Mechanics that you want

[Kngt_Of_Titania]

And, those differences might not even matter! Think of the games where lances and axes >>> swords because swords had no good 1-2 range and lances and axes had good 1-2 range (FE7-10). Subtle differences in hit, MT, crit do not matter when 80% of the time you're relying on a 1-2 range fallback.

What I don't get is that you're talking about swords being <<<< than lances and axes because swords have no 1-2 range option whereas lances and axes did, but then try to use that as an argument to support lances, axes, and swords having 1-2 range but keeping bows only at 2 range. I'm actually not sure where you stand on this issue, tbh, so it's hard to try to argue a point.

Back when FE7 was new, you could have just have easily said that swords not having a 1-2 range was a "niche" thing as well, similar to what people were saying with bows not having a 1-2 range. After all, people don't tend to throw swords like one might a tomahawk or a javelin, and such differences technically made each weapon type more "unique". But that "every weapon type is special" ideal didn't work out too well when swordlocked characters could take a hit on tier rankings because 1-2 range options weren't available to them.

As for the possible point you might be making, you don't really need to differentiate this new 1-2 range bow too much from hand axes/javelins/wind swords, simply because many bow users don't usually commonly use one of the three "trifecta" weapons (nomads get swords after promotion, but still use bows often; warriors get bows after promotion, but still rely much on axes). Equal MT to the javelin with lower (with a CON system) or equal (with no CON system) WT will suffice for the 1-2 bow. All 1-2 range weapons should have lower MT (2-4 as opposed to 6+) in general; they're most likely too good as it stands now.

Bow users should just stay bow users. They are not magic users. The not-so-easy way to balance bow users would be to give them more opportunities to be useful. Not making 1-2 range weapons so strong or enemies so weak as to be consistently ORKO'd is a good start. Next is to create situations where 2-range countering is a far superior option to 1-range option. Think FE6 chapter 12 with the enemies across the walls or FE12 chapter 11 with the 1-2 range flying dragons.

Under my idea, archers would have:

- Worse 1 range than mages

- Better 2 range with killers and silvers and braves and...etc.

- Attack DEF instead of RES

- Have slightly different stat distributions; archers (decent to good STR, high SKL, medium DEF, high SPD) compared to mages (good to great MAG, medium SKL, low DEF, high SPD)

Having archers have more opportunities to manipulate good 2 range would be awesome, but then you'd have to design the game around hyping the good features of archers whilst ignoring the bad ones; honestly, balancing a game is difficult enough, and I don't trust IS (or almost anybody) to pull that off successfully. Most likely you'd end up with some maps where archers are OP and others where they just plain suck.

...And I totally agree on the whole making 1-2 range weapons weaker (mentioned above) and the "stronger but fewer enemies" philosophy.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~``

EDIT:

@Anouleth: Since I didn't want to ignore your point, I'll quickly address it now with a few bullet points.'

- Adding Wolt into the equation is probably a bad idea. I actually honestly haven't played FE6 more than a few maps in NM yet (just got VBA a couple weeks ago and have been occupied with a HHM run, so I've been pushing off unlocking HM). He's realistically probably the worst archer in the GBA FEs off the top of my head.

- I generally count "growth characters" as ones you either get really early in the game or ones that happen to be slightly underleveled when you get them, and have good, well-focused growth rates. Typically, most "growth units" have too good of availability and/or level to be considered Ests (who also tend to have even better growths). So basically, the better late-game units in Chapter 12-14 HHM (and those in Noble Lady of Caelin), as well as Heath would fit under that definition. It's probably a bit too broad of a category, honestly.

- Heath (maybe Geitz, I didn't really check) beats Wil, but only because HHM bonuses for your own units are retarded and basically add 5 free levels to base stats without affecting base level (and because Heath has good growths in all the right stats).

Edited November 22, 2011 by Kngt_Of_Titania

[bottlegnomes]

@KoT IIRC casters are reasonably fast in NMotE, mostly Linde and Merric. Etzel and Ellerean are a bit slower. So who knows about their future. Anyway, IMO, they don't really need a nerf. There's the oddball like Pent who can do basically whatever he wants, but most are generally okay to good and nothing more, like Erk, Lugh, Canas (IIRC), Soren (PoR), Hugh, Lilina (in NM), and well that's all I can think of now.

EDIT: Actually looking at it, it seems like most casters are pretty speedy in NMotE. The only one's who don't appear to be are Wrys, Yubello, Etzel, the four bishops, and Ellerean to a lesser extent. So about half an half, and even they aren't too slow. Though I haven't played it, so someone who knows it better can probably say more accurately.

Not really, sure why I felt the need to say that.

On topic, I'd like splitting paths again, as well as gaidens. I know, not really original, but it's late and I'm tired.

Edited November 23, 2011 by bottlegnomes

[General Banzai]

How about if enemies with ranged weapons targeted Archers (and Mages) before other units? That would potentially give them the "enemy phase" everybody pines for and plus would give them a useful function even in efficient play.

Edited November 23, 2011 by General Banzai

[dondon151]

Why does the AI have to be stupid in order to accommodate the player?

I mean, the first thing that a new FE player learns is that units locked to 1 range can't counterattack at 2 range, and vice versa. It's not like they haven't done this before, but its presence in FE4 is baffling.

Edited November 23, 2011 by dondon151

[Thor Odinson]

How about just nerfing the fuck out of physical 1-2 range in general? Swords can keep the rare magic weapons, and javelins and handaxes go with a combination of FE6 hitrates and FE12 mt. That way bow 2-range suddenly becomes more valuable. Snipers and Horsemen are actually quite nice to use in 12 even on the lower modes where their SPD caps don't matter as much, because 1-2 range is now suddenly not as powerful and dominating. Magi can keep on being squishy.

[dondon151]

Low hit is incredibly frustrating, but low MT I like. Regardless, giving bows 1-2 range, no matter how weak, is an extremely lazy attempt to fix the problem.

Edited November 23, 2011 by dondon151

[General Banzai]

Plus there's still the problem of Mages, who continue to outclass archers in nearly every way.

I mean, why have a weak flimsy unit who can only attack at 2 ranged when you can have a strong flimsy unit who can attack at 1-2 range and use staves?

[CrashGordon94]

1-2 Bows isn't a problem, we have weapons to give 1-range weapons a weaker 2-range so it only makes sense to have weapons to give 2-range weapons a weaker 1-range. This DOES NOT preclude fixing them in other ways, and it isn't even a problem in itself.

[dondon151]

1-2 Bows isn't a problem, we have weapons to give 1-range weapons a weaker 2-range so it only makes sense to have weapons to give 2-range weapons a weaker 1-range.

This is not sound reasoning. If your friend vandalizes a car, does that mean it's OK for you to do the same?

[General Horace]

I liked FE4's way of balancing 1-2 range, by making the weapons (well, the Javelin and Hand Axes) ridiculously heavy so doubling with them would be really tough. The 1-2 range swords were still pretty good however.

[Kngt_Of_Titania]

So what I'm getting here is that the best options would be to either:

1) Give bows a 1-2 option, similar to javelins, and then make 1-2 range slightly less potent in general (lowering to about 2-4 MT would be my suggestion). Make sure archers have a niche over mages by giving them decent DEF/HP compared to casters (as opposed to RES), giving non 1-2 bows nice MT/crit ratings, and offering a somewhat expensive longbow option within the first 4-5 chapters of the game.

2) As Lumi suggested, nerf the living crap out of 1-2 range weapons (0-2 MT, high WT w/ a CON system would be my quick idea), don't give bows a 1-2 range option, and possibly have more longbows available in-game than, say, in FE7. Attempt to add a couple of maps that favor good 2 range.

As for FE12, I haven't played it since I can't read Japanese worth a crap. Is there a partial or total English patch for it?

Edited November 23, 2011 by Kngt_Of_Titania

[Othin]

Hand Axes and Javelins are unsalvageable, I'd say. Best to remove them completely, and leave physical 1-2 range to extremely rare weapons like Spears and Tomahawks, and maybe a couple of personal weapons.

Edited November 23, 2011 by Othin

[CrashGordon94]

This is not sound reasoning. If your friend vandalizes a car, does that mean it's OK for you to do the same?

Wrong. 1-2 weapons aren't like vandalising a car, it sucks when they're overpowered but when they're weaker they're perfectly reasonable. We can make 1-2 range Lances and Axes balanced (seriously, we can) so 1-2 Bows would be perfectly balancable too.

I really expected better from you dondon.

[zahlman]

Maybe give archers 6/7 move to compensate for their weaknesses (well, not really compensate, but it couldn't hurt)? Nomads get swords on promotion anyways, so if given a better base sword rank (I'm leaning towards C), they really don't need to be buffed.

Then again, the problem with archers has never been about move, but I'm just throwing ideas out there.

If we're going to give archers a move advantage, I'd give them reduced terrain penalties instead. It fits with their lightly-armoured-ness and their typical "hunter" background story.

[Kngt_Of_Titania]

Hand Axes and Javelins are unsalvageable, I'd say. Best to remove them completely, and leave physical 1-2 range to extremely rare weapons like Spears and Tomahawks, and maybe a couple of personal weapons.

Removing them to all but a couple of personal weapons will tend to make whomever gets stuck with said weapons extremely powerful in comparison to everybody else unless they suck statistically or in availability (the latter of which would make a personal weapon semi-pointless).

So I honestly think you'd either keep them and notably weaken them, expanding them so every physical weapon type has them...or remove them all. Period. I think that whatever weapon types don't have 1-2 range (as opposed to those that do) will always suck hind tit in some way unless you can find some balanced way to properly compensate the ----blocked users of that weapon type.

Edited November 23, 2011 by Kngt_Of_Titania

[arvilino]

Maybe if Archers had their EXP for combat increased(in the same way FE7 and FE8 thieves get more due to "class power" in the formula) they'd be better to use without having to give them 1-2 combat. Since part of the problem is they get fewer rounds of combat than most other characters.

[Thor Odinson]

Tellius had 1-2 bows. They're called crossbows and they worked okay, by being a fixed mt regardless of str. Not sure if they doubled, though, don't remember, but imo they shouldn't, logically.

Any other bow would not make sense for 1-2 range ever. "Imaa Shoot you in the face >|" -gets stabbed before even pull string-

Just give more 2-3 range options out there beyond Longbow. Hell, boost longbow so its stats doesn't suck, but don't make it so common either.

[CrashGordon94]

Fuck making sense, I really wish people would stop going for realism.

[Othin]

Removing them to all but a couple of personal weapons will tend to make whomever gets stuck with said weapons extremely powerful in comparison to everybody else unless they suck statistically or in availability (the latter of which would make a personal weapon semi-pointless).

So I honestly think you'd either keep them and notably weaken them, expanding them so every physical weapon type has them...or remove them all. Period. I think that whatever weapon types don't have 1-2 range (as opposed to those that do) will always suck hind tit in some way unless you can find some balanced way to properly compensate the ----blocked users of that weapon type.

Personal weapons can't be used all the time.

And yeah, it's a highly significant advantage. Meanwhile, other characters would of course have other advantages of their own, often in the form of their own personal weapons or tactical skills. So, there's no issue.

[General Banzai]

You know, giving higher tier Archers an innate 2-3 range worked well for FERD Archers Shinon.

[Kngt_Of_Titania]

Personal weapons can't be used all the time.

And yeah, it's a highly significant advantage. Meanwhile, other characters would of course have other advantages of their own, often in the form of their own personal weapons or tactical skills. So, there's no issue.

IS isn't exactly known for throwing personal weapons on a lot of characters, and it would be weird to balance a limited use item with long-term tactical skills. 1-2 range weapons in a game where all other 1-2 range options have been removed would almost guarantee that person a slot in your party for a fair portion of the game (as long as the weapon lasts), provided there's no huge flaw with the character. I mean, it *might* work if you have it attached to a lord or an Est melee archetype (to make training them feasible rather than almost impossible)...but it's more the exception than the rule.

Also, having a fixed MT on a weapon with no STR scaling was probably one of the stupidest things I've ever seen implemented in a FE game. If you really strive so much for realism, we can do one of two things:

1) Have crossbows scale from SKL instead of STR...more skilled archers would have more precise aim, piercing vital areas at close range more often (less preferred).

2) Redesign the short bow from FE7 to be the 1-2 range weapon. Think about it -- it's small, compact, wieldy, and easy to use, and would be the bow you could most likely fire quickly at close range (more preferred).

Edited November 23, 2011 by Kngt_Of_Titania

[CrashGordon94]

2) Redesign the short bow from FE7 to be the 1-2 range weapon. Think about it -- it's small, compact, unwieldy, and easy to use, and would be the bow you could most likely fire quickly at close range (more preferred).

YES!

[Vicious Sal]

Namibian bushmen have a bow that is 30 cm long and they kill giraffes with it, it's called the venin bow, do you want THAT for a 1-2 range weapon? In game it would always do 1 hp damage, but the poison would do about 30 damage per turn. (giraffes die in two days, so max hp unit = 2 turn kill). How's that for realism in Fe huh?

[dondon151]

Wrong. 1-2 weapons aren't like vandalising a car, it sucks when they're overpowered but when they're weaker they're perfectly reasonable.

Even if 1-2 range is not overpowered, that's not a justification for being lazy and giving bows an option that makes them more like every other weapon type. If 1-2 range is weak enough to discourage someone from using it, then there's no point in using it over a 2 range bow that's much stronger. If it is overpowered (like those oh so many FE7 hacks that change Short Bow into a 1-2 range weapon), then we most definitely have a problem on our hands.

I really expected better from you dondon.

I can make underhanded comments, too. Watch:

You're a selfish, immature bigot.

[CrashGordon94]

There's plenty of reason to have it, "being like every other weapon type" is bull, the vast majority of Bows would still be 2-range, there's no problem with having well-balanced 1-2 range Bows.