So how bad are bows really?

[arvilino]

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.

Outside of online options 1-2 ranged weapons (excluding Hand Axes and Javelins) they are extremely rare atleast in FE13. It's similar to how FE12's Wi-Fi shop has 3 Again Staves and 3 Rescue staves in it.

Edited October 8, 2012 by arvilino

[Snowy_One]

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.

I can't help it. I don't have access to those games so I can't play them to either confirm or deny just how useful they are on anything more than an abstract level.

[dondon151]

I can't help it. I don't have access to those games so I can't play them to either confirm or deny just how useful they are on anything more than an abstract level.

oh, so is that why you ignored my very true examples about how archers can be very useful despite also (sometimes) being complete shit? the fact that you remain ignorant of these games does not allow you to refuse acknoledgement; either try to investigate on your own or recognize that you shouldn't be arguing against facts with assumptions.

in response to your post of whether a hypothetical unit would prefer using an axe or a bow: ask anyone who has played my FE7 hack whether dorcas would rather use an axe or a bow. in addition to making it difficult, i also tailored the hack to make bows good without implementing drastic changes like 2-3 range bows or 1-2 range short bows, so everyone in doubt should try it out.

Edited October 8, 2012 by dondon151

[Snowy_One]

The problem is that what you listed as suggestions were things mainly related to the ARCHER class and to specific UNITS. The archer class is important in the balance of bows as it is the only mono-bow class around, but it is only PART of the problem of fixing bows. How they handle on non-archer units is also a factor in fixing them.

Besides, your solution, as I recall, was to increase the threat of enemies so bows would have a more defined place. While I very much agree that this needs to happen for multiple reasons, it also serves to make it much harder for growth units on the whole.

[dondon151]

The problem is that what you listed as suggestions were things mainly related to the ARCHER class and to specific UNITS. The archer class is important in the balance of bows as it is the only mono-bow class around, but it is only PART of the problem of fixing bows. How they handle on non-archer units is also a factor in fixing them.

way to be smug while actually saying nothing of value (i hereby dub this "snowy syndrome")

you were the one who shifted the focus in the first place to "would a unit rather use axes or bows," and i specifically countered with an example of when a unit would overwhelmingly prefer to use a bow over an axe. so that already irreparably damages your argument, but also:

improving bows as a whole makes a) archers better as a whole, b) individual bow users better, and c) provides greater incentive to use bows on non-archer units, and you can improve bows by not actually improving bow parameters at all. moral of the story.

Besides, your solution, as I recall, was to increase the threat of enemies so bows would have a more defined place. While I very much agree that this needs to happen for multiple reasons, it also serves to make it much harder for growth units on the whole.

an environment where marcus is killing everything that moves before a growth unit can blink is more conducive to the usage of growth units? oh, please.

Edited October 8, 2012 by dondon151

[Snowy_One]

way to be smug while actually saying nothing of value (i hereby dub this "snowy syndrome")

you were the one who shifted the focus in the first place to "would a unit rather use axes or bows," and i specifically countered with an example of when a unit would overwhelmingly prefer to use a bow over an axe. so that already irreparably damages your argument, but also:

improving bows as a whole makes a) archers better as a whole, b) individual bow users better, and c) provides greater incentive to use bows on non-archer units, and you can improve bows by not actually improving bow parameters at all. moral of the story.

an environment where marcus is killing everything that moves before a growth unit can blink is more conducive to the usage of growth units? oh, please.

An environment where units who aren't Marcus are struggling to get a kill, but Marcus can get one without help because of his high base growths is even less conductive than that one.

[arvilino]

That can't be true,if Marcus can't get as many kills(or is more threatened by stronger enemies) and is just getting 1 for however many he got before. No matter how difficult it is for other characters to get a kill they are still getting more EXP on the merit that you now have to use them to deal with the number of enemies that Marcus can no longer defeat alone and that same demand to use the other characters in turn makes them more useful.

It would only really make things tougher for weaker units that join later.

Edited October 9, 2012 by arvilino

[Original Alear]

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).

Well, I'm not really particularly good at RD, but I think 2-3 bows are in a way less available in RD. I'm pretty sure they're only available in shops, and as a situational unit, I'm pretty sure Leo has weapon rank issues.

While this still points at a possible weakness with archers, one thing I've always felt is that since I don't necessarily use bows or bow units that frequently, a bow unit can stick to what I pick up and have access to some good weapons. Even characters like Leo are in this situation later in the game (us prf). With that in mind, a large or indefinite supply of longbows from shops seem less useful to me than one or two pickup longbows.

I'm not saying that lots of fe10 longbows would have been really beneficial for archers.

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.

To me, spending more time killing guys in player phase because it can be mucky to counter them in enemy phase sounds like it could be a bit tedious, even when it presents additional difficulty. Of course, setting up situations where the 2-3 range unit will attack a 2 range unit at 2 range appeals to me, so my tedium barometer may be a bit askew.

Edited October 8, 2012 by L1049

[Renall]

Random thought: What if 1-2 range melee weapons couldn't attack "over" a blocking unit? That is, if your unit wants to attack a Cleric hiding behind a General, a Hand Axe can hit the General from 2 range but if you walk up to the General you can't hit the Cleric behind him? Meanwhile, a bow (and perhaps a tome, or perhaps not) can actually shoot "over" the General. This would also apply to obstacles; archers can fire over/through most columns or walls and 1-2 range weapons can't.

Even if a Hand Axe user were fairly strong in this scenario, he could still be walled and would be unable to pick off a back line. An Archer would be under no such constraints, and could take out guarded targets like healers that melee units couldn't. This would give Archers an additional niche over most units: Assassination of priority targets on the Player Phase that the AI is programmed to protect, which would otherwise require that your units open a hole in the enemy defenses and put themselves at potentially greater risk just to attack that critical unit.

A unit with a summoning staff, or a Physic, or a Meteor tome, or Warp (God forbid), or an enemy Dancer... with "unblockable" 2-range and potentially access to Longbows for 3-range (the Longbows wouldn't be good, but they'd be good enough that a competent Archer could drop a Bishop in two hits that no other unit can plausibly reach), suddenly a "Sniper" is living up to its name, and making some good of "Player Phase only" performance by actually doing something that a melee unit cannot do on the Player Phase (without risk at least, or killing multiple enemies, which might not be so easy in a H5 scenario where the blocking units are extremely tough and the risk of counters is high).

At the very least, I feel this should be a property Armor Knights have by default.

[Snowy_One]

I'm not sure that would work out too well, at least with the shooting over enemy units bit. After all, that would mean you're placing your archer directly adjacent to someone who almost certainly would attack next turn.

Regardless... Dondon, I did some thinking about this and I think we both have a point, but one focused on different things. The road to bows becoming better is not a single path, but a multitude of ways, each with their own advantages and disadvantages. I believe that the best way is through increasing their range, but I should have both acknowledged and understood myself that it is neither the only or best way of necessity. I apologize for thinking your way wouldn't work.

[Renall]

I'm not sure that would work out too well, at least with the shooting over enemy units bit. After all, that would mean you're placing your archer directly adjacent to someone who almost certainly would attack next turn.

Yeah, potentially (unless using a Longbow). But isn't that kind of the risk? You're basically weighing three options: Plow through the enemy now to get the priority target (perhaps using the Sniper to soften a target and open a hole), leave the priority target alive but keep everyone safe (and chip with the Sniper), or snipe the priority target and move up without attacking, hoping to survive the attacks next turn (which will hopefully not be fatal if the Sniper has okay bulk/dodge and all your units are at full health from not drawing counters). Not seeing an issue there.

Perhaps some Archers could have a personal skill to the tune of "If this unit is unable to counter, combat ends immediately after the enemy has attacked once (perhaps with an activation%)." They need not be the only units to have this; certainly I could see this being a great defensive skill for many units. Call it Fall Back or something, countered by Charge (which locks in the combat rounds). An Archer could mitigate some Player Phase melee damage and would no longer be as appealing a target for speedy AI units who might prefer attacking a unit they're more likely to double... or who will prefer to attack the Archer once and draw no counterattack, meaning they only hit one of your units one time instead of potentially twice.

Now I'm envisioning a General with the ability to stop combat if he can't counter, block ranged weapons from passing through his square and adjacent squares, and Big Shield. Pretty tanky. And I'm also envisioning a Sniper saying "screw that" and just firing right past him. It sounds pretty sweet.

[Refa]

Charge is actually a very nice skill for archers to have. If it didn't work with the uncounterables like ballistae and long range magic, it'd be a good class skill (or maybe just a personal skill for the few unpromoted archers).