Mechanics that you want

[Byte2222]

About swords. They couldn't penetrate armor, though I don't think lances or axes could break chainmail, not sure about plate armor, but they could break the bones under the armor, and cause abrasions, something lances, and I think, axes couldn't boast.

Ok, lances. I do aikido (it's a martial art) and we learn some weapon art, traditional Japanese sword and spear technique, since it is the foundation of our 'body art'. When practicing spear thrusts (using a short staff) we are taught two techniques: a quick thrust, with one hand feeding the spear through and the other pushing from the back to the front hand, which is a quick stab or blow to an unarmoured opponent and a strong thrust, both hands twisting round throughout, weight shifting and the back hand planting itself in the armpit, specifically practiced to punch through armour, injure ribs and knock the opponent over.

The whole point of using an axe in battle, historically as well, was to take advantage of its weight and cleaving action; they were specifically used throughout history to break armour and act similarly to hammers if the armour didn't break. Swords, meanwhile, normally have a cutting action, not least because if you block an axe-like attack both weapons will be damaged and might even break in half. I don't know much about chainmail or how easy it is to break but a lance strike (particularly if backed-up by a horse) is easily strong enough to knock someone over and axes are specifically used for their heavy cleaving action. I'm not claiming to be an expert here, like I am at archery, but it's important to realise just how powerful these weapons are and why they were staples of war for thousands of years.

I think I'm done being off-topic for now.

[Rewjeo]

You mean increase their might?

That wouldn't have the same effect. If you increase the might by 3 all around, then you have archers doing 3-6 more damage a round. If you have some sort of DEF penetrating ability, they would be more effective against more heavily armored foes and could potentially become very powerful later in the game when you see enemies with DEF getting up into the 20's or even 30 if this game continues the trend of having super high difficulties.

[Darros]

Dismounting apparently worked well and it made sense, though I wouldn't want the universal dismounted Swordlock to appear again...

At least Troubs and Female Paladins could use their staves dismounted.

And some units kept their weeapon ranks upon dismounting, like Fergus and Delmud.

[CrashGordon94]

It still screws over Axe/Great Kngihts and Lance/Duke Knights. I don't really want their weapons to change except perhaps a multi-weapon class being limited to one type when on foot.

[Thor Odinson]

Single weapon type seems fair enough (defaults to the highest weapon rank?), though honestly I can see arguments going both ways in cases of logic. And cavs having two weapons before promotion's kinda OP'd as well. In GBA, since they had generally good stats to go alongside the dual-weapon system, it gives them more versatility than even many promoted units. I like how they limited it to one weapon pre-promotion in Tellius, and keeping that would help with the balancing of mounts a little along with a few other small changes.

Edited February 4, 2012 by Luminescent Blade

[CrashGordon94]

I liked that too. Perhaps what it could be is that it has one weapon type earmarked as the "main", like an Axe Knight promoted to a Paladin would have Axes as their "main" while a Lance Knight that did the same would have Lances as their "main" and the "main" weapon type is what you use unmounted.

[Thor Odinson]

That would work. RD has that weapon level cap anyway depending on which kind of paladin you promoted from, so that's a good indicator as well.

People were bitching about just giving mounts significantly lower stats. *shrug* But yeah, it'd be ridiculously hard to balance.

I honestly do like mounts having less stats enough so it matters idea, actually. Another reason why mounts are so dominant is that they have enough stats to get the same job done as the foot units with (debatably) slightly better stats except faster. FE4 kinda had the right idea, since many of the foot units had OP'd skills and really good raw stats, but the downfall is the size of FE4 maps in addition to terrible enemy stats allowed mounts to 2-3RKO those enemies that the foot units can ORKO before the foot units can even get to the enemies. Their stats should not be reduced to ridiculous amounts so they suck at everything, but just enough that the stat lead of foot units actually mean something.

Edited February 4, 2012 by Luminescent Blade

[Kngt_Of_Titania]

On a related side-note to this discussion of cavalry units, I'd like to point out something that always bothered me:

- Mounted units get extra MOV, but eat higher than normal terrain penalties from forests and deserts and take extra damage from horseslaying weapons (which are somewhat rare for enemies to have in many, but not all, FEs).

- Flying units get extra MOV and eat no terrain penalties, but they don't get avoid bonuses from terrain and they take extra damage from bows, which are relatively common weapons.

- Armored units take extra damage from hammers and the like AND typically eat higher than normal terrain penalties, but get no bonuses.

It seems odd to me that being armored leads only to downsides; armored units should get some sort of bonus, like maybe taking only 2x normal damage from crits or something like that (to reinforce their role as a tank).

[Shin]

I liked that too. Perhaps what it could be is that it has one weapon type earmarked as the "main", like an Axe Knight promoted to a Paladin would have Axes as their "main" while a Lance Knight that did the same would have Lances as their "main" and the "main" weapon type is what you use unmounted.

That's not a bad idea, I liked dismounting, as you'd eat stat reductions for having to dismount them. Funnily enough, in FE3, dismounted knights actually had less move than foot units. However the swordlock in FE5 wasn't nice, especially if your name was Hicks.

[BrightBow]

How about making mounts unable to double at all to prevent them from taking over the job of the non-mounted units? With their high move and reliable stats they should still be powerful enough to be useful. And if not, they could maybe get a ability that boosts their offensive during player phase, kinda like cavaliers in Battle for Wesnoth, just not as extreme and without having to take double damage in return.

[Anouleth]

On a related side-note to this discussion of cavalry units, I'd like to point out something that always bothered me:

- Mounted units get extra MOV, but eat higher than normal terrain penalties from forests and deserts and take extra damage from horseslaying weapons (which are somewhat rare for enemies to have in many, but not all, FEs).

- Flying units get extra MOV and eat no terrain penalties, but they don't get avoid bonuses from terrain and they take extra damage from bows, which are relatively common weapons.

- Armored units take extra damage from hammers and the like AND typically eat higher than normal terrain penalties, but get no bonuses.

It seems odd to me that being armored leads only to downsides; armored units should get some sort of bonus, like maybe taking only 2x normal damage from crits or something like that (to reinforce their role as a tank).

Is altering the core mechanics of the game in that way necessary to make Knights competitive?

[Kngt_Of_Titania]

Is altering the core mechanics of the game in that way necessary to make Knights competitive?

Well, SOMETHING is necessary. Being a knight is basically all downsides and no benefit; crap move, terrain penalties, crap offense (because of shitty SPD), mediocre defense (again, because of being doubled like a pro and having crap RES). The only really loved knights are those that come early and with a high base level, and even those don't usually stay in your party all game as maps get larger.

[dondon151]

How about making mounts unable to double at all to prevent them from taking over the job of the non-mounted units?

I thought of this too. It wouldn't make mounted units not dominant, but it keeps the good ones from annihilating everything in sight.

Well, SOMETHING is necessary. Being a knight is basically all downsides and no benefit; crap move, terrain penalties, crap offense (because of shitty SPD), mediocre defense (again, because of being doubled like a pro and having crap RES). The only really loved knights are those that come early and with a high base level, and even those don't usually stay in your party all game as maps get larger.

I think the addition of dismounting and the option to go great knight (as a mounting option) would go a great way to balancing armors. They can be superior to infantry outdoors and superior to (dis)mounted units indoors.

Edited February 4, 2012 by dondon151

[Kngt_Of_Titania]

I think the addition of dismounting and the option to go great knight (as a mounting option) would go a great way to balancing armors. They can be superior to infantry outdoors and superior to (dis)mounted units indoors.

Probably. I would want mounted knights to have sightly more MOV than foot units of that same tier; unlike FE8, where my big issue was getting a unit like Gilliam promoted before he felt useful, I kind of want that option to be available before promotion (so it'd be 4 MOV/6 MOV pre-promotion and 5 MOV/7 MOV post-promotion). That allows cavs to have more MOV than mounted knights (which makes sense, as plate armor is HEAVY), but allows knights to keep up with your party.

I wish knights had a special ability usable only when unmounted, so that there'd be a reason to manually dismount them at times (kind of like C2x FE5, where IIRC you dismount to travel past the sand quicker).

Edited February 4, 2012 by Kngt_Of_Titania

[Anouleth]

Well, SOMETHING is necessary.

Really? Because it seems to me that there have been multiple good Armour Knights in the history of Fire Emblem. Namely, the ones that don't have terrible stats in basically every area.

Being a knight is basically all downsides and no benefit; crap move, terrain penalties, crap offense (because of shitty SPD), mediocre defense (again, because of being doubled like a pro and having crap RES).

I don't remember Oswin or Tauroneo or Gatrie getting doubled. No doubt that you'll tell me that they're not "really" armour knights.

And of course Armour Knights are going to be bad as long as they have bad offense and mediocre durability. This is why those problems should be fixed. Armours should be strong like Oswin (i.e. can 2HKO) instead of weak like Bors, and reasonably accurate, and they should be fast enough to not get doubled.

As dondon said, making Armours into a kind of "middle ground" in between mounted units and foot units also works. I think that Knights should retain the FE5 system of swordlock when dismounted, too.

Edited February 4, 2012 by Anouleth

[Kngt_Of_Titania]

Really? Because it seems to me that there have been multiple good Armour Knights in the history of Fire Emblem. Namely, the ones that don't have terrible stats in basically every area.

Those knights are about the best the series have to offer (if I'm thinking of the same people you are) and typically hover around the middle of the tier lists instead of the top (like the best mercs/myrms/cavs/mages/etc). Such knights typically have good/great stats (FE10 knights had pretty insane SPD growths for the class and were unlike most other armors in the series) or some other benefit (Gatrie having an amazing mastery didn't hurt him, for example; Duessel came pre-promoted in a game where knights can actually mount). Many or most armors typically don't fall in the category -- think Bors or Wallace or Wendy or Gilliam or every FE11/FE12 knight or...

I don't remember Oswin or Tauroneo or Gatrie getting doubled. No doubt that you'll tell me that they're not "really" armour knights.

Oswin - Came at a freakish base level. He was like a mini-Jaigan, especially considering most of your units sucked at the beginning of the game (Rebecca, Eliwood, Lowen are all level 1, Serra and Matthew probably aren't past level 3-4. etc.). Also, we're talking about a game where a could get a 4 SPD Bartre to double some enemies and avoid being doubled by a surprising number of them.

Other Two - FE10, which gave knights high-ish SPD growth, with the exception of Brom. This would be like me saying archers in FE don't have terrible base stats by pointing to FE10!Shinon (hell, even FE10!Rolf probably fits in the "base stats don't suck" category).

As dondon said, making Armours into a kind of "middle ground" in between mounted units and foot units also works. I think that Knights should retain the FE5 system of swordlock when dismounted, too.

No, I like the idea too.

Edited February 4, 2012 by Kngt_Of_Titania

[Othin]

TRS and BS addressed armors in interesting ways. In TRS, I haven't used actual Armor Knights much so far or had great experiences with them, but it adds an odd class: Wood Shooter, pretty much a Bow Armor. They have the expected fantastic Defense and poor Move, but their other stats don't really suffer for it; their Speed is quite okay when using light bows. Meanwhile, their Defense is high enough that when they use some of the fantastic heavy bows, the increased risk of getting hit or doubled isn't much of a threat. There might be something here to work with - do armors really need to have big weaknesses other than movement?

In BS, armors can use the best shields for absolutely ridiculous defenses; they usually have like 15 Defense on their own and another +15 or so from their shields, meaning that killing them usually requires using magic or special attacks, or just hitting them several times to break through their shields - their Defense is enough of an advantage to actually make a substantial difference in what fighting them entails. Unfortunately, this effectiveness doesn't carry over so well to the playable Armors, mostly because good large shields are uncommon and won't last long when using them to soak up a lot of hits. But I think it goes to show where options exist to improve armors.

[CrashGordon94]

I think it would help to just give Armors the same MOV as ordinary infantry.

[Othin]

I think it would help to just give Armors the same MOV as ordinary infantry.

Now that's just boring.

[BwdYeti]

Armours should be strong like Oswin (i.e. can 2HKO) instead of weak like Bors, and reasonably accurate, and they should be fast enough to not get doubled.

Then which classes should be slow enough to be doubled...?

[Kngt_Of_Titania]

Then which classes should be slow enough to be doubled...?

Nobody?

Well, let me clarify. The fastest classes should obviously have enough SPD to double the slowest classes (i.e typical myrms better double typical knights, but myrm's low STR and WTD will make damaging knights difficult, so it balances out somewhat), but the SPD gap shouldn't be that large between classes -- so while knights will be your slowest class on average, it shouldn't be doubled by fighters or cavs, but rather by faster mages, myrms, and mercs.

SPD is such an important stat since it can literally double a unit's offense against an enemy in a single point (as in the point that gives you 4 more SPD than the unit you attack).

EDIT: Tbh, widening the SPD threshold between when you double to 5-6 would make balancing this a lot easier, although there would be obvious resistance to such an idea.

Edited February 4, 2012 by Kngt_Of_Titania

[bottlegnomes]

Then which classes should be slow enough to be doubled...?

None, ideally. Slow units should have trouble doubling most units, and get doubled by the fastest units, middle ground units should be able to double decently, but not the faster classes, and fast units should be able to double most classes. This is obviously for just player units. For enemies, slow units should be reasonably easy to double, so mid ground and better, and middle units should be doubleable by your fast units.

Yeah, just giving them the same movement would be boring.

As for keeping swordlock, don't know. If swords are as UP as they have been recently, no, but if they are good, like in 5, I'm fine with it, so long as there are a decent number of fairly good swords at lowish levels, like C or so.

EDIT: ninjaed :P

Edited February 4, 2012 by bottlegnomes

[CT075]

Well, see, if no classes are slow enough to be doubled, then technically nobody would double anything, rite rite?

On a more serious note, I'd rather that Armors have just enough speed to avoid being doubled by things like Cavs and Fighters (the 'mid-ranged' classes) but IMO they should be doubled by like myrms.

[Othin]

I certainly think doubling is far too common as it is, but making characters and classes all have stats so similar that it's rare to have even a four point difference doesn't sound good, either.

This I think is another thing TRS handled well. Just like Kngt's suggestion, the difference required to double was increased to 5 AS, with stats tending to be low enough for that to really be a substantial difference. Meanwhile, Wt reverted to the pre-FE5 system, subtracting the weapon's entire Wt from the character's AS, and differences in Wt between and within weapon types are substantial. As a result, doubling is often more about choosing the right weapon, with faster characters having more flexibility in that area. The lightest weapons tend to be very weak otherwise, but can be valuable nonetheless when you need those extra points of AS.

Edited February 4, 2012 by Othin

[Anouleth]

EDIT: Tbh, widening the SPD threshold between when you double to 5-6 would make balancing this a lot easier, although there would be obvious resistance to such an idea.

Alternatively, you could remove the speed stat altogether. After all, all other things being equal, high-speed units are always going to be better than low-speed units, with more avoid, more doubling, and getting doubled less.