Mechanics that you want

[Snowy_One]

Not to mention that Oscar, a unit who would actually need the higher damage, ends up suffering badly. It basically becomes 'Boyd rocks, Swordmasters need top-end weapons to do inferior to what he does, and other units who might actually need it suffer because they are actually balanced (somewhat) units.' So the handaxe is either not really nerfed (the unit is strong enough for it not to matter), nerfed too hard (the unit is ineffective), and that means reducing the MT is either not as effective as it should be or too effective.

I'm not saying a MT nerf isn't part of the solution. I'm just saying the problem with handaxes and the like is that they can reliably kill at BOTH 1 and 2 range. Removing their ability to kill at at least one range is part of the solution for sure, but I don't think that removing its ability to kill entirely is the right choice.

[bottlegnomes]

The thing about that is you're giving Boyd a max attack support and completely ignoring supports for the other characters, or at least the SM. More likely, Boyd would have 32 attack. A SM can match that with a steel sword. Oscar can match that with an iron lance. I'd hardly say it's unfair for a class known for ridiculous strength is equal to units that are known to be weak or neither strong nor weak can match their attack with a ranged weapon while the other two are using mediocre to downright weak weapons.

Also, it's not like Boyd would be invincible. If FE9 enemies had competent stats, he very well could be in danger of dying because of low defense, unlike Oscar, and not doubling, unlike the SM. So his high damage would be mitigated by those things.

Again, look at Palla. She's one of the best characters in the game and she still struggles to ORKO with a javelin even when well leveled. And this is on H1, so it's not like the enemies are all that strong. However, she has next to no trouble ORKOing with an iron lance most of the time, and all but the strongest enemies, like generals, generally don't take more than a steel lance.

So that way, bows have amazing 2 range but no 1 range and swords, lances, and axes have the same old 1 range, but pretty mediocre 1-2 range.

[Colonel M]

I also want to add that FE12's Sword user classes still were fairly solid. After all, Swordmasters were damn useful because of their Spd cap and their accuracy. Swords aren't a bad weapon choice; the only issue with Swords was the last few games either had no weapon triangle or most of the enemies were a bunch of Lance-user nitwits. Then of course there's the slayers for all weapons, which made Swords even more meek. Let's also not forget Lady Sword, which was a female PRF Silver Sword.

Another thing to keep in mind is accuracy - FE12's ranged weapons have 70 Hit and 60 Hit (Javelin, Hand Axe). That's actually not very awesome accuracy at all.

Edited December 23, 2011 by Colonel M

[eclipse]

I've got FE8 on right now. Javelin accuracy is 65.

I think the MT nerf in FE12 was helpful. Now, if they made Javelins unforgeable. . .

[Othin]

Decreasing Mt and Hit works when you don't already have more Mt and Hit than you need. I haven't played enough of the DS FEs to know how much the difference actually changes how you play, but it seems to me that in most of the rest of the series, it doesn't/wouldn't make any real difference.

A change in Mt matters when it changes the number of hits it takes to kill an enemy. A change in Hit matters when it makes the difference between hitting or missing. Changing Mt or Hit when it won't change either of those things often does not address any problems.

And yes, it sounds to me like the existence of forging in the DS FEs makes such decreases to the stats of weapons fixed quite easily.

Edited December 23, 2011 by Othin

[Kngt_Of_Titania]

Decreasing Mt and Hit works when you don't already have more Mt and Hit than you need. I haven't played enough of the DS FEs to know how much the difference actually changes how you play, but it seems to me that in most of the rest of the series, it doesn't/wouldn't make any real difference.

A change in Mt matters when it changes the number of hits it takes to kill an enemy. A change in Hit matters when it makes the difference between hitting or missing. Changing Mt or Hit when it won't change either of those things often does not address any problems.

And yes, it sounds to me like the existence of forging in the DS FEs makes such decreases to the stats of weapons fixed quite easily.

In H3, javelins are so niche that you only use them in a few rare occasions (off the top of my head, in C6 against the mages using a pure water buffed Palla, and in C12, to weaken Wyverns with Palla), and even then you use a high STR character and possibly a forged javelin. You tend to need to hit enemies so hard and so fast to avoid getting bitchslapped that Javs having like 3 MT is just...ugh; you're just better off to use hunters/snipers/horsemen. It's sad that I'm on C3 of a Fighter!MU Lunatic run only to see Catria do ONE damage against a dracoknight (and max of 4-5 damage per hit on low DEF units) when they have 35 health and usually need to be ORKO'd or 2RKO'd.

H3 without bows would be pretty evil, or at the very least extremely agitating. It's probably the best balance between bows and 1-2 range weps of any FE I've played. And again, trust me when I say, yes, it makes a difference, at least in higher difficulties.

To put it better...the pegasi sisters are nice in H3 because they're often the only ones for quite a while that will double reliably without some other major drawback. You lose 6x2=12 damage per round versus an unforged steel (using iron weapons in H3 is just lawl-worthy; you should at least use a +2-4 MT forged iron if you're trying to get somebody past the E weapon rank hump), and 10x2=20 damage per round versus an unforged silver. It's really hard to justify doing 12-20 less damage in a round when things NEED to die.

Edited December 23, 2011 by Kngt_Of_Titania

[Snowy_One]

The thing about that is you're giving Boyd a max attack support and completely ignoring supports for the other characters, or at least the SM. More likely, Boyd would have 32 attack. A SM can match that with a steel sword. Oscar can match that with an iron lance. I'd hardly say it's unfair for a class known for ridiculous strength is equal to units that are known to be weak or neither strong nor weak can match their attack with a ranged weapon while the other two are using mediocre to downright weak weapons.

I also ignored that it is a lot easier for Boyd to reach his 30 STR than a swordmaster to reach 24-25. The point of the complaint is that, with sufficient strength, a powerful unit can still make the handaxe work about as well as another unit type can pull off with one of their better weapons while another unit who does not overkill strength is left with pitiful attack that is largely useless.

Also, it's not like Boyd would be invincible. If FE9 enemies had competent stats, he very well could be in danger of dying because of low defense, unlike Oscar, and not doubling, unlike the SM. So his high damage would be mitigated by those things.

I never said he would be. However, Boyd would be capable of killing at 1-2 range, Oscar would be stuck having to get in close with a 1-range weapon because his attack with the throwing axes would suck too much to be worth it, which is not balanced at all for the handaxe.

Again, look at Palla. She's one of the best characters in the game and she still struggles to ORKO with a javelin even when well leveled. And this is on H1, so it's not like the enemies are all that strong. However, she has next to no trouble ORKOing with an iron lance most of the time, and all but the strongest enemies, like generals, generally don't take more than a steel lance.

So that way, bows have amazing 2 range but no 1 range and swords, lances, and axes have the same old 1 range, but pretty mediocre 1-2 range.

Let me ask you this. If you're going to nerf the mt of the throwing weapons so much that they can't kill anyways, why not also restrict them to 2-range as well? They wouldn't kill anything in the 1-range unless it had been previously weakened after all, so it's not like it's changing much.

[Colonel M]

I never said he would be. However, Boyd would be capable of killing at 1-2 range, Oscar would be stuck having to get in close with a 1-range weapon because his attack with the throwing axes would suck too much to be worth it, which is not balanced at all for the handaxe.

May I point out that Boyd barely ORKOes Soldiers with a Hand Axe in Chapter 18, for example (without supports)? There's also some enemies a 20/1 Boyd can't double but Oscar can.

I know FE9 enemies are piss easy, but they aren't so piss easy that Hand Axe!Boyd still ORKOes everything in sight. Wyvern Riders have 15 Def, and the most Boyd can have is maybe 30 at 20/1 (say Brom and I'll shove a Broom right in your face)? That still isn't -quite- enough to ORKO them. 1-2 range weapons are still pretty damn good, but the only unit that can really ORKO with them is possibly Boyd? I'm not that worried then. Besides, Swordmasters got shafted in that game and we aren't even going to try to address them. Enemy AS being mediocre is what kills a lot of Swordmaster's potential.

Let me ask you this. If you're going to nerf the mt of the throwing weapons so much that they can't kill anyways, why not also restrict them to 2-range as well? They wouldn't kill anything in the 1-range unless it had been previously weakened after all, so it's not like it's changing much.

Reason: not everyone wants to play "Retarded Fire Emblem" like you do.

And yes, it sounds to me like the existence of forging in the DS FEs makes such decreases to the stats of weapons fixed quite easily.

Okay, please tell me when it is possible to forge every ranged weapon in FE12 Luna-

Oh wait, there's money and other weapons that restrict me from doing this ludicrous idea. Of course you can forge 1-2 range weapons, but not only is it a bit pricey, it also takes away a critical forge that could've been used instead during a specific chapter. Forge just alleviates some of the issues with 1-2 range weapons in FE12. It doesn't suddenly "solve" the problem.

Edited December 23, 2011 by Colonel M

[Snowy_One]

May I point out that Boyd barely ORKOes Soldiers with a Hand Axe in Chapter 18, for example (without supports)? There's also some enemies a 20/1 Boyd can't double but Oscar can.

I know FE9 enemies are piss easy, but they aren't so piss easy that Hand Axe!Boyd still ORKOes everything in sight. Wyvern Riders have 15 Def, and the most Boyd can have is maybe 30 at 20/1 (say Brom and I'll shove a Broom right in your face)? That still isn't -quite- enough to ORKO them. 1-2 range weapons are still pretty damn good, but the only unit that can really ORKO with them is possibly Boyd? I'm not that worried then. Besides, Swordmasters got shafted in that game and we aren't even going to try to address them. Enemy AS being mediocre is what kills a lot of Swordmaster's potential.

The problem here isn't AS. Don't try to change the subject. The problem here is that units with high STR will not really be impeded by any significant amount by nerfing throwing weapon ATT while units who don't overkill on STR will be stuck with throwing weapons being near-worthless to them.

I admit, I hate throwing weapons, namely because I see them as being both unbalanced (melee units capable of reliable 1-2 range killing shafts both bows and magic alike, not to mention Swords have only recently started to get reliable 1-2 range weapons), and cheap (you would have to be a idiot to not use one in most games).

I see two primary ways to address this at the moment. Nerfing their MT, or making them 2-range exclusive. Nerfing their MT makes them useless to people who don't overkill STR, but doesn't hurt people who overkill STR. Blaming FE9's enemies doesn't change this, especially since, if you buff enemies, you make it harder for units who don't overkill STR to deal damage. Boyd may no longer be 1RKOing, but Oscar probably can't even deal double-digits. That seems like it makes the weapon overall useless unless they get swarmed by a army of mages.

Reason: not everyone wants to play "Retarded Fire Emblem" like you do.

Right. So instead of giving an actual reason why, you simply insult. Why am I not surprised?

Okay, let's assume we didn't touch handaxe MT, but made it confined to 2-range instead of 1-2 range. What happens? They remain useful for starters as they allow melee units to deal damage without taking the risk of counters, they provide a clear downside (they can't counter in melee) making 1-ranged weapons more valuable, they stop outclassing bows constantly (handaxe 1-2 range > bow 2 range only, but remove that and suddenly it's not as bad), especially since bowmen may get 3-range abilities. They keep a niche in dealing with ranged enemies and in dealing damage without counters, but suddenly aren't overwhelmingly powerful and you have to think about their usage. Sounds like a good idea to me.

[arvilino]

Okay, let's assume we didn't touch handaxe MT, but made it confined to 2-range instead of 1-2 range. What happens? They remain useful for starters as they allow melee units to deal damage without taking the risk of counters, they provide a clear downside (they can't counter in melee) making 1-ranged weapons more valuable, they stop outclassing bows constantly (handaxe 1-2 range > bow 2 range only, but remove that and suddenly it's not as bad), especially since bowmen may get 3-range abilities. They keep a niche in dealing with ranged enemies and in dealing damage without counters, but suddenly aren't overwhelmingly powerful and you have to think about their usage. Sounds like a good idea to me.

They'd also make throne bosses very trivial. While in some cases can normally get a throne boss to lock themselves to one range for a turn. Having a Boss on the throne lock themselves to 2 range makes them obscenely easy to kill(since 1-range weapons are generally stronger than 2-range). An Armoured Knight or General boss with a Spear or Javelin can still threaten classes like Myrmidons or Mages normally, but under your change if you just have a unit take a 2-range attack you can have anyone (well except Archers) run in on the next turn to attack the boss with impunity.

Edited December 23, 2011 by arvilino

[CrashGordon94]

Look, if the low MT doesn't stop the, then that could be a strength for them. Besides throwing weapons have horrible Hit too and that might hurt Boyd a little more.

And I like having melee counters on Hand Axes/Javelins so I disapprove of this idea.

[Othin]

In H3, javelins are so niche that you only use them in a few rare occasions (off the top of my head, in C6 against the mages using a pure water buffed Palla, and in C12, to weaken Wyverns with Palla), and even then you use a high STR character and possibly a forged javelin. You tend to need to hit enemies so hard and so fast to avoid getting bitchslapped that Javs having like 3 MT is just...ugh; you're just better off to use hunters/snipers/horsemen. It's sad that I'm on C3 of a Fighter!MU Lunatic run only to see Catria do ONE damage against a dracoknight (and max of 4-5 damage per hit on low DEF units) when they have 35 health and usually need to be ORKO'd or 2RKO'd.

H3 without bows would be pretty evil, or at the very least extremely agitating. It's probably the best balance between bows and 1-2 range weps of any FE I've played. And again, trust me when I say, yes, it makes a difference, at least in higher difficulties.

To put it better...the pegasi sisters are nice in H3 because they're often the only ones for quite a while that will double reliably without some other major drawback. You lose 6x2=12 damage per round versus an unforged steel (using iron weapons in H3 is just lawl-worthy; you should at least use a +2-4 MT forged iron if you're trying to get somebody past the E weapon rank hump), and 10x2=20 damage per round versus an unforged silver. It's really hard to justify doing 12-20 less damage in a round when things NEED to die.

So you're saying FE12 Lunatic solves the problem by nearly eliminating thrown weapons as a viable option. That sounds little better than eliminating them entirely, and absolutely worse than weakening them by different means.

[Kngt_Of_Titania]

So you're saying FE12 Lunatic solves the problem by nearly eliminating thrown weapons as a viable option. That sounds little better than eliminating them entirely, and absolutely worse than weakening them by different means.

So you go straight from "They're probably too strong in FE12" to "They're worthless!" in one post. I commend you for being so fickle.

That being said, they might be a little too weak in Lunatic, but are perfectly sufficient for every other mode. Hell, javs are probably better in Lunatic' than in Lunatic because you can't do the whole "massive offensive on Player Phase to prevent need for healing" strat in the former, which is actually a huge issue. I won't be entirely sure until I unlock and play it (still on like C13 of Lunatic). It's nice to have javs, they have their place for sure, but they SHOULD be niche; they should be when you want to weaken something without eating a counter -- it's just the whole GBA FE strat of "weaken/kill 500 enemies on EP" with a javelin doesn't work because your characters are most likely 2HKO'd (or 3HKO'd if you're REALLY durable or barely 4HKO'd if you're DEF blessed Sirius facing thieves in C7).

Either way, FE12 Javelins >>>>>>>> FE7/8 Javelins balance-wise.

Okay, please tell me when it is possible to forge every ranged weapon in FE12 Luna-

Oh wait, there's money and other weapons that restrict me from doing this ludicrous idea. Of course you can forge 1-2 range weapons, but not only is it a bit pricey, it also takes away a critical forge that could've been used instead during a specific chapter. Forge just alleviates some of the issues with 1-2 range weapons in FE12. It doesn't suddenly "solve" the problem.

You took the words right out of my mouth. You can find yourself scraping the bottom of the barrel for cash mid-game, and you just can't afford spending thousands of gold on a forged javelin without giving up something really important in turn.

[dondon151]

Let me ask you this. If you're going to nerf the mt of the throwing weapons so much that they can't kill anyways, why not also restrict them to 2-range as well? They wouldn't kill anything in the 1-range unless it had been previously weakened after all, so it's not like it's changing much.

In games where enemy phase is important, I definitely want the option of Hand Axes and Javelins to counter everything for a little bit of damage instead of being locked to a certain range and not countering everything. We would like to balance 1-2 range and 1 range weapons so that the choice of using one of the other on enemy phase is not always a trivial decision. With your suggestion, the choice becomes trivial in the opposite way.

[Othin]

So you go straight from "They're probably too strong in FE12" to "They're worthless!" in one post. I commend you for being so fickle.

That being said, they might be a little too weak in Lunatic, but are perfectly sufficient for every other mode. Hell, javs are probably better in Lunatic' than in Lunatic because you can't do the whole "massive offensive on Player Phase to prevent need for healing" strat in the former, which is actually a huge issue. I won't be entirely sure until I unlock and play it (still on like C13 of Lunatic). It's nice to have javs, they have their place for sure, but they SHOULD be niche; they should be when you want to weaken something without eating a counter -- it's just the whole GBA FE strat of "weaken/kill 500 enemies on EP" with a javelin doesn't work because your characters are most likely 2HKO'd (or 3HKO'd if you're REALLY durable or barely 4HKO'd if you're DEF blessed Sirius facing thieves in C7).

Either way, FE12 Javelins >>>>>>>> FE7/8 Javelins balance-wise.

I am always willing to re-evaluate my conclusions based on notable new evidence. You say that on Lunatic, Javelins and Hand Axes have no use outside of two chapters and on specific units. Having not played much of FE12 myself and even less of Lunatic, I'll take your word for that unless anyone has evidence to the contrary. So it sounds like you were right; they are indeed not overpowering in that mode, but what you describe is precisely what I would describe as "nearly worthless".

You say thrown weapons can be effective on the lower difficulty levels. But how effective? If characters don't mind the loss in damage at all for the most part, the weapons remain overpowering as in other games. If they mind it too much, the weapons become near useless as in Lunatic. If, on any of those modes, they strike that balance between those two extremes, then I will agree that that particular mode has done a good job of balancing the weapons. But it seems to me that reaching such a balance in this way is not easy, and I am currently inclined to not count on that balance in further games.

Weakening something without eating a counter is a good niche to have. But it is also a niche that can be attained by locking the weapons to range 2 or removing their ability to double attack, rather than simply lowering the weapons' Mt, which may or may not work as intended.

In games where enemy phase is important, I definitely want the option of Hand Axes and Javelins to counter everything for a little bit of damage instead of being locked to a certain range and not countering everything. We would like to balance 1-2 range and 1 range weapons so that the choice of using one of the other on enemy phase is not always a trivial decision. With your suggestion, the choice becomes trivial in the opposite way.

You do? Hey, I want the option of using a weapon that not only can match the range of all the enemies, but that lets my characters dodge and kill all the enemies. After all, who wants to choose between subpar solutions; real strategy is having a solution that works for everything, right?

Looks like we'd better start writing those letters to Santa.

Edited December 24, 2011 by Othin

[dondon151]

You do? Hey, I want the option of using a weapon that not only can match the range of all the enemies, but that lets my characters dodge and kill all the enemies. After all, who wants to choose between subpar solutions; real strategy is having a solution that works for everything, right?

Looks like we'd better start writing those letters to Santa.

Missing the point, ascribing meaning that isn't there, etc.

Completely expected of you.

[Othin]

Your point is that you want a meaningful choice. Choosing between countering some enemies or others is a meaningful choice. Choosing between countering some enemies and all, not so much.

You say we should have an option to counter both range 1 and range 2 enemies at once with one character. How about some evidence showing that the series is better off with all those counterattacks?

Edited December 24, 2011 by Othin

[dondon151]

Your point is that you want a meaningful choice. Choosing between countering some enemies or others is a meaningful choice. Choosing between countering some enemies and all, not so much.

Locking Hand Axes to Javelins to 2 range doesn't ensure that a player gets to counter other enemies. If you really think that this is a meaningful decision, the player already has the necessary resources to make such a decision (use an archer or a merc). But really, how often do you find yourself sticking an archer instead of a merc in enemy range for the purpose of maximizing damage? (Answer: almost never.)

The new decision that this introduces is whether to use a strong 1 range weapon to KO some enemies on enemy phase while leaving others untouched or to use a weak 1-2 range weapon to damage all enemies on enemy. This actually is a non-trivial decision (applies a lot to FE6 and FE12).

You say we should have an option to counter both range 1 and range 2 enemies at once with one character. How about some evidence showing that the series is better off with all those counterattacks?

How about you show me some evidence to the contrary before you go about making unreasonable requests?

Edited December 24, 2011 by dondon151

[Othin]

Locking Hand Axes to Javelins to 2 range doesn't ensure that a player gets to counter other enemies. If you really think that this is a meaningful decision, the player already has the necessary resources to make such a decision (use an archer or a merc). But really, how often do you find yourself sticking an archer instead of a merc in enemy range for the purpose of maximizing damage? (Answer: almost never.)

The new decision that this introduces is whether to use a strong 1 range weapon to KO some enemies on enemy phase while leaving others untouched or to use a weak 1-2 range weapon to damage all enemies on enemy. This actually is a non-trivial decision (applies a lot to FE6 and FE12).

How about you show me some evidence to the contrary before you go about making unreasonable requests?

Depends on the situation. Most archers aren't characters I'd want to be taking hits no matter what; I may be in error, but I recall often finding them to be rather frail, which is a logical weakness. With the character being constant, perhaps a better comparison would be, how often do you have a Warrior use a bow instead of a (melee) axe to maximize enemy phase damage? And that's completely dependent on the enemy class distribution, but I don't think I've found it to be overly rare.

You make a claim, I ask you to back it up. That's a perfectly reasonable request. But I'll play along. In most of the FE series, characters are incredibly destructive with their counterattacks; I would say too much so. Earlier, there was a brief discussion about the matter and how those counterattacks could use some scaling back. Perhaps you'll agree with the logic this gentleman used in coming to that conclusion:

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=28145&st=1580&p=1797271entry1797271

Edited December 24, 2011 by Othin

[Vicious Sal]

Just to throw an example out there. In a recent draft i had archer -> warrior gordin, locked to those classes. As an archer he sucked, promo gave him stamina, power, move. Suddenly he was beast, never did he touch a hand axe. I used others for 1 range, ohko'ing wyverns was a great boon.

[dondon151]

Depends on the situation. Most archers aren't characters I'd want to be taking hits no matter what; I may be in error, but I recall often finding them to be rather frail, which is a logical weakness. With the character being constant, perhaps a better comparison would be, how often do you have a Warrior use a bow instead of a (melee) axe to maximize enemy phase damage? And that's completely dependent on the enemy class distribution, but I don't think I've found it to be overly rare.

On the contrary, I've found it exceedingly rare. The only circumstances in which I've used a bow for enemy phase are where all of the counterable enemies are locked to 2 range. That's like, 3 chapters in FE6.

You make a claim, I ask you to back it up. That's a perfectly reasonable request.

No, actually, that's not a perfectly reasonable request. It is impossible to qualitatively show what you're asking for.

But I'll play along. In most of the FE series, characters are incredibly destructive with their counterattacks; I would say too much so. Earlier, there was a brief discussion about the matter and how those counterattacks could use some scaling back. Perhaps you'll agree with the logic this gentleman used in coming to that conclusion:

That's beside the point. Balancing Hand Axes and Javelins while keeping all other weapons the same and addressing general mechanical issues with FE as a whole are two different things.

[Othin]

On the contrary, I've found it exceedingly rare. The only circumstances in which I've used a bow for enemy phase are where all of the counterable enemies are locked to 2 range. That's like, 3 chapters in FE6.

No, actually, that's not a perfectly reasonable request. It is impossible to qualitatively show what you're asking for.

That's beside the point. Balancing Hand Axes and Javelins while keeping all other weapons the same and addressing general mechanical issues with FE as a whole are two different things.

It appears we use different strategies. But I think we already knew that.

I'm not talking about a strict definition of evidence. Do you have a convincing argument as to why having the option of 1-2 range is better than not? That's all I'm asking for.

You ignore the possibility of how much Hand Axes and Javelins may contribute to those mechanical issues. These matters are never entirely separate.

[Aethereal]

With the character being constant, perhaps a better comparison would be, how often do you have a Warrior use a bow instead of a (melee) axe to maximize enemy phase damage? And that's completely dependent on the enemy class distribution, but I don't think I've found it to be overly rare.

It's dependent on there only being archers as enemies. FE6 Sacae has a few moments where this happens, and FE4 has at least one or two instances where this happens. Regardless, I'm not interested in playing a chapter where all the enemies are archers, sounds incredibly easy because come PP I have an enormous advantage. 2 range only hand axes and javelins means both items would basically become the least useful weapon available, by a ridiculous amount. There's no tactical advantage to only countering one of seven+ potential weapon types, and so there's no decision to make. You would simply never end PP with a hand axe or javelin equipped.

Edited December 24, 2011 by Aethereal

[Othin]

It's dependent on there only being archers as enemies. FE6 Sacae has a few moments where this happens, and FE4 has at least one or two instances where this happens. Regardless, I'm not interested in playing a chapter where all the enemies are archers, sounds incredibly easy because come PP I have an enormous advantage. 2 range only hand axes and javelins means both items would basically become the least useful weapon available, by a ridiculous amount. There's no tactical advantage to only countering one of seven+ potential weapon types, and so there's no decision to make. You would simply never end PP with a hand axe or javelin equipped.

False. It's dependent on the majority of nearby enemies being archers, which can happen any time there are multiple enemy archers in close proximity to each other. In some situations, you get a tactical advantage; in others, you don't. In most, you get the option of avoiding taking a counter on the player phase, exactly what you described as such a huge boon in the archer chapters.

In all of this, we must again recall the previous issue that counterattacks are ridiculously overpowered. That must be addressed somehow, and however it is addressed would decrease the relevance of enemy phase counterattacks when using any type of thrown weapon.

[Aethereal]

False. It's dependent on the majority of nearby enemies being archers, which can happen any time there are multiple enemy archers in close proximity to each other. In some situations, you get a tactical advantage; in others, you don't. In most, you get the option of avoiding taking a counter on the player phase, exactly what you described as such a huge boon in the archer chapters.

In all of this, we must again recall the previous issue that counterattacks are ridiculously overpowered. That must be addressed somehow, and however it is addressed would decrease the relevance of enemy phase counterattacks when using any type of thrown weapon.

While I didn't specifically state that I meant the enemies that are nearby as opposed to all the enemies on the map, that is what I meant. And there are very few times throughout the series where it would be a good idea to go into EP with a javelin or a hand axe equipped if they were locked to 2 range. Please provide some, since they aren't overly rare. Either way, the majority of nearby enemies being archers sounds dull to me, and probably most people. Having no fear of being countered on PP isn't fun.

To your second point, counter attacks are only overpowered when your units are overpowered. Besides, FE12 handles both of these issues well. They decreased the might of Javelins and Hand Axes significantly, and made Enemy Phase combat a lot less important.