Opinion on Crossbows

[Jotari]

Hmm well ignoring enemy defense would have the opposite problem. In RD they became useless in late game but if they completely ignore defense they'll become incredibly overpowered when units start having twenty something defense. Not to mention complete boss killers.

[shadykid]

Hmm well ignoring enemy defense would have the opposite problem. In RD they became useless in late game but if they completely ignore defense they'll become incredibly overpowered when units start having twenty something defense. Not to mention complete boss killers.

What if both defense and strength were ignored, so it hits at the MT of the crossbow?

(I wonder how much power crossbows would have if they were put in Awakening and balanced well lol)

[CinderSkye]

This has nothing to do with realism or not, but what if more uses get taken up when piercing someone with higher defense?

[Parrhesia]

In a way, it's borne out in Fire Emblem because longbows are generally less accurate and heavier than regular bows, and far less accurate than Short Bows in particular, but having higher power.

Didn't they have lower might throughout GBA? And it was, to my recollection, fairly middling in FE12.

This has nothing to do with realism or not, but what if more uses get taken up when piercing someone with higher defense?

I... don't follow as to how that makes sense, in realism or gameplay. Elaborate?

[CinderSkye]

In realism: Hahaha, no, not at all.

In gameplay: Since defense piercing is more and more powerful the later in the game that it appears, the tradeoff is that the same crossbow remains useful for the entire game, but you can use it much fewer times against powerful units.

[Shadow Mir]

Well, a baby archer would be slowed down so much by the Arbalest, any enemy would be able to kill him easily. Also, Archers can't wield Crossbows in FE10.

I think that a lot of people's judgment of crossbows is coloured by them being in FE10. In a game where units have great stats, it's no wonder that a weapon that ignores strength would seem bad. But in any other Fire Emblem, they'd be great. 24ATK is nothing to sneeze at in any Fire Emblem, especially with perfect accuracy at 1-2 range and no weapon rank requirements. While a trained bow user would obviously prefer to use a bow, they would be useful for untrained units to assist. Plus, variety is the spice of life. I don't like to poopoo new weapon types: it's a good thing that IS is trying new things, and just because they didn't work out the first time doesn't mean they can't be revised in a new context.

And I suppose the 3 tier thing didn't really help their case. That being said, I agree.

As Anny pointed out, a lot of this is because they were introduced in FE10 in which units ended up stronger than any other FE to date. A max-level Seth with Vidofiner has 38 MT which is the same as the Arbalest. Max level Titania with an unforged silver axe clocks in at 36. These units are considered the best in their respective games. A bow-user would be able to get MT similar to them just by equipping that crossbow and would be able to do it at 1-2 range regardless of their level. FE10, however, screws them over BAD. An endgame Leonardo with nothing special done to his stats can match an Arbalest at 20/20/20 with an iron bow. That's not the Arbalest's fault, it's IS's for not properly balancing it.

Well, when you put it that way, it makes a lot of sense.

[Anouleth]

Didn't they have lower might throughout GBA?

Yeah, that didn't really make much sense. And longbows were pretty much impossible to get your hands on, anyway.

I suppose one way that crossbows in Fire Emblem could reflect their real life counterparts, is if a unit with a crossbow being attacked would always attack first (as if he had vantage or ambush), but wouldn't be able to double. That reflects the way in which a crossbow, once loaded, can be fired instantly, but needs to be reloaded. I think that fiddling with defense ignoring, or dealing different amounts of damage at different range is a bad way to go.

Edited January 5, 2013 by Integrity

[Snowy_One]

Yeah, that didn't really make much sense. And longbows were pretty much impossible to get your hands on, anyway.

I suppose one way that crossbows in Fire Emblem could reflect their real life counterparts, is if a unit with a crossbow being attacked would always attack first (as if he had vantage or ambush), but wouldn't be able to double. That reflects the way in which a crossbow, once loaded, can be fired instantly, but needs to be reloaded. I think that fiddling with defense ignoring, or dealing different amounts of damage at different range is a bad way to go.

Wouldn't that kill their usage though? If they can't double, even if they deal more damage, they won't be able to kill things unless they've been weakened beforehand.

Hmmm... I suppose that if the MT's were kept the same though, it wouldn't be so bad. The bowgun would be super-strong early-on and give squishy archers some defense, but later crossbows would be turned aside in favor of other bows that could double. I suppose it's not THAT bad... Maybe they can, technically, double but just weigh so much that archers won't be able to double and will rely on the vantaged shot for safety?

[Jotari]

The main problem with them in Radiant Dawn is that they were only useful as damage dealers for a very short period of time. To prevent this they're going to need some way to scale their damage. I like the idea that someone posted above saying that while they ignore strength, their might should partly be based on their weapon rank like the Laguz strikes. This would allow them to be still somewhat useful later in the game while still stopping them from being overpowered early in the game.

[Anouleth]

Wouldn't that kill their usage though? If they can't double, even if they deal more damage, they won't be able to kill things unless they've been weakened beforehand.

Uh, weren't you just saying that crossbows should be kept relatively weak because archers are supposed to be ranged specialists? And now you're saying that if crossbows can't 1-round an enemy, they're not worth using? If crossbows are strong enough to kill enemies that are at full HP, why would they use anything else? If anything, my suggestion is too good because it makes archers virtually indestructible against flying enemies (so I think crossbows should lose the effective bonus under my suggestion).

The main problem with them in Radiant Dawn is that they were only useful as damage dealers for a very short period of time. To prevent this they're going to need some way to scale their damage. I like the idea that someone posted above saying that while they ignore strength, their might should partly be based on their weapon rank like the Laguz strikes. This would allow them to be still somewhat useful later in the game while still stopping them from being overpowered early in the game.

Or, like, the shops could just sell stronger ones?

Edited January 6, 2013 by Anouleth

[bottlegnomes]

While I don't disagree with the notion of forgible crossbows, can you find some way to keep it from them becoming 'hand-axes: Bow version'?

Here is another idea I just got. Maybe crossbows could, indeed, have a decently sizable amount of MT, but they only get 75% of it when countering at long-range? So a crossbow with 20 MT would get full-power when attacking at long-range, but would not be desired for 2+range combat where the player would want a bow instead?

I still fail to see the issue with this. The problem with hand axes and javelins comes from them being poorly balanced, not the idea of them. They were very well done in FE12. Even in H1, you could use a normal melee weapon and ORKO most enemies or you could equip a hand axe/javelin and counter everything, but only ORKO squishy enemies. Or if they change the AI a bit, they could have been used to keep enemies from attacking squishier units. In higher difficulties you could do the same to a certain extent. Either you could damage most characters enough to allow a OHKO, so no counter damage, or you could damage all enemies and only put the squishier ones in range of a OHKO. If crossbows filled the same role, I don't see any problem with them.

In the lowest difficulty, you might have been able to use them to ORKO everything (Can't say definitely. I haven't played enough of it), but the lowest difficulty should be easy for new players. So again, I see no issue with it.

Yeah, that didn't really make much sense. And longbows were pretty much impossible to get your hands on, anyway.

I suppose one way that crossbows in Fire Emblem could reflect their real life counterparts, is if a unit with a crossbow being attacked would always attack first (as if he had vantage or ambush), but wouldn't be able to double. That reflects the way in which a crossbow, once loaded, can be fired instantly, but needs to be reloaded. I think that fiddling with defense ignoring, or dealing different amounts of damage at different range is a bad way to go.

I like that idea. It'd also make units that can use them great against fliers, which could help archers.

Edited January 6, 2013 by bottlegnomes

[Snowy_One]

Uh, weren't you just saying that crossbows should be kept relatively weak because archers are supposed to be ranged specialists? And now you're saying that if crossbows can't 1-round an enemy, they're not worth using? If crossbows are strong enough to kill enemies that are at full HP, why would they use anything else? If anything, my suggestion is too good because it makes archers virtually indestructible against flying enemies (so I think crossbows should lose the effective bonus under my suggestion).

Yes. I was. However, if they become too weak they won't be used at all and removing doubling is a... very big knock in the negative direction. Imagine FE9. If it had crossbows, how often would you be using them on your archers? Bowguns might be a good weapon early-on when Rolf is weak and Shinon is overpowered but limited, but after that? Would you even think of using them?

I still fail to see the issue with this. The problem with hand axes and javelins comes from them being poorly balanced, not the idea of them.

It's not the power of handaxes that worries me. It's that crossbows might become little more than the bow version of the handaxe which, balance questions aside, ruins the whole thing that made them unique. I actually care a bit less about balance than I do about having an interesting and varied selection of weapons and the tactics that they provide.

[Anouleth]

Yes. I was. However, if they become too weak they won't be used at all and removing doubling is a... very big knock in the negative direction. Imagine FE9. If it had crossbows, how often would you be using them on your archers? Bowguns might be a good weapon early-on when Rolf is weak and Shinon is overpowered but limited, but after that? Would you even think of using them?

I don't know, it depends entirely on what kind of stats they have.

The concept of magic in FE9 is very good, for instance. Magic gets useful super-effective bonuses, hits resistance (which is usually lower than defense), all the spells have 1-2 range. In practice, though, magic is actually pretty bad because it has low mt and all the mages in the game have poor stats in some way or another except for Calill.

It's not the power of handaxes that worries me. It's that crossbows might become little more than the bow version of the handaxe which, balance questions aside, ruins the whole thing that made them unique. I actually care a bit less about balance than I do about having an interesting and varied selection of weapons and the tactics that they provide.

So, why are you complaining that this unique and varied weapon isn't good enough? Doesn't the strength of my theoretical crossbow depend entirely on variables such as what stats the crossbow has, the relative strength of enemies, the relative strength of allies, the level design, the availability of money and vendors that sell crossbows, the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin, the price of tea in China, and whether Mia's hair is blue or purple? And as such, it's fruitless to speculate whether certain ideas would be overpowered or underpowered? Like I pointed out, the "concept" of magic attacks is overpowered. In practice, magic is actually underpowered.

I'm not even the first person to suggest removing doubling from certain weapons (like hand axes or javelins).

[bottlegnomes]

It's not the power of handaxes that worries me. It's that crossbows might become little more than the bow version of the handaxe which, balance questions aside, ruins the whole thing that made them unique. I actually care a bit less about balance than I do about having an interesting and varied selection of weapons and the tactics that they provide.

I still fail to see an issue. In this case, swords, axes, and lances would be dominant at 1 range, bows dominant at 2 range, and javelins, crossbows, and hand axes, would allow 1-2 range combat but be mediocre. It wouldn't remove any "niche" for any weapon. It would actually allow for more "interesting" tactics. You could have your bow user properly positioned to wreck certain enemies at 2 range on EP, have him use a bow to ORKO a dangerous enemy without taking a counter, putting your other characters at less of a risk, but have no EP, or give him a crossbow and discourage enemies from attacking him on EP, but he wouldn't be able to deal with the hypothetical dangerous enemy alone anymore, nor would he be able to ORKO consistently.

[cyron]

I still fail to see the issue with this. The problem with hand axes and javelins comes from them being poorly balanced, not the idea of them. They were very well done in FE12. Even in H1, you could use a normal melee weapon and ORKO most enemies or you could equip a hand axe/javelin and counter everything, but only ORKO squishy enemies. Or if they change the AI a bit, they could have been used to keep enemies from attacking squishier units. In higher difficulties you could do the same to a certain extent. Either you could damage most characters enough to allow a OHKO, so no counter damage, or you could damage all enemies and only put the squishier ones in range of a OHKO. If crossbows filled the same role, I don't see any problem with them.

In the lowest difficulty, you might have been able to use them to ORKO everything (Can't say definitely. I haven't played enough of it), but the lowest difficulty should be easy for new players. So again, I see no issue with it.

I agree fe12 handled melee range weapons the best though i think the dodge formula made some classes rather impractical such as myrmidons and mages who rely on not being hit but due to the new aviod formula cant really dodge

I'm not even the first person to suggest removing doubling from certain weapons (like hand axes or javelins).

I don't think that it would be wise to remove doubling from crossbows as someone mentioned there where crossbows that had i guess clips(I cant think of a better way to describe it) and crossbows don't really have any noticeable re-coil, and if crossbows didn't have doubling they couldn't kill anything, and to negate the issue of crossbows devaluing bows, you could increase the range of normal bows to 2-3 or 2-4 and they would be short bows and then have longbows that are 3-6 or 3-7.

[Anouleth]

I agree fe12 handled melee range weapons the best though i think the dodge formula made some classes rather impractical such as myrmidons and mages who rely on not being hit but due to the new aviod formula cant really dodge

I don't think that it would be wise to remove doubling from crossbows as someone mentioned there where crossbows that had i guess clips(I cant think of a better way to describe it) and crossbows don't really have any noticeable re-coil, and if crossbows didn't have doubling they couldn't kill anything, and to negate the issue of crossbows devaluing bows, you could increase the range of normal bows to 2-3 or 2-4 and they would be short bows and then have longbows that are 3-6 or 3-7.

If a crossbow has a clip, then you'd always be able to double with it: and crossbows only had clips very rarely. The majority of crossbows did not have clips, especially in Europe. Even though there is little recoil on a crossbow, it's still very time-consuming to fire them. Supposedly, it was typical for a 12th century crossbowman to fire two bolts a minute.

The idea of massively increasing the range of bows is a bad one, I think. Fire Emblem, at it's heart, is a game about tactical positioning. But when enemies commonly have enormous range, tactical positioning flies out of the window because there's no way to protect weak units, and at the same time, your own archers can fire from any location they want. Siege tomes and ballista are annoying enough when there's only one or two on the map, let alone giving that kind of range to a quarter of the enemies. Flying units would also become completely unusable.

[Jotari]

Maybe the Brave Crossbow could be a Clip Crossbow but only allows it to double (in the same way regular weapons double) instead of getting up to four attacks.

Edited January 6, 2013 by Jotari

[cyron]

If a crossbow has a clip, then you'd always be able to double with it: and crossbows only had clips very rarely. The majority of crossbows did not have clips, especially in Europe. Even though there is little recoil on a crossbow, it's still very time-consuming to fire them. Supposedly, it was typical for a 12th century crossbowman to fire two bolts a minute.

The idea of massively increasing the range of bows is a bad one, I think. Fire Emblem, at it's heart, is a game about tactical positioning. But when enemies commonly have enormous range, tactical positioning flies out of the window because there's no way to protect weak units, and at the same time, your own archers can fire from any location they want. Siege tomes and ballista are annoying enough when there's only one or two on the map, let alone giving that kind of range to a quarter of the enemies. Flying units would also become completely unusable.

I see your point but still it would be a huge impediment in crossbows dealing decent damage. Also in terms of increased bow range, it could be balanced by it being limited by terrain, for example the inability to fire through walls forests trees etc

Maybe the Brave Crossbow could be a Clip Crossbow but only allows it to double (in the same way regular weapons double) instead of getting up to four attacks.

that could be workable but i think if it was done that way it might be wise to make them somewhat more common than brave weapons are usually (and with less might to compensate)

[Snowy_One]

I don't think a range-increase to normal bows would be a bad thing. FE10 showed it's at least possible to make them 2-3 ranged without making bow-users OP'ed and it would go a long way towards improving the archer class on the whole.

I also support the removing of doubling on 1-2 ranged weapons for both gameplay (makes them too easy to become OP'ed) and plot (how the heck do you fling an axe so that it can hit an enemy, decapitate him, and then come BACK to you? At least the wind swords were magic which explained that.) reasons.

But yea, that's my big fear. That crossbows might just end up being the bow version of FE9/10 thrown weapons than in being a unique weapon with distinct pros and cons that people will need to consider before picking which to use.

[Gold Vanguard]

Heres what I think that would make crossbows usable. Make them extremely powerful but at the cost of them being so heavy there impossible to double with.

[bottlegnomes]

I don't think a range-increase to normal bows would be a bad thing. FE10 showed it's at least possible to make them 2-3 ranged without making bow-users OP'ed and it would go a long way towards improving the archer class on the whole.

When Ano said huge range increase, I don't think he meant 2-3 range. I don't think anyone actually opposes that idea. I think he meant making them realistic, so having like 3-10 range, which would be awful for balance.

I also support the removing of doubling on 1-2 ranged weapons for both gameplay (makes them too easy to become OP'ed) and plot (how the heck do you fling an axe so that it can hit an enemy, decapitate him, and then come BACK to you? At least the wind swords were magic which explained that.) reasons.

I like to think the javelins are a pack of however many, so the units simply grabbing another one. But that's just me. I agree that the hand axe makes no sense. As for no doubling, I'm not completely sure it's the best way to balance them—I still think FE12 handled it quite well—but I do agree it's better than having them be OP like in 7-10.

But yea, that's my big fear. That crossbows might just end up being the bow version of FE9/10 thrown weapons than in being a unique weapon with distinct pros and cons that people will need to consider before picking which to use.

So your issue is with balance, not the idea of them?

[Anouleth]

When Ano said huge range increase, I don't think he meant 2-3 range. I don't think anyone actually opposes that idea.

I do. I think that 2-3 range is fine to have, and 2-3 range weapons should be usable and buyable, but I don't think all bows should be 2-3 range.

[Snowy_One]

When Ano said huge range increase, I don't think he meant 2-3 range. I don't think anyone actually opposes that idea. I think he meant making them realistic, so having like 3-10 range, which would be awful for balance.

I agree. Though I also have to question just how someone can match a bow for range and killing power with a thrown weapon IRL. Is this guy Hercules?

I like to think the javelins are a pack of however many, so the units simply grabbing another one. But that's just me. I agree that the hand axe makes no sense. As for no doubling, I'm not completely sure it's the best way to balance them—I still think FE12 handled it quite well—but I do agree it's better than having them be OP like in 7-10.

It wasn't *just* with them being OPed. Mono-sword users were left out in the dust (since they lacked a 2-range option aside from cumbersome magic swords), Mono bow-users simply couldn't compete (not only were they frail, but they couldn't counter the most common weapon-type) magic lost a lot of what made it awesome (Siege tomes, staffs, and RES-hitting were the only reasons to field a mage as they were frail and melee units could mimic their 1-2 range) and leveling up swords and bows when you had lances or axes was largely stupid AND the units who got lances and axes were also usually strong enough to push through their low throwing MT and/or had good defenses so it made perfect sense to slap them on a high-movement unit and just toss them out there. They were unlikely to die, could kill most foes, then soften the ones who weren't for later killing, and if you had more than one... Well... Throwing weapons being OP'ed was just the icing on the cake.

So your issue is with balance, not the idea of them?

Erm. Not quite. I think a better way to say it is 'the easiest way to make them balanced is also the easiest way to both rob the weapon of its uniqueness and push out a generic weapon that really doesn't add anything to tactics, and I worry that people will do that since it's the easy out'.

[bottlegnomes]

@Ano, any particular reason why? 3 range doesn't seem like it'd be enough to make keeping squishies alive overly difficult.

@Snowy, you do realize everything you said, save bow users not being able to counter (which does to a certain extent, though a different area) has to do with balance, not the idea of 1-2 range weapons. So if they're balanced and they bring back crossbows, which would theoretically be balanced, too, all those points are moot. Look at 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, and 12. Ranged weaponry existed in all of those, but no one complains about them breaking the games. Also, what's wrong with simple as long as it's done well?

Edited January 8, 2013 by bottlegnomes

[Snowy_One]

Those are games I haven't played. Also, I could argue that bronze weapons were balanced, but did they really add anything to the game?