gender roles. To take the dictionary meaning discrimination means: treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination. The definition of gender roles, however, is: Gender roles refer to the set of social and behavioral norms that are considered to be socially appropriate for individuals of a specific sex in the context of a specific culture, which differ widely between cultures and over time. There are differences of opinion as to whether observed gender differences in behavior and personality characteristics are, at least in part, due to cultural or social factors, and therefore, the product of socialization experiences, or to what extent gender differences are due to biological and physiological differences.

Now, it is true that discrimination plays a part in gender roles. Women are expected to be physically attractive while men are expected to be attracted to every female that walks by that is remotely attractive. However, just because discrimination plays a part in gender roles does not mean all gender roles are inherently evil, discriminatory, or anything else. For example, the role of serving as a mother to a child is part of the gender role of being female. How a woman reacts and handles a child is a large part of who she is. Does she love the child for the childs sake, even if society demands she does not? Does she hate the child, even if society feels she should love it. Does she rebel against the concept of having children? Does she simply not care one way or the other what society says? Is what she is doing right or wrong or is she doing it for personal reasons or what not?

Example: Look at Samus Aran. Samus is a tough, strong-willed bounty hunter. When people played through Metroid originally, many people thought that, based on their own preconceived notions of how the genders should act, that she was a man. This caused a huge shock at the end of the game when Samus was revealed to be a woman and turned Samus from just another blank-slate hero into someone who acted outside of the expected norms. However, did she discard what it meant to be a woman in doing so, or did she simply not care? Look at Super Metroid and Fusion where she suddenly becomes a surrogate mother to the baby metroid. She doesn't act like a hatefilled monster and we get to see her feminine side without it detracting one bit from her persona. We even get to see in fusion her express remorse for losing the baby metroid and thankfulness for its final gift of allowing her a second chance at life. Now look at other M where we see all that taken away. Samus stops becoming the tough bounty hunter we had grown to love and, instead, becomes just another mindless, faceless, heroine taking orders from a man. It's not that she can't take orders from men without losing who she is, Fusion showed her taking orders from, even trusting, Adam (technically a computer recreation instead of being actually him), but it wasn't in the role of one being a master and the other the lacky, but both working together.

Another example: Sophitia and Cassandra from Soul Caliber. In the first two games, as I understand it (I never played Soul Edge and I owned Soul Caliber for only a month and didn't have the proper controller for the Dreamcast, so I gave it to a friend), she was little more than your basic holy warrior woman seeking to expunge evil... Then she got married and had two children. Suddenly everything about her changed. She's no longer fighting to stop evil for the sake of stopping evil or by the divine command of a god, she's doing it to protect her two children. Her stake in the battle has suddenly become very personal. Fearing for her children, she even joins the side of evil (admittedly handled very poorly) simply to protect them and ensure her safety. Meanwhile, her sister, fearing for her life and wanting to give her peace, sets out with the intent on stopping the war once and for all. Her desire to see a safe world for her sister, nephew, and niece even allows her to see the truth behind Soul Caliber and realize it as evil (also handled poorly, but good in concept).

Neither of those could have been handled well by a male character and used the female nature of their characters to great degree. The same goes for male characters as well. Can you imagine Luke Skywalker as a female? The sudden dynamic and meaning of his father and son relationship with Darth Vader gone? The bond that had been thought to have been eternally severed by the evil Vader suddenly reconnected in such a vile manner? It is hard, no?

This is why I hate it when games (the only real interactive medium) offer you the choice between being a male and a female, then make them perfectly identical aside from a spirit change or handle it in such a awful, hamfisted, manner. Men and women are very different and it is how they react to these differences that causes character growth. Imagine if, in Dragon Age, you reached the Landsmeet and tried to persuade the various attendees, but because your character is female, they refuse to listen to you. How would your character have reacted to such blatant sexism? Would they have grinned and born it, letting Alister do the talking for the greater good of Feralden? Or would you have decided to condemn them all for refusing to side with you just because? (please note, I played through DA:O as a male and only once, so I don't know if there is a difference)

Now, on a more-ontopic note... I did some thinking about the customizable growths mentioned a while back and I came up with a idea. One problem I have with a lot of games is the 'standard upgrade' concept. Basically, a upgrade in weapons/tech that is basically automatically assumed. In FE, this means going from iron weapons to steel, then silver. There is little reason to not do so after all unless you are desperately poor or the extra durability of the weapon is somehow more useful (aside from tower/ruin runs in FE8, I have yet to see this happen). The addition of Bronze weapons in FE10 did nothing more to change this as they just served as a tier below iron. However, what if we threw the concept out the window? All weapons having the same, basic, stats but in their place having some sort of unique ability. Like for example, iron weapons have no unique bonuses, but are more durable than other weapon types. A slayer weapon will give a bonus against, say, a horse, but if a iron weapon and a slayer went up against a unmounted unit, they would deal the exact same damage. The iron weapon would still be 'better' for these conflicts because its increased durability means you don't have to replace it as often as the slayer, but the slayer could also be used just as well in the actual combat.

Edited November 8, 2011 by Snowy_One

[eclipse]

I think the "slayer" weapons balance out by being heavier, less accurate, and rarer (arrows nonwithstanding).

[Othin]

That would be getting rid of useful distinctions for absolutely no reason.

The thing to get rid of is unlimited shops. In FE2, you couldn't buy items at all. In FE4, you could buy things, but only in limited quantities; there are only single-digit numbers of any given Steel, Silver, or other useful weapon type. In Berwick Saga, you could buy unlimited numbers of ineffective basic weapons such as Bronze Swords, but anything else was limited. This meant that you could only have as many of a given weapon type as are available; if you're using three sword users and you only have two Silver Swords, you can only give two of them Silver Swords and you'll have to find something else for the third, rather than simply being able to buy another Silver Sword. This was particularly notable in Berwick Saga because items actually break permanently in that game (barring use of limited Repair Stones). So when you can buy a Mithril Spear to let a spear user hit harder, you can't use it all the time, because it'll be a while before you can buy another one and there are only four in the game.

FE10's Bargain shop and FE11/12's Secret Shops extended this feature to a few things, but you could still buy excessive numbers of unnecessarily powerful weapons, such as how in FE10, every physical character could be armed with Steel/Great-class weapons once they become available in the shops and erasing the need for anything else.

Edited November 8, 2011 by Othin

[Snowy_One]

The problem is that accuracy means to much, as does the potential loss of a double against any faster unit, and why waste a slayer use if the weapon is harder to replace, can cause you to fail to kill other units, and your normal weapon gets the job done anyways?

The thing to get rid of is unlimited shops. In FE2, you couldn't buy items at all. In FE4, you could buy things, but only in limited quantities; there are only single-digit numbers of any given Steel, Silver, or other useful weapon type. In Berwick Saga, you could buy unlimited numbers of ineffective basic weapons such as Bronze Swords, but anything else was limited. This meant that you could only have as many of a given weapon type as are available; if you're using three sword users and you only have two Silver Swords, you can only give two of them Silver Swords and you'll have to find something else for the third, rather than simply being able to buy another Silver Sword. This was particularly notable in Berwick Saga because items actually break permanently in that game (barring use of limited Repair Stones). So when you can buy a Mithril Axe to let an axe user hit harder, you can't use it all the time, because it'll be a while before you can buy another one and there are only four in the game. It was essentially as if all the shops were like FE10's Bargain shop or FE11/12's Secret Shops.

The Berwick Saga method sounds pretty interesting. Might be worth a shot to try out.

Edited November 8, 2011 by Snowy_One

[eclipse]

Sounds like I wouldn't mind the shopping system in Berwick Saga, because the majority of the time, I use the Iron weapons. They're light, durable, and accurate. If you want to limit weapon types, FE4 probably did that the best.

[Aethereal]

I think gender roles are very on topic, as long as you can actually tie it into what you want in the next game. What mechanic could possibly include gender roles outside of story telling, that isn't discriminatory? The difference between Joshua and Marisa shouldn't be that Marisa can't ever be as strong as Joshua, or that she should come with less base STR, but that their characters should reflect who they are, and are therefore different. That doesn't mean confining themselves to the gender roles, because those are something that you can deviate from. If you're upset that the only difference is a "sprite", you're taking away the characters of the two. I don't particularly know Marisa, but the differences between Isadora and Marcus, Rutger and Fir, Echidna and Dieck, Titania and Oscar, Mist and Rhys, Lute and Saleh, and whoever else shouldn't be that men are stronger than women, or women are faster than men, or anything else, it should be that their characters reflect their gender roles. Which, in most cases, they do. Titania seems to be a much more feminine character than Oscar, and Marisa is socially awkward in large part because she isn't comfortable with her gender(iirc, I don't really remember too perfectly). "Gender roles" have very little to do with things in a Fire Emblem series, aside from character development.

[Othin]

Sounds like I wouldn't mind the shopping system in Berwick Saga, because the majority of the time, I use the Iron weapons. They're light, durable, and accurate. If you want to limit weapon types, FE4 probably did that the best.

Bronze Swords have 6 Mt, 5 Prec (50% Hit), and D Dur (20 uses). Good luck with that.

Hand Spears and Wood Axes came out a bit better and work as usable basic weapons, but that's the point. Rather than being completely obsoleted, they remain useful at times, while better weapons (and good luck getting through Berwick Saga without those weapons) add additional concerns.

[Snowy_One]

I think gender roles are very on topic, as long as you can actually tie it into what you want in the next game. What mechanic could possibly include gender roles outside of story telling, that isn't discriminatory? The difference between Joshua and Marisa shouldn't be that Marisa can't ever be as strong as Joshua, or that she should come with less base STR, but that their characters should reflect who they are, and are therefore different. That doesn't mean confining themselves to the gender roles, because those are something that you can deviate from. If you're upset that the only difference is a "sprite", you're taking away the characters of the two. I don't particularly know Marisa, but the differences between Isadora and Marcus, Rutger and Fir, Echidna and Dieck, Titania and Oscar, Mist and Rhys, Lute and Saleh, and whoever else shouldn't be that men are stronger than women, or women are faster than men, or anything else, it should be that their characters reflect their gender roles. Which, in most cases, they do. Titania seems to be a much more feminine character than Oscar, and Marisa is socially awkward in large part because she isn't comfortable with her gender(iirc, I don't really remember too perfectly). "Gender roles" have very little to do with things in a Fire Emblem series, aside from character development.

I do agree with that. One possible idea that could tie it in to gameplay, however, is to give you various split paths (pirates offer you a ride for their lives, but one of your members had his son killed by pirates while another sees it as a needless slaughter to kill them all while yet another thinks letting them go could doom countless people for example) that affect your potential party makeup (their personalities and characteristics, including how they act and react to gender roles, would matter here) Actually...

Brand new idea. You start the game with most of your party already there, but as the game progresses you will be forced into positions and decisions that will cause people to leave (make sure the player is informed of this and which characters leave). Some may rejoin later, some new ones can be recruited, but on the whole, you will start the game with, maybe, 30 characters and end it with just 12 or so.

Edited November 8, 2011 by Snowy_One

[Paperblade]

That would be getting rid of useful distinctions for absolutely no reason.

The thing to get rid of is unlimited shops. In FE2, you couldn't buy items at all. In FE4, you could buy things, but only in limited quantities; there are only single-digit numbers of any given Steel, Silver, or other useful weapon type.

Except in FE2, weapons were all infinite use, and in FE4, you could repair weapons for the price of buying them, effectively giving you infinite uses of your awesome weapons.

[Othin]

Except in FE2, weapons were all infinite use, and in FE4, you could repair weapons for the price of buying them, effectively giving you infinite uses of your awesome weapons.

This meant that you could only have as many of a given weapon type as are available; if you're using three sword users and you only have two Silver Swords, you can only give two of them Silver Swords and you'll have to find something else for the third, rather than simply being able to buy another Silver Sword.

This was particularly notable in Berwick Saga because items actually break permanently in that game (barring use of limited Repair Stones). So when you can buy a Mithril Spear to let a spear user hit harder, you can't use it all the time, because it'll be a while before you can buy another one and there are only four in the game.

[CrashGordon94]

I don't know why you said things breaking permanently in BS was special, that's how it is in all the FEs besides FE2 and FE4.

[Othin]

I don't know why you said things breaking permanently in BS was special, that's how it is in all the FEs besides FE2 and FE4.

I was speaking specifically in comparison to FE2 and FE4, the only other FE games to not offer a wide variety of weapons to purchase in unlimited quantities.

I explained this clearly in my earlier post that I was quoting.

Edited November 8, 2011 by Othin

[Thor Odinson]

I like how they did it in FE5, weapons break, but the broken weapon doesn't just disappear. It still allows you to use Hammerne on it should it be completely broken, but it wouldn't be like infinite weapons like in FE4.

[dondon151]

However, what if we threw the concept out the window? All weapons having the same, basic, stats but in their place having some sort of unique ability. Like for example, iron weapons have no unique bonuses, but are more durable than other weapon types. A slayer weapon will give a bonus against, say, a horse, but if a iron weapon and a slayer went up against a unmounted unit, they would deal the exact same damage. The iron weapon would still be 'better' for these conflicts because its increased durability means you don't have to replace it as often as the slayer, but the slayer could also be used just as well in the actual combat.

I think this is a terrible idea. There's a reason why weapons of a higher rank are unilaterally better: they require work for the player to use them (except in the case of units who join with high weapon ranks). Remove this correlation and suddenly there will be no incentive to use higher rank weapons.

The thing to get rid of is unlimited shops.

I don't think unlimited shops is a bad thing, and most of the time it is not even a problem in the way that you are describing it. For example, in FE7, silver weapons are only buyable first in chapter 29 (except for Silver Blades in the chapter 20 secret shop, but that's a very special case), when there are basically only 5 maps remaining in the game (and one of them is a lord + free unit map). Buyable silvers in FE6 come earlier in chapter 18/19, where there are about 6/7 relevant maps remaining in the game. And in FE3 DS, buyable silvers come extremely early (as early as chapter 8), but that's quite necessary because it's impossible for most units in that game to ORKO enemies on H3 without using a silver or effective weapon.

A bigger problem is that killer weapons tend to be available fairly early and are extremely powerful. In the GBA FE games, they were usually better than silver even when both were widely accessible.

[mai]

I like how they did it in FE5, weapons break, but the broken weapon doesn't just disappear. It still allows you to use Hammerne on it should it be completely broken, but it wouldn't be like infinite weapons like in FE4.

I also like the FE5 system, especially when it comes to staves. One use of the Brave Lance or the Light Sword might not be a big deal, but one use of Warp/Rescue definitely is.

[Paperblade]

words

There's more than enough good weapons in FE4: Hero Weapons, Defense Sword, Barrier Sword, 2-3 of Silvers, Holy Weapons. Sure, you couldn't give your whole team Silvers, but why would you want to when you have so many better options?

Edited November 8, 2011 by Paperblade

[General Banzai]

Speaking of gender roles, how does everyone feel about the standard blue haired male hero and the frilly princessy support?

[Snowy_One]

I think this is a terrible idea. There's a reason why weapons of a higher rank are unilaterally better: they require work for the player to use them (except in the case of units who join with high weapon ranks). Remove this correlation and suddenly there will be no incentive to use higher rank weapons.

The problem with this notion is that it simply isn't true. There are other ways to handle weapon ranking that don't involve simply allowing more powerful versions to be used. For example, in FE10 the Laguz strike ability allowed them to deal more damage with their claws/fangs/beaks/breaths as the weapon-rank rose. No reason that can't be done with other weapons with more skilled characters becoming able to deal more damage with their weapons. Remember, the problem that I am addressing is that going from bronze to iron to steel to silver weapons is simply a basic, obvious upgrade that the only reason to not do it is funding. If you have the money, why on earth would you use steel when silver is available? You might as well just have 'iron' weapons upgrade their damage as the wielders weapon rank rises.

I don't think unlimited shops is a bad thing, and most of the time it is not even a problem in the way that you are describing it. For example, in FE7, silver weapons are only buyable first in chapter 29 (except for Silver Blades in the chapter 20 secret shop, but that's a very special case), when there are basically only 5 maps remaining in the game (and one of them is a lord + free unit map). Buyable silvers in FE6 come earlier in chapter 18/19, where there are about 6/7 relevant maps remaining in the game. And in FE3 DS, buyable silvers come extremely early (as early as chapter 8), but that's quite necessary because it's impossible for most units in that game to ORKO enemies on H3 without using a silver or effective weapon.

The problem isn't limited or unlimited shops. It's having weapon upgrades that are so obvious and necessary that there is no point in ignoring them. The only FE game I have found where iron weapons don't immediately become obsolete the moment steel is around is FE8, and that is only because of the tower/ruins. Having a infinite number of lower-end, but more durable/affordable weapons and only a select number of buyable higher-end weapons would do something about this and add some value to proper equipment instead of simply just upgrading the weapon to its higher rank basically ASAP.

Speaking of gender roles, how does everyone feel about the standard blue haired male hero and the frilly princessy support?

It depends on the game and writer. I would, generally, like to see less princesses or pedestal females that don't fight and some more that do, but that's personal preference and more annoyance at Princess Peach than anything else.

Edited November 8, 2011 by Snowy_One

[Thor Odinson]

Speaking of gender roles, how does everyone feel about the standard blue haired male hero and the frilly princessy support?

Terrible. I want a likeable female lead in terms of personality and not just "oh she's cute". Doesn't have to be /as/ badass as Echidna as long as she isn't annoying or bland or horribly naive or a sue, although I'd like someone as badass as Echidna. As for dudes, I just want some more variation in character types and hopefully something not so one-dimensional. Being hot is also nice---//shot

Edited November 8, 2011 by Luminescent Blade

[Aethereal]

Remember, the problem that I am addressing is that going from bronze to iron to steel to silver weapons is simply a basic, obvious upgrade that the only reason to not do it is funding. If you have the money, why on earth would you use steel when silver is available?

Why is that a problem exactly?

The problem isn't limited or unlimited shops. It's having weapon upgrades that are so obvious and necessary that there is no point in ignoring them. The only FE game I have found where iron weapons don't immediately become obsolete the moment steel is around is FE8, and that is only because of the tower/ruins. Having a infinite number of lower-end, but more durable/affordable weapons and only a select number of buyable higher-end weapons would do something about this and add some value to proper equipment instead of simply just upgrading the weapon to its higher rank basically ASAP.

In FE6 and to a lesser degree FE7, Iron is not always<Steel. And even if it were, why is that an issue? The drawback is money, more money for better weapons is just logical. In games where they give you too much money, or you can buy too many strong weapons, obviously that is an issue, but that's an issue with too much funds, and not an issue with the weapons themselves.

[dondon151]

The problem with this notion is that it simply isn't true. There are other ways to handle weapon ranking that don't involve simply allowing more powerful versions to be used. For example, in FE10 the Laguz strike ability allowed them to deal more damage with their claws/fangs/beaks/breaths as the weapon-rank rose. No reason that can't be done with other weapons with more skilled characters becoming able to deal more damage with their weapons. Remember, the problem that I am addressing is that going from bronze to iron to steel to silver weapons is simply a basic, obvious upgrade that the only reason to not do it is funding. If you have the money, why on earth would you use steel when silver is available? You might as well just have 'iron' weapons upgrade their damage as the wielders weapon rank rises.

So your suggestion is to remove all weapons from the game except for iron weapons and their magic equivalents.

I'm sorry, but that's just stupid. There is always a reason to use an inferior weapon over a superior weapon at all points in the game. Maybe you want to use iron because you can't double with steel. Maybe you want to use steel over killer because your killer weapon is in limited supply. Maybe you want to use killer over silver because you're going for a KO that you would otherwise have almost no chance at getting. Maybe you want to use steel over silver because the silver weapon is not buyable until the last 6 chapters of the game.

At least Fire Emblem gives you a minor incentive to use inferior weapons when they are outclassed. Compare this to most other RPGs, where once you get a better weapon, you discard the old one for good.

Need I mention that what you're suggesting (graded MT increases by weapon rank) achieves the EXACT SAME result that the current system achieves, except it throws all room for decision-making out the window?

The problem isn't limited or unlimited shops. It's having weapon upgrades that are so obvious and necessary that there is no point in ignoring them.

Please tell me why it is bad that weapon upgrades are necessary. There are 2 defensive and 2 offensive parameters in Fire Emblem: defensive parameters include HP and def/res and offensive parameters include weapon MT and str/mag. If enemy HP and def/res both increase throughout the game but the player can only increase str/mag to compensate, then he's going to find himself doing less and less damage as a relative fraction of the enemy's max HP as the game goes on.

Even taking this into account, there are still enemy types against whom iron weapons will still be effective when steel exists, and so on, because not all enemies increase their defensive parameters at the same rate.

Having a infinite number of lower-end, but more durable/affordable weapons and only a select number of buyable higher-end weapons would do something about this and add some value to proper equipment instead of simply just upgrading the weapon to its higher rank basically ASAP.

Didn't you say that the problem was not a result of unlimited weapon availability? And, despite what you may think, I've already pointed out that in most Fire Emblem games, the obligation to go silver over steel is not as much of a problem as you think, because silvers are not freely available until the game is almost over (approximately the last 20%, if not less, of most games).

The bigger problem that some of us are concerned about is the decision to go killer over steel. That's been alleviated recently by killers having less MT than steel, less crit then they once used to, and less availability in shops.

Edited November 8, 2011 by dondon151

[Othin]

I don't think unlimited shops is a bad thing, and most of the time it is not even a problem in the way that you are describing it. For example, in FE7, silver weapons are only buyable first in chapter 29 (except for Silver Blades in the chapter 20 secret shop, but that's a very special case), when there are basically only 5 maps remaining in the game (and one of them is a lord + free unit map). Buyable silvers in FE6 come earlier in chapter 18/19, where there are about 6/7 relevant maps remaining in the game. And in FE3 DS, buyable silvers come extremely early (as early as chapter 8), but that's quite necessary because it's impossible for most units in that game to ORKO enemies on H3 without using a silver or effective weapon.

A bigger problem is that killer weapons tend to be available fairly early and are extremely powerful. In the GBA FE games, they were usually better than silver even when both were widely accessible.

And at those times, you can buy enough to last much of the rest of the game, even if it's just a special case.

Excellent thought; Killer weapons go to show what I was saying even better than Silver ones. Buyable Killers are available from Ch13 in FE6 and Ch20 and Ch26 in FE7. As for FE12, that doesn't change the fact that they obsolete other weapon types, and it's not much of an excuse; ORKOing enemies early in the game has never been a requirement on any difficulty mode. With that in mind, I'd hardly call FE12's system a solution; it just replaced the issues with Killers with an even bigger issue with Silvers.

Edited November 8, 2011 by Othin

[dondon151]

And at those times, you can buy enough to last much of the rest of the game, even if it's just a special case.

Yes, but how is that a bad thing?

At the beginning of the game, iron weapons are freely available. You also get a Silver Lance, and that weapon is special because once you use it up, you can't get anymore freely until 80% of the way through the game. You also get a smattering of steel weapons that are also special because they're the strongest weapons that are accessible, and you can't buy any for maybe the first 30% of the game.

Then steel weapons become freely available, and you get a Killing Edge that is unique until maybe 60% of the way through the game.

Then killers and silvers become freely available, and those awesome S rank weapons become uniquely powerful for the remainder of the game.

The progression is logical to me. Obviously this is a general case and there are special cases where the S rank weapons appear too late (FE7) or are smattered throughout the game (FE6, FE8), but every time the game ups the ante, it gives the player even better exclusive toys to tamper with.

As for FE12, that doesn't change the fact that they obsolete other weapon types, and it's not much of an excuse; ORKOing enemies early in the game has never been a requirement on any difficulty mode. With that in mind, I'd hardly call FE12's system a solution; it just replaced the issues with Killers with an even bigger issue with Silvers.

But in FE12 H3, at a certain point in the game, most units can ORKO (or come close to it) with steel weapons. After chapter 8, even unpromoted enemy barbarians require silvers to be ORKO'd on average. All silvers do is to maintain the status quo. I feel like this is a justified solution because in FE12, chapter 9 is pretty much the defining point in the game where unpromoted enemy units pretty much drop off sharply.