So how bad are bows really?

[Snowy_One]

Not to nit-pick, but aren't those... hard modes? Lunatic modes? You know... modes meant to be... very hard?

[arvilino]

Not to nit-pick, but aren't those... hard modes? Lunatic modes? You know... modes meant to be... very hard?

They are but even on Lunatic should every enemy Archer that appears in a game be just like the Snipers with Forged Longbows that appear in late-game FE12 and FE13 and the earlier Longbow Archers that only ever show up one at a time?

Even on a lower difficulty it would make any enemy formation with atleast 2 Archers nearby pretty difficult if you consider the sort of range overlap that could amount from boosting the range.

[Snowy_One]

They are but even on Lunatic should every enemy Archer that appears in a game be just like the Snipers with Forged Longbows that appear in late-game FE12 and FE13 and the earlier Longbow Archers that only ever show up one at a time?

Well, it's called 'lunatic mode' for a reason. Even if they did I've played harder games by choice, so...

Even on a lower difficulty it would make any enemy formation with at least 2 Archers nearby pretty difficult if you consider the sort of range overlap that could amount from boosting the range.

Wait. It sounds to me like you're complaining that, on a lower difficulty, instead of mindlessly ploughing through enemies, you'll need to stop, think, heal, plan, and stratagize... You know... The things you're SUPPOSED to be doing in a FE game.

If that REALLY is to big a problem for healers/mages, then maybe they need a buff as well, but that's not the point of this topic.

[Anouleth]

Wait. It sounds to me like you're complaining that, on a lower difficulty, instead of mindlessly ploughing through enemies, you'll need to stop, think, heal, plan, and stratagize... You know... The things you're SUPPOSED to be doing in a FE game.

You already have to do those things. The argument is that giving enemy archers 2-3 range excludes a wide range of strategies, that really shouldn't be excluded, and makes predicting and planning around enemy movements and actions more difficult. To make a comparison, in FFTA it is virtually impossible to predict who a given enemy Archer will attack on a given turn and what tile they will attack from because they have huge range and can practically hit anyone on the map. Now, that's not such a big deal since even a White Mage will probably only suffer a 5HKO or something from an enemy Archer, and FFTA in general places less emphasis on unit micromanagement and strategy and more emphasis on teambuilding and RPG elements, and it's fine if you think that FE should be more like FFTA (and less like Advance Wars), but it should be acknowledged that by giving all Archers 2-3 range you need to make corresponding adjustments to map design, statistical structure, and that it's a movement overall to a different sort of gameplay to what we've seen in the past from Fire Emblem.

[Snowy_One]

You already have to do those things. The argument is that giving enemy archers 2-3 range excludes a wide range of strategies, that really shouldn't be excluded, and makes predicting and planning around enemy movements and actions more difficult. To make a comparison, in FFTA it is virtually impossible to predict who a given enemy Archer will attack on a given turn and what tile they will attack from because they have huge range and can practically hit anyone on the map. Now, that's not such a big deal since even a White Mage will probably only suffer a 5HKO or something from an enemy Archer, and FFTA in general places less emphasis on unit micromanagement and strategy and more emphasis on teambuilding and RPG elements, and it's fine if you think that FE should be more like FFTA (and less like Advance Wars), but it should be acknowledged that by giving all Archers 2-3 range you need to make corresponding adjustments to map design, statistical structure, and that it's a movement overall to a different sort of gameplay to what we've seen in the past from Fire Emblem.

I don't think it should be like FFTA. I'm not trying to say the game should be more or less like ANY one game. I'm trying to figure out a way to make what has been, historically, one of the weaker classes stronger. I believe that the best way to do that as of right now is to allow archers to have 2-3 range. I agree that this means that the map and enemies will need rebalancing, but any change to the game also means that so it shouldn't come as a shock in the slightest. Taking away the movement penalty for mounted units in brush means you need to rebalance, allowing vulneraries to heal 15 HP instead of 10 means you need to rebalance... So why does it sound like giving archers one more range will mean the end of the player?

[Scarlet]

Really, all giving every single bow 2-3 range would do is making enemy archers way more annoying. Yet it isn't even those that are the issue; enemy archers are a perfectly legitimate threat in their own right. The purpose of this would be to buff player archers, right?

Now, think about it.

FE10 had longbows more easily available than any previous FE, they were significantly stronger, and Marksmen even gained permanent 2-3 range with all bows. In addition, there were even crossbows to allow them 1-2 range (how effective those were is another matter entirely, though).

Did it help at all to make them any more useful? Not really. Leonardo is pretty bleh / situationally useful only, Rolf is kinda meh, and Shinon is pretty decent. See a trend? Right, Shinon is good because he has good stats. Rolf and Leonard are not because they don't. Yet they're all the same class (pretty much).

Honestly, giving bows universal 2-3 range doesn't solve the problem at all and just makes enemy archers more annoying. What playable archers need is better stats and increased Exp gain compared to other combat units (in addition to universally somewhat more threatening enemies even on low difficulties - think FE5 level difficulty, where no single unit can just rush in and god-mode everything), as this would make them more effective at their niche - killing things without taking a counter.

Edited October 6, 2012 by Scarlet

[Paperblade]

I don't think that there has ever been an archer that has good stats for their join time. The closest is Jamka who had insane offense but lolfe4

edit: Oh and FE10 Shinon

Edited October 6, 2012 by Paperblade

[dondon151]

FE10 had longbows more easily available than any previous FE, they were significantly stronger, and Marksmen even gained permanent 2-3 range with all bows.

-30 hit at 3 range was a pretty steep penalty, compounded with the innate lack of accuracy of longbows. in the absence of those disadvantages, then longbows would have been the preferred weapon when available (although longbows can't be forged, so forged normal bows still fulfill their role). but anyway, your assertion that player archers cannot be better unless enemies are more threatening is spot on.

think FE5 level difficulty, where no single unit can just rush in and god-mode everything

FE5 is still a game where a single unit can rush in and god-mode everything. there are a handful of things that can fuck you over, but most of the time any unit with nearly maxed out stats and at least ~10 mag will have no difficulty steamrolling through everything.

Edited October 6, 2012 by dondon151

[Shadow Mir]

FE10 had longbows more easily available than any previous FE, they were significantly stronger, and Marksmen even gained permanent 2-3 range with all bows.

I would've countered this, but as dondon essentially said what I would've...

Edited October 6, 2012 by Golden Cucco

[arvilino]

I don't think that there has ever been an archer that has good stats for their join time. The closest is Jamka who had insane offense but lolfe4

edit: Oh and FE10 Shinon

A big factor is the Weapon Ranks and join time as well. Snipers with A/B (GBA/DS) Ranks that join early enough can be pretty good units based on their access to Silver Bows(and Brave Bows) and usually joining with a Silver Bow in their inventory.

Unpromoted Archers(outisde of FE11,FE12,FE13) apart from Jamka and Faval with Ichaval are usually the main problem of bow users being rather weak with Low Weapon rank and no really quick way to increase it compared to other classes when their ranged attacks don't ammount to much in comparison when enemy counters are for the most part non-too threatening.

Edited October 6, 2012 by arvilino

[Paperblade]

archers also have really shitty Con for no real reason and thus often lose like 3-4AS from Steel, which puts them worse than most Myrmidons in that department, except they lack ridiculously overkill Speed.

tldr: Bows are fine, the people that use them just suck

Edited October 6, 2012 by Paperblade

[nflchamp]

I am reading this thread right? The argument here is that 2-3 range bows is bad because it makes things harder, right?

I'm not usually one to say this, but I don't see the problem.

[Snowy_One]

your assertion that player archers cannot be better unless enemies are more threatening is spot on.

The problem is that this would hold true of any buff to any class of unit that both the player and enemy had. Increase generals movement range by X? They become more threatening. Increase the average MT of swords? Swordsmasters become more threatening (and sword-wielders in general). So in of itself it's a meaningless statement. By making archers (as a class) better they become more threatening on the battlefield... Well... Gee...

Also, it's not just base stats that make archers such, though that is part of the problem for sure. It's also a matter of where they end up. It seems to me that, more often than not, archers end up being similar to swordsmasters stats-wise. Except swordsmasters have several advantages over archers, especially in games where they can get vantage, while snipers end up with the edge of *maybe* not taking a counter on the PP.

Honestly, bows in general need to be stronger though. What's the point of using a bow on Boyd unless he's matched up against a flier (and even then it's iffy)? Or giving one to a class that gains a weapon on promotion? Stronger bows would help out for sure with the weaker bases of archers.

[dondon151]

I am reading this thread right? The argument here is that 2-3 range bows is bad because it makes things harder, right?

I'm not usually one to say this, but I don't see the problem.

the issue isn't that it makes things harder; it's that it unnecessarily constrains the strategy space.

The problem is that this would hold true of any buff to any class of unit that both the player and enemy had. Increase generals movement range by X? They become more threatening. Increase the average MT of swords? Swordsmasters become more threatening (and sword-wielders in general). So in of itself it's a meaningless statement. By making archers (as a class) better they become more threatening on the battlefield... Well... Gee...

what? this is not what i said at all. i agreed that player archers get better if enemies as a whole are better: no active buff to archers are needed! you are humorously responding to something that i have never, ever said.

even fucking gordin and castor in FE11 H5 are "good" units in a pinch because of their chip damage against the tough enemies. clearly if you had someone like jeorge instead you'd have a decent long term bow unit, but even trashy archers are invaluable early on H5, not because they are somehow better (in fact, FE11 archers are some of the worst in the series), but because the enemies are way better.

i used gordin, castor, and jeorge extensively in my new FE11 H5 0% growths run and their contributions are invaluable. doing 6 HP damage against a 39 HP fighter in chapter 2 that would counter any other unit for ~15 HP damage is pretty sweet. deploying castor in chapter 11 just to potshot some mercenaries and safely assist in 2 KOs is pretty sweet. i deployed wolf and sedgar as horsemen on at least 2 occasions because i needed their bow rank (despite their atrocious bases). and so on.

Edited October 6, 2012 by dondon151

[Agro]

Since I'm working on a hack and all I guess I should be paying attention to game balance. What I'm drawing so far for player archers being more useful is:

• enemy units must be more threatening
  
• 1-2 range weapons must be nerfed (relatively speaking)

I suppose there are lots of ways you can make archers very useful early-game, as dondon said, and give them nicer growths to allow for a comparable lategame. I suppose, for example, that in the first few chapters you could limit player 1-2 options, especially against bosses who are 2RKOing your own units. Say, the bosses of the first few chapters have axes, and all you have are javelins. Vanilla javelins are an unreliable weapon in this case and you're almost forced to use bows to 2-range a boss. Would this be one way to make bows more useful? I suppose in the case of units like Rebecca and Neimi you'd be looking at giving them a better offensive in general.

Then towards mid-game I guess since availability of 1-2 weapons has increased and your player characters are beginning to get some skill and with increased variety comes a better chance of having WTA--basically, javelins and handaxes have gone from not-so-good to "getting really kind of great". This is why I suggested having a nerf, because: PCs are starting to double and iron weapons haven't gone out of fashion yet, and so neither have handaxes or javelins. In this situation, perhaps heavier 1-2 weapons are needed with the GBA Con system?

With regard to late-game, then, I take it that the ideal archer would be able to reliably 1RKO an enemy unit at range? Sure, they're only able to kill one enemy, but that one enemy could be the thing standing between freeing up a tile for the slaughter of more enemies.

Basically what I've drawn from this is that an archer's purpose and use don't need to be changed, but we need to create more situations where those are applicable and not overshadowed by someone else.

[Snowy_One]

Since I'm working on a hack and all I guess I should be paying attention to game balance. What I'm drawing so far for player archers being more useful is:

• enemy units must be more threatening
  
• 1-2 range weapons must be nerfed (relatively speaking)

I suppose there are lots of ways you can make archers very useful early-game, as dondon said, and give them nicer growths to allow for a comparable lategame. I suppose, for example, that in the first few chapters you could limit player 1-2 options, especially against bosses who are 2RKOing your own units. Say, the bosses of the first few chapters have axes, and all you have are javelins. Vanilla javelins are an unreliable weapon in this case and you're almost forced to use bows to 2-range a boss. Would this be one way to make bows more useful? I suppose in the case of units like Rebecca and Neimi you'd be looking at giving them a better offensive in general.

Then towards mid-game I guess since availability of 1-2 weapons has increased and your player characters are beginning to get some skill and with increased variety comes a better chance of having WTA--basically, javelins and handaxes have gone from not-so-good to "getting really kind of great". This is why I suggested having a nerf, because: PCs are starting to double and iron weapons haven't gone out of fashion yet, and so neither have handaxes or javelins. In this situation, perhaps heavier 1-2 weapons are needed with the GBA Con system?

With regard to late-game, then, I take it that the ideal archer would be able to reliably 1RKO an enemy unit at range? Sure, they're only able to kill one enemy, but that one enemy could be the thing standing between freeing up a tile for the slaughter of more enemies.

Basically what I've drawn from this is that an archer's purpose and use don't need to be changed, but we need to create more situations where those are applicable and not overshadowed by someone else.

The big problem with 1-2 range melee weapons is that any unit worth their salt will be capable of killing with them in one form or another. Even if the base-level weapons suck there will be at least one unit (your jeigan most likely) who will be capable of killing with them. That is, almost literally, the point OF the throwing weapons. To allow melee units the ability to attack and soften up and/or kill at 2 range without removing the one thing that they're good at.

The problem is that, if you nerf them to the point of raising a bow-user as-is being a better investment, they'll be too weak to preform their duty. By adding in 3 range it makes it so that throwing weapons can counter magic, throwing weapons, and bow users who couldn't get a 3-range shot for whatever reason, but also makes it so that bow users at 3-range can't be countered by them.

Oh. Idea on how to make bows, on the whole, better. Make longbows useable by any class. That way units who aren't archers will have a reason to raise bows up. When using a long-bow they'll jump from 2 range to 2-3 range while bow users will jump to 2-4 range while using a longbow.

[arvilino]

The big problem with 1-2 range melee weapons is that any unit worth their salt will be capable of killing with them in one form or another. Even if the base-level weapons suck there will be at least one unit (your jeigan most likely) who will be capable of killing with them. That is, almost literally, the point OF the throwing weapons. To allow melee units the ability to attack and soften up and/or kill at 2 range without removing the one thing that they're good at.

The problem is that, if you nerf them to the point of raising a bow-user as-is being a better investment, they'll be too weak to preform their duty. By adding in 3 range it makes it so that throwing weapons can counter magic, throwing weapons, and bow users who couldn't get a 3-range shot for whatever reason, but also makes it so that bow users at 3-range can't be countered by them.

Apart from nerfing 1-2 range weapons to the point that they can't possibly hit an enemy(or close to that) they'll always be useful in some regard, the fact they allow an attack where there may have not been one(enemy 1 square away from Melee range, a lethal counter at 1 range, another enemies attack is at 1 range of the enemy there). Even dealing a single digit of damage while making the units AS 0 with 1-2 range can be useful, since this is all ontop of whatever else the unit can do.

Edited October 7, 2012 by arvilino

[Snowy_One]

It's not a question of 'can they be useful' but... Well...

If you have a unit with axes and bows and have a choice between a throwing weapon and a bow of similar level (iron/javelin, steel/short spear, silver/spear) there should at least be a reason to question which would be better outside of fighting a single enemy flier (maybe). As-is, almost everyone would take the throwing weapon as it would do everything the bow would for, maybe, a little less damage but with the ability to counter at 1-range. The only big advantage bows have over throwing weapons on the whole is that you can't usually buy the better thrown weapons until later-on, but forging cripples that for the majority of the game.

That means, for most units, unless they fit into that narrow margin where the bow MT (if it's even better) is enough but the thrown weapon is not, the thrown weapon will be the superior choice. That's ignoring that they can raise the weapon-rank for the thrown weapon via a melee weapon (like a lance or axe) while they have to use the bow to raise their bow rank as well.

That's why I want to let non-archer units use longbows. Thrown weapons simply can't hit at 3-range. So even if the MT is worse, there is a reason to train and use the bow.

Remember, I want this topic to be about making bows more useful. Making archers better is only one facet. It's a huge one (they are the only mono-bow user after all), but if the weapon is only useful in the hands of an archer than this topic really hasn't succeeded.

[Refa]

If you're smart and the bow actually does more damage than the Hand Axe, you'd use the bow, then trade to Hand Axe.

[Anouleth]

The big problem with 1-2 range melee weapons is that any unit worth their salt will be capable of killing with them in one form or another.

Let me tell you that there are very few units in FE12 that can ORKO with a 1-2 range weapon, and even then, it's not for long (like, a powerlevelled MU can do it for a short while but against capped enemies it's impossible). Even in FE11, I can't say there are many units that ORKO reliably at 1-2 range. FE10? Well, yeah, but it's simply impossible for many good units, and an important part of LTC is training those few units that can potentially do it with good movement (like Jill and Haar).

Even if the base-level weapons suck there will be at least one unit (your jeigan most likely) who will be capable of killing with them. That is, almost literally, the point OF the throwing weapons. To allow melee units the ability to attack and soften up and/or kill at 2 range without removing the one thing that they're good at.

Sure, but while pretty much anyone can /soften/ with Javelins in FE12, the number of units who can 2HKO is exceedingly slim. Even 2HKOing with Steel is not easy. For example, Cavaliers in Chapter 2 have 32HP and 6DEF. You'd need 19 strength with a Javelin to 2HKO.

[Snowy_One]

Let me tell you that there are very few units in FE12 that can ORKO with a 1-2 range weapon, and even then, it's not for long (like, a powerlevelled MU can do it for a short while but against capped enemies it's impossible). Even in FE11, I can't say there are many units that ORKO reliably at 1-2 range. FE10? Well, yeah, but it's simply impossible for many good units, and an important part of LTC is training those few units that can potentially do it with good movement (like Jill and Haar).

Sure, but while pretty much anyone can /soften/ with Javelins in FE12, the number of units who can 2HKO is exceedingly slim. Even 2HKOing with Steel is not easy. For example, Cavaliers in Chapter 2 have 32HP and 6DEF. You'd need 19 strength with a Javelin to 2HKO.

But if you can't reach that level of damage with either the throwing weapon or bow, the throwing weapon still wins.

When you can kill with both: the throwing weapon wins due to 1-range counters and easier training.

When you can kill with the bow and not the throwing weapon and there will be no enemies nearby at the start of the EP: The bow wins.

Same as above except there will be enemies: It's unclear, but tilted towards the throwing weapon since it will be able to counter and won't make everyone attack the unit.

When neither kills: Throwing weapon wins due to same reasons.

If you don't NEED to counter at 2-range: Throwing weapon unless you were stupid enough to bring ONLY a throwing weapon and no melee weapon. Then you can either attack at 2 range or 1-range depending on what you want/need.

Five possibilities. Three of which the throwing weapon wins, one of which the bow wins, and one of which is unclear and depends on a lot of factors.

I'm not saying 'nerf throwing weapons' by any means though. I think they are fairly close to where they should be in power. Maybe a small nerf, but nothing huge. I do think that bows need more situations in which they are the clear winners though as no other weapon combination has such clear-cut choices (especially against what will likely be the newer weapon). Melee weapons? You pick whichever puts you at the WTD the least often. Melee/magic? Depends on what you're fighting. Staffs? Used when units need healing/you want free EXP.

Bows? Iffy on average and will likely need defined effort to train (as opposed to just slapping a melee weapon on them).

[arvilino]

But if you can't reach that level of damage with either the throwing weapon or bow, the throwing weapon still wins.

When you can kill with both: the throwing weapon wins due to 1-range counters and easier training.

When you can kill with the bow and not the throwing weapon and there will be no enemies nearby at the start of the EP: The bow wins.

Same as above except there will be enemies: It's unclear, but tilted towards the throwing weapon since it will be able to counter and won't make everyone attack the unit.

When neither kills: Throwing weapon wins due to same reasons.

If you don't NEED to counter at 2-range: Throwing weapon unless you were stupid enough to bring ONLY a throwing weapon and no melee weapon. Then you can either attack at 2 range or 1-range depending on what you want/need.

Five possibilities. Three of which the throwing weapon wins, one of which the bow wins, and one of which is unclear and depends on a lot of factors.

I'm not saying 'nerf throwing weapons' by any means though. I think they are fairly close to where they should be in power. Maybe a small nerf, but nothing huge. I do think that bows need more situations in which they are the clear winners though as no other weapon combination has such clear-cut choices (especially against what will likely be the newer weapon). Melee weapons? You pick whichever puts you at the WTD the least often. Melee/magic? Depends on what you're fighting. Staffs? Used when units need healing/you want free EXP.

Bows? Iffy on average and will likely need defined effort to train (as opposed to just slapping a melee weapon on them).

Wait, what incarnation of Fire Emblem are you actually talking about?

[Refa]

Probably FE9/FE10, Snowy's thoughts seem skewed towards FE7-FE10 generation of games with little regard to the developments that FE11/FE12 took towards making archers less bad.

Edited October 8, 2012 by Refa

[Dark Sage]

I'm starting to get the feeling he's arguing for the sake of arguing.

Because seriously, everyone agrees that 1-2 range weapons are a problem when they're as powerful as bows. Not only that, people have basically hit the nail on the head in this topic about how to make bow users more useful. It seems like Snowy's just refusing to listen for some reason.

Actually one of the things I was disappointed about in FE13 was when I heard stronger 1-2 range weapons like Spears and Short Axes were available to the player units. It just seemed like a misstep compared to FE12 and FE6 where Spears and Tomahawks were enemy exclusive. This is not even getting into the DLC where you can basically get as many Gradviuses and Swanchikas as you want as long as you play the map repeatedly.

Edited October 8, 2012 by Tyrant Sage

[Refa]

Wow, really (in regards to the infinite Gradivus thing)? That's ridiculous, especially considering Gradivus is even better than it was in FE11 too IIRC.

Edited October 8, 2012 by Refa