Foot soldiers vs. Mounted knights

[Anouleth]

Now, here's the issue. There's no legitimate basis for hating people who prefer mounted units. But saying the best units are mounted units - an objective term rather than subjective - is far more dismissive of opposing viewpoints, and is in fact highly provocative. And when a substantial part of your reasoning is based upon LTC, you are in effect treating LTC as the standard that all players should go by. And asserting that, intentionally or unintentionally, is asinine and warrants the harsh response it provokes.

You do not understand how tier lists work, if you think that the people who work on them think they are oracles of pure, objective, unadulterated truth. In fact, you can disabuse yourself of this notion simply by reading the tier list FAQ that has been around on this forum since dinosaurs and Vykan12 roamed the earth. Let's do that.

"Q: What is a tier list?

A: It is a ranking system where characters are listed from best to worst based on how they contribute towards specific criteria."

It is completely fucking ridiculous to suggest that when I say "Sue should be over Ray" in the FE6 tier list, I am somehow making some kind of objective value judgment, that I am dismissing the opinion of everyone who disagrees with me, that I am being "inflammatory". Of course not, use your fucking brain. When Narga Rocks says "Haar is the best unit in the game" in a tier list, he is not claiming that Haar is objectively better, it is implicit that he means "Haar is the best unit according to the criteria of the tier list I am posting in". Implicit, it seems, to everyone except you who needs a disclaimer every time someone submits any kind of opinion on any subject ever to make sure that they're not making a universal declaration of objective fact.

Now, I'm not sure how entirely this applies to the current situation. But your current post is an example of the fact that indeed, at times regarding this subject you use objective standards to assert something without objective basis. And when that happens, response is warranted.

Othin, sometimes you have intelligent things to say. This is not one of those times. Snowy said that he hated people who said that the best units are mounted units in tier lists. Then, everyone points out that as usual, he is stupid, and he claims he was just expressing a preference for foot soldiers and he is being attacked for it, which is a lie. I don't care if other people like foot soldiers or not.

[Narga_Rocks]

Snowy said that he hated people who said that the best units are mounted units in tier lists.

Foot soldiers. I find them a lot more fun to use, a lot more distinct and better personallity-wise as characters, and I REALLY, REALLY, hate how people lord mounted units as the best in tier-lists.

I find it odd that Snowy hasn't defended himself from your interpretation. It's not like this is the first post you made with that interpretation. It makes me think he really does hate us, but technically all he said was he hates one thing that we do. Well, technically the way we do it. Maybe if we lorded mounted units as the best in tier-lists in a slightly different way he wouldn't be so pissy about it? Oh well. Whatever.

[Anouleth]

I find it odd that Snowy hasn't defended himself from your interpretation. It's not like this is the first post you made with that interpretation. It makes me think he really does hate us, but technically all he said was he hates one thing that we do. Well, technically the way we do it. Maybe if we lorded mounted units as the best in tier-lists in a slightly different way he wouldn't be so pissy about it? Oh well. Whatever.

Oh, okay. I feel a bit bad about missing that word now. Even though it doesn't really make sense...

Still, I think it's wrong for him to complain about people arguing for mounted units to be high on tier lists when it's in accordance with the tier list criteria. Surely, that's a natural thing to do? And if it's your opinion that a particular unit deserves to be higher, you're not wrong for arguing in favour of that, as long as you're not obnoxious about it.

[CrashGordon94]

I don't think Othin meant in tier lists. If it's anything, I've heard LTC people saying how mounted people are OBJECTIVELY better and you have to cede that even if you prefer unmounted people in non-tier topics too. And yes, everyone seems to take being better in an efficiency run as being objectively better completely quite a lot.

[Othin]

As Crash noted, I'm not talking about tier lists. They're the business of people who actually give a shit about them, and I am not among those people. Furthermore, as I explained, I neither know nor care to what extent this applies to Snowy's current raging.

Anouleth, I have no doubt that most of the time, you do not intend to be provocative or dismissive. That does not change the fact that what you and others say can be provocative, and that you need to take responsibility for it. It is not that I am easily provoked, but that many people are easily provoked on the internet. All the arguments over opinions that get started here and elsewhere are the result of that fact, because it is easy for people to take things personally. This, it seems to me, is especially true when the opinion is stated objectively. Tell me, would you not react differently to the following posts?

Serenes member x: "LTC is a bad way to play FE."

Serenes member y: "I don't like playing LTC."

Surely you've seen posts to the effect of both of those here, so a hypothetical situation is not even necessary, but simply a recollection and evaluation. Surely then you can understand why people would react differently to the following?

LTC player a: "Foot units don't tend to be effective the way I play."

LTC player b: "Foot units are useless."

Again, this may not be an entirely accurate depiction of what is going on here and now, but surely it can help to show why these misunderstandings keep happening.

[Anouleth]

As Crash noted, I'm not talking about tier lists. They're the business of people who actually give a shit about them, and I am not among those people. Furthermore, as I explained, I neither know nor care to what extent this applies to Snowy's current raging.

Well, I apologise for not appending the three words "in tier lists", because Snowy was complaining about how people favoured mounted units in tier lists and not any other sphere of discussion.

Anouleth, I have no doubt that most of the time, you do not intend to be provocative or dismissive. That does not change the fact that what you and others say can be provocative, and that you need to take responsibility for it.

Expressing your opinion is not provocative. I happen to think that Tanith is coolest and most badassest character to ever fly over the face of Tellius. You happen to think that Othin is a cool dude. That does not mean we are being inflammatory or provocative or dismissive. If your anus is so soft and tender that you cannot read someone expressing an opinion like "Tanith is the best" without succumbing to massive butthurt, you should not go on the internet.

It is not that I am easily provoked, but that many people are easily provoked on the internet. All the arguments over opinions that get started here and elsewhere are the result of that fact, because it is easy for people to take things personally. This, it seems to me, is especially true when the opinion is stated objectively. Tell me, would you not react differently to the following posts?

Serenes member x: "LTC is a bad way to play FE."

Serenes member y: "I don't like playing LTC."

I think there's a big difference between saying "Haar is the best" on a tier list, where the context implies that you are giving your opinion on where Haar deserves to be, and saying that LTC is a bad way to play FE. In general, statements that people make on the value of units are not supposed to be sweeping judgements of their objective value, they are not suddenly believers in Plato's Form of the Good, and people do not need to append "but this is just my opinion" to every statement they make about how "good" a character is, because it's kind of implicit.

Surely you've seen posts to the effect of both of those here, so a hypothetical situation is not even necessary, but simply a recollection and evaluation. Surely then you can understand why people would react differently to the following?

LTC player a: "Foot units don't tend to be effective the way I play."

LTC player b: "Foot units are useless."

If anyone thinks that foot units are useless, they are simply wrong. And if you are offended by it, they should go see what Encyclopedia Dramatica has to say on being offended.

Again, this may not be an entirely accurate depiction of what is going on here and now, but surely it can help to show why these misunderstandings keep happening.

There is no misunderstanding. Snowy is upset about people applying the standards of efficiency tier lists. Are we supposed to delicately tiptoe around any mention of units being "better" and "worse" and constantly remind everyone that it's just our opinion that Titania should be in High or whatever for fear of hurting someone's delicate feelings?

[Narga_Rocks]

As Crash noted, I'm not talking about tier lists. They're the business of people who actually give a shit about them, and I am not among those people. Furthermore, as I explained, I neither know nor care to what extent this applies to Snowy's current raging.

Anouleth, I have no doubt that most of the time, you do not intend to be provocative or dismissive. That does not change the fact that what you and others say can be provocative, and that you need to take responsibility for it. It is not that I am easily provoked, but that many people are easily provoked on the internet. All the arguments over opinions that get started here and elsewhere are the result of that fact, because it is easy for people to take things personally. This, it seems to me, is especially true when the opinion is stated objectively. Tell me, would you not react differently to the following posts?

Serenes member x: "LTC is a bad way to play FE."

Serenes member y: "I don't like playing LTC."

Surely you've seen posts to the effect of both of those here, so a hypothetical situation is not even necessary, but simply a recollection and evaluation. Surely then you can understand why people would react differently to the following?

LTC player a: "Foot units don't tend to be effective the way I play."

LTC player b: "Foot units are useless."

Again, this may not be an entirely accurate depiction of what is going on here and now, but surely it can help to show why these misunderstandings keep happening.

I'd just like to say that Seth is objectively the best unit in fe8. I'm sorry, but a unit that can solo the entire game and still have comparable endgame stats to the other paladins if you care about the tower and stuff is just so clearly better than any unit that needs the time and effort of raising in the tower in order to come close to what Seth can do. And they wouldn't have been owning the game since the first chapter like he does even if you don't care about the time and effort of raising them.

Now, not all units are so clearly head and shoulders and torso and legs above the rest of the characters in a game, but fe9 Titania comes pretty close to being objectively the best there, too.

[Aethereal]

As Crash noted, I'm not talking about tier lists. They're the business of people who actually give a shit about them, and I am not among those people. Furthermore, as I explained, I neither know nor care to what extent this applies to Snowy's current raging.

Anouleth, I have no doubt that most of the time, you do not intend to be provocative or dismissive. That does not change the fact that what you and others say can be provocative, and that you need to take responsibility for it. It is not that I am easily provoked, but that many people are easily provoked on the internet. All the arguments over opinions that get started here and elsewhere are the result of that fact, because it is easy for people to take things personally. This, it seems to me, is especially true when the opinion is stated objectively. Tell me, would you not react differently to the following posts?

Serenes member x: "LTC is a bad way to play FE."

Serenes member y: "I don't like playing LTC."

Surely you've seen posts to the effect of both of those here, so a hypothetical situation is not even necessary, but simply a recollection and evaluation. Surely then you can understand why people would react differently to the following?

LTC player a: "Foot units don't tend to be effective the way I play."

LTC player b: "Foot units are useless."

Again, this may not be an entirely accurate depiction of what is going on here and now, but surely it can help to show why these misunderstandings keep happening.

I'm just gonna put this out here, even at the risk of looking like an ass. Most mounted units have better movement, and good to amazing WTC at the cost of nothing. In some games there are mounted units with less stats (Like, FE10 Pally caps are pretty bad iirc? I dunno.) than their foot-user counterparts, but that's rare. As far as stats go, the best units in FE4, most of 6, most of 7, 8, 9, and a lot of 10(I think Ike might be an exception to Haar, but Haar can promote much earlier than Ike. I dunno, I don't follow FE10 closely enough) are all mounted units, and they add in extra movement. And the only reason 10 is only "a lot of" is because of weird availability stuff. In any case, while extra move isn't as useful when not shooting for low turns, it's still a huge boost in their flexibility. They also get canto, and better aid. The only drawback is rare stuff that is effective against them, and in FE4's case, not having an amazing skill like Astra I guess.

Anyways, while there are obviously foot units with awesome combat-so you can't just say heywait that's not fair to, there's also a lot of mounted units-besides these top guys-with awesome combat. Kent, Sain, Fiora, a well-trained Florina, Alan, Lance, Percival, Franz, Forde, Kyle, Duessel, Tana, Vanessa, FE9!Kieran, FE9!Oscar, FE9!Astrid, FE9!Makalov, FE9!Tanith, FE9!Haar, FE9!Marcia, FE9!Jill, FE10!Jill, FE10!Oscar, FE10!Titania, FE10!Elincia, Oifaye, Lester, Midayle, Lex, Fin, Cuan. These are all really good units, regardless of turncount, and none of them are the best mounted unit in their game. I'm also not very knowledgeable about some of those games, so there could be mistakes or missing units on that list. Obviously, you can make a list with foot units that can match these guys' combat, or even better it. But the point is; in the current FE system, most mounted units are really really good in combat, and have a bunch of other advantages, with no real/big drawbacks. I don't want to derail this discussion, because it's not the right place, but I feel that the only way to really balance mounted vs. non-mounted is to give more utility and skills to non-mounted units, sorta like the Berwick Saga skills. Until then, mounted units are basically foot units with a bunch of extra stuff.

Being mounted>Not being mounted, objectively. At least for me, but it's completely possible I'm not thinking of a playstyle in which mounted units are worse. But, if we're just disregarding turncounts, i still think they're better.

PS. Sorry if any of this is hard to read, I've got a fever and I'm not exactly at the top of my game, so to speak.

[Othin]

I'd just like to say that Seth is objectively the best unit in fe8. I'm sorry, but a unit that can solo the entire game and still have comparable endgame stats to the other paladins if you care about the tower and stuff is just so clearly better than any unit that needs the time and effort of raising in the tower in order to come close to what Seth can do. And they wouldn't have been owning the game since the first chapter like he does even if you don't care about the time and effort of raising them.

Now, not all units are so clearly head and shoulders and torso and legs above the rest of the characters in a game, but fe9 Titania comes pretty close to being objectively the best there, too.

Indeed. No matter what sort of playthrough you do, unless it's a challenge run with specific provisions to limit the use of mega-Jagens, they're going to be the best. This is the sort of situation where there is objective basis for an objective statement.

I'm not feeling well at the moment and don't have the energy to respond to the other posts right now, but I'll see about getting back to them soon.

[Snowy_One]

I ignored jack all. You dismiss LTC runs, as if they shouldn't be counted, which is exactly what you get mad at tier-list players for doing.

When discussing game design? YES! I dismiss every playstyle that is clearly a self-imposed challenge because, unless people are striving for said challenge, they won't play like that. I dismiss drafts too and consider things like solo runs 'not the proper way to play' and would be more than glad to discuss putting things in place to stop solo runs. It's just that LTC runs have posters who react with entire fights when you say that how they treat mounted units has caused you to shy away from them.

There were plenty of suggestions that could have worked for both sides, and acknowledged the pros and cons for both sides. Unsurprisingly, you didn't. Unsurprisingly, you still don't. There's plenty of ways to balance things for LTC-runs and casual runs. Your quote is exactly my point.

There are plenty of things that work for both sides, yes. That is common sense. Not every balance that helps out casual players is going to be a neutral or negative to LTC players. In fact, most suggestions are usually net positives across multiple styles of play which is why the impact on LTC playstyles usually doesn't get discussed when I make my suggestions. However, whenever there is a conflict between 'casual' and any other playstyle, unless reasonable justification can be given, I will always side with the casual. Why? Because that's the majority of people who will play the game and who will decide the future of FE, both in its direction and if another FE game even comes out. That's why I side against LTC when there is a dispute between them.

No one's ever suggested "ignore casual playerzs!11!" and you can't pull up a single quote showing that people do

Which is why people said that casual play was too vague to define and when I gave a list of critera for suggestions I got dismissed as having a bad list despite no one actually posting reasons why. Yea. Real productive there, sooooo not ignoring casual playstyles.

Your definition of casual is incredibly restrictive. I don't always do LTC-runs, and I don't fit in to most of your defined goals-Actually, the only one I do fit in to is #5. I'd call myself a casual player when I'm not pushing for a rank or LTC. Casual play, because it does not have specific goals except "Get through the game and have fun" is very difficult to define. You probably just described yourself or your friends.

And you accuse me of thinking everyone plays like them... Did you even read the list I provided? First paragraph: Generally I assume the following standards when I think of a casual player. Please note that this is not in order of importance and that these are NOT always true, just some of the more common traits I've noticed over the years on Gamefaqs and sitting down with some newcomers to the series.

I KNOW the list won't cover every casual player and I KNOW that probably 95% of the players will not follow at least 1 of the things on the list. That does NOT mean that it is a bad list, it just means that the playstyle in casual is highly varied. Some players will be critical of flaws, others will not. Some players will try to achieve every objective, others will not. That doesn't mean that the majority of players won't try to achieve all objectives, that they won't all be forgiving of flaws, and such. While it may be rare for someone to have every single one of those traits, these traits are the majority I've noticed from what information I have available.

Every one responded calling you a hypocrite.. Which you are. No one said shit about how bad it is to prefer foot soldiers. Your problem is you're either lying in these posts to look less like a douche, lying to yourself that you're this poor persecuted player who every one hates because he doesn't do LTC runs and WAAAAAH, or some weird combination of both.

A hypocrite is someone who says one thing that does the opposite. Someone can say that they hate LTC lists and then push their own playstyle and not be a hypocrite for starters. Now, let's sit down and take a look back one page.

Foot soldiers. I find them a lot more fun to use, a lot more distinct and better personallity-wise as characters, and I REALLY, REALLY, hate how people lord mounted units as the best in tier-lists.

Me, saying I like foot soldiers because I feel they are more distinct, like their characters more, and really dislike how tier list players lord them as the best in tier lists.

Yeah! Why should they reward characters that make maps go faster in efficiency tier lists? That doesn't make any sense whatsoever!

seriously, though, can you tell me why you hate how people acknowledge that more movement makes maps go faster?

Following response saying that they're justified in doing so. I did not disagree with the idea that mounted units should be high up on efficiency tier lists, just that I hated how people talked about them. As a result, an entire argument has sprung up basically accusing me of being a hypocrite who doesn't like other playstyles and forces his own. Face it, I'm not the hypocrite here.

That doesn't sound like me. My position on throwing weapons is that as seen in FE11 and FE12, they're balanced, and my position on bows is that bows don't need any help aside from possibly the addition of better 2-3 range (which would also reduce the potency of throwing weapons). For all the complaining people do about the supposed "underpowered" status of bow users, there are numerous good bow users in the history of FE such as Midayle, Shin, Klein, Shinon, and Ryan.

I would like to see this post where I allegedly shoot down these suggestions.

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=28145&st=1700&p=1802753entry1802753

Not like you were absent during this discussion. I can understand you defending the idea that the FE12 versions were balanced and I won't argue that they were unbalanced... it's just that between the two ideas being suggested you sided with the one that would, most defiantly, help out in a LTC run. Besides, keep in mind I didn't say it was you specifically, just that people like you have been the ones against ideas that have clear and negative implications on LTC runs.

Intelligent Systems are not idiots. I do not think they are stupid, even though everyone else on this board seems to have nothing but scorn for the people who make Fire Emblem. If they say that the typical Fire Emblem player does not restart whenever a player dies, and if they say that the game is not designed with that in mind, I will take their word over the opinions of blowhards on message boards who assume that other people play the same way.

I don't think that they are stupid either. That's why I don't think they should cater to a fringe group of players who are not their main audience and play in a manner that, by definition, is not the normal for players.

While casual players might use GameFAQs, they are not the ones writing guides and posting on the boards.

... You realize that a lot of people make posts on Gamefaqs asking for advise on how to use characters/beat chapters/use skills/which characters are the best, and such? I'm not sure of this, but I suspect that at least one of the predecessors to the modern tier list was making it so that people could simply look at the list to know who was good and who was not. Obviously it's changed over the years, but I remember at least twice people trying to make a list to help people figure out who was good to use and who was not. Besides, it's the best subject sample you actually have for a 'casual' player since it is a public-access board on which you have a wide sample of players who are willing to post details about how they play and who they use to help them get better/progress/have fun/similar goals. Unless you have a better way to get a sample group that accurately represents the populace, I can't see any better way.

People said that you were wrong to hate people who say that the best units are mounted units.

I don't hate people who say mounted units are the best. I hate people who start up entire arguments because someone said that they preferred foot soldiers and part of the reason why was because some people tend to practically worship them in tier lists. Heck, you stated that you thought mounted units were cooler and more useful and I'm fine with you thinking that, I'm not fine with you saying that, because I disagree, I am wrong even though it is my opinion and my reasons. You want 'objective'? Well I can state that I, objectively, tend to shy away from mounted units; one of the reasons why is, objectively, because people who love mounted units and tier lists tend to treat me like crap because I objectively dislike them. I know that you, objectively, like them and if that was all it was I, objectively, would not have a problem with it.

Edited February 5, 2012 by Snowy_One

[Anouleth]

When discussing game design? YES! I dismiss every playstyle that is clearly a self-imposed challenge because, unless people are striving for said challenge, they won't play like that. I dismiss drafts too and consider things like solo runs 'not the proper way to play' and would be more than glad to discuss putting things in place to stop solo runs.

Snowy, why do you say things like this? I personally hate solo runs and think they're not fun at all, but I don't think they should be made impossible. Part of the great thing about FE is that you can play it in many different ways. After all, Final Fantasy has solo runs too. FFTA has Single Class Challenges. Zelda has 3 heart runs, and Metroid has minimum% completion runs.

http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=28145&st=1700&p=1802753entry1802753

Not like you were absent during this discussion. I can understand you defending the idea that the FE12 versions were balanced and I won't argue that they were unbalanced... it's just that between the two ideas being suggested you sided with the one that would, most defiantly, help out in a LTC run. Besides, keep in mind I didn't say it was you specifically, just that people like you have been the ones against ideas that have clear and negative implications on LTC runs.

I think that FE12 in general is difficult enough without limiting the availability of 2-range options.

In addition, if it were really the case that I want my turn counts to be as low as possible, or that anyone at all wanted to see that from the new game, then you would have people recommending the return of FE11 Warp or other mechanics that enabled extremely low turn counts. I don't think that anyone has made such a recommendation or has voiced any opposition to toning down Warp, despite the fact that toning it down has the clearest and most negative implication for LTC runs of any single change. Moreover, a lot of people seem to be making themselves clear that mounted units and Jeigans, as they are, should be reduced in power. Again, that runs contrary to your claims.

And the post you linked to has nothing to do with low turn counts. All he did was evaluate the value of throwing weapons versus bows in FE12 and the GBA titles, and deduce that your statement was incorrect. (You stated that "The simple fact is that, so long as 1-2 range counters exist, bows will almost always be shafted in favor of those. ")

I don't think that they are stupid either. That's why I don't think they should cater to a fringe group of players who are not their main audience and play in a manner that, by definition, is not the normal for players.

I don't see why not. It's not a zero-sum game where making the game more fun for "hardcore" players will necessarily make it less fun for "casual" players.

I don't hate people who say mounted units are the best. I hate people who start up entire arguments because someone said that they preferred foot soldiers and part of the reason why was because some people tend to practically worship them in tier lists. Heck, you stated that you thought mounted units were cooler and more useful and I'm fine with you thinking that, I'm not fine with you saying that, because I disagree, I am wrong even though it is my opinion and my reasons. You want 'objective'? Well I can state that I, objectively, tend to shy away from mounted units; one of the reasons why is, objectively, because people who love mounted units and tier lists tend to treat me like crap because I objectively dislike them.

It is impossible to have an objective opinion, by definition. In addition, it's perfectly acceptable for someone to dislike highly ranked units on a tier list. For example, I'm not the biggest fan of Haar or Mia, who are highly ranked.

[Othin]

Snowy, why do you say things like this? I personally hate solo runs and think they're not fun at all, but I don't think they should be made impossible. Part of the great thing about FE is that you can play it in many different ways. After all, Final Fantasy has solo runs too. FFTA has Single Class Challenges. Zelda has 3 heart runs, and Metroid has minimum% completion runs.

I concur. What the hell, Snowy.

[Narga_Rocks]

I don't hate people who say mounted units are the best. I hate people who start up entire arguments because someone said that they preferred foot soldiers and part of the reason why was because some people tend to practically worship them in tier lists. Heck, you stated that you thought mounted units were cooler and more useful and I'm fine with you thinking that, I'm not fine with you saying that, because I disagree, I am wrong even though it is my opinion and my reasons. You want 'objective'? Well I can state that I, objectively, tend to shy away from mounted units; one of the reasons why is, objectively, because people who love mounted units and tier lists tend to treat me like crap because I objectively dislike them. I know that you, objectively, like them and if that was all it was I, objectively, would not have a problem with it.

Just because you stick the word "objective" in front of something, doesn't make it objective reasoning. And why can't we tell you that your opinion is wrong when it is? Newsflash, opinions can be wrong, quite easily, when they can be disproven by facts. It is my opinion that if I let go of a ball I am not moving (and I am not currently on a roller coaster or somethign) that this ball will go up instead of down. Are you going to say that you are not fine with someome telling me that I am wrong? Because my opinion isn't just a little wrong, it's stupid.

[Dark Sage]

Just because you stick the word "objective" in front of something, doesn't make it objective reasoning. And why can't we tell you that your opinion is wrong when it is? Newsflash, opinions can be wrong, quite easily, when they can be disproven by facts. It is my opinion that if I let go of a ball I am not moving (and I am not currently on a roller coaster or somethign) that this ball will go up instead of down. Are you going to say that you are not fine with someome telling me that I am wrong? Because my opinion isn't just a little wrong, it's stupid.

But Narga, Snowy can't admit he is wrong. Just take a look at his sig. It is the finest form butthurt and passive agression about people disagreeing with him. It is essentially saying fuck you to everyone who has told him he is wrong and he will always react in a similar way whenever he is told an opinion he has is wrong. He hasn't changed at all since 2009/2010.

tl;dr: Snowy's sig =

[suzy49]

It all depends on your style of playing. If speed is what you're going for, mounted units are the best and i can see why they're ranked so high. Admittedly it does kind of annoy me to see most people (or at least a lot of threads Í've personally come across on here) favor the speed/turn-saving style and basically bash foot units, simply because this clashes with my own style and I'm biased, that's it.

I prefer foot units because correct if I'm wrong, the best units with the best caps are mostly on foot. I'm the kind of person who likes to spend time to train ppl with good growth and potential, no matter how crappy they appear at first. Horsies are good and versatile, but they don't have the best caps. Plus a whole army of Paladins is just boring. Practical, definitely, but boring.

Troubadours/Valkyries are always a must in my team, though :)