So why was Thracia 776 even made?

[Tamanoir]

I would assume because of the time skip and the fact that Finn and later Leif were quite popular characters. IS decided to give Leif a game. Which turned out to be one of the more interesting titles in the franchise a fun rollarcoaster from beginning to end, it can be difficult but if you know the tricks of the trade you can easily cheapen out the game as Cam said with Warp and Asvel/Mareeta. Or you can ironman through everything or use other various tactics if you'd like.

I would really love to see dismounting and capturing come back in a future fire emblem I felt it sort of balanced out units more [the having to dismount indoors deal anyways but this is just a little side note]

Everyone has a playstyle, I tend to keep my mind open to both that of LTC and just a regular player, there will always been LTC vs Casual style and this frustrates me, can't we all just get along? ^^; play how you wish. This is the reason I try to keep a more open mind. I like both styles going fast is EXCITING AND FRUSTRATING. Just playing regularly has its ups as well you use your favorites regardless of the "tiers" and you have alot of fun. Fire Emblem seems to have an odd appeal to both so why don't we calm down and get back on the original topic?

Well, FE5's difficulty may be overstated, but Neun und Zwölf are the incarnation of the devil, for sure...

And it is repetitive only if you chose so.

Capture is great, I also wish it's return.

Dismounting isn't bad, but its really unbalanced. Some changes would be. Let AxeKnight use axe dismounted.

Let some other units use lance dismounted, or at least let them use Sworld when mounted. (Karin would love to use her swords in her pegasus...). Even if it have an a big Speed/skill Drop, I would like Finn to use his Brave Lance indoor.

I have nothing against each type of play. I am honestly more a casual player, but i still appreciate FE5, and thinks it have a lot of strong points, despite some frustrating parts.

But I will never complain about Nino being a pain to train, or Arena buse being frustrating, because I chosed to do it. So I expect people not implying that there are only one easy tricks to play this game, because it's only if you chose so.

@ Olwenn : Except, once again, you have to use every unit in FE4. It isn't the most efficient unit on the game, but it doesn't hurt your performance, quite the contrary. He isn't broken, but he is in no way bad.When it can attack, he is really usefull.

[Integrity]

@ Olwenn : Except, once again, you have to use every unit in FE4. It isn't the most efficient unit on the game, but it doesn't hurt your performance, quite the contrary. He isn't broken, but he is in no way bad.When it can attack, he is really usefull.

Why do you have to use every unit in FE4? I'd say (to use the most inflated argument possible) that having Ardan leave the castle in about 99% of cases is essentially pointless. Either he gets left behind by even your footsies, or even if you slow down to let him catch up and contribute you're not going to see anything of an impact.

Personally, every time I've played FE4 (even on my halfassed LTC runs) I haven't had more than 3/4 of my units out of the base at any time, and often I was forcing myself to use at least one of those just for shits/because they were Linda.

Anyway, most people who claim that FE5 is their favorite haven't even finished it.

I remarked on this a year and some change ago, whenever it was that I played FE5. I still think it's true - while I wouldn't say most, I'd say that a good portion of the "FE5 IS KING GOD" crowd are just married to the concept of FE5, and in reality haven't brought themselves to finish it.

[Tamanoir]

Why do you have to use every unit in FE4? I'd say (to use the most inflated argument possible) that having Ardan leave the castle in about 99% of cases is essentially pointless. Either he gets left behind by even your footsies, or even if you slow down to let him catch up and contribute you're not going to see anything of an impact.

Personally, every time I've played FE4 (even on my halfassed LTC runs) I haven't had more than 3/4 of my units out of the base at any time, and often I was forcing myself to use at least one of those just for shits/because they were Linda.

I remarked on this a year and some change ago, whenever it was that I played FE5. I still think it's true - while I wouldn't say most, I'd say that a good portion of the "FE5 IS KING GOD" crowd are just married to the concept of FE5, and in reality haven't brought themselves to finish it.

He can still guard your castle, even if it's less usefull in the first generation. I didn't use Alec and Noish in my first palythrough as well.

Hannibal has the same use, except more usefull.

I must have said that you can use them all if you want. The game expect you (or at least allow you) this.

Some units will obligatory have more use than others.

It's kinda like the Arena. You're not forced touse it. And many units won't be able to defeat every ennemy anyway, but you don't really have any drawbacks by doing so (except losing more time, obviously). The same idea apply to skirmish in games with map as well.

[Chiki]

@ Olwenn : Except, once again, you have to use every unit in FE4.

No you don't.

[ZemZem]

No you don't.

This. Do draft runs of FE4 have players use every unit? Not at all.

[Constable Reggie]

I remarked on this a year and some change ago, whenever it was that I played FE5. I still think it's true - while I wouldn't say most, I'd say that a good portion of the "FE5 IS KING GOD" crowd are just married to the concept of FE5, and in reality haven't brought themselves to finish it.

I personally beat the game for the fourth time (no interest in drafts when I"ve got like a million unplayed games). It's incredibly fun to play through all the way.

This. Do draft runs of FE4 have players use every unit? Not at all.

You don't have to use every character, but there's no incentive not to use all of them. It'd be like saying you don't have to use silver weapons.

We can judge units based on efficiency, and Shanan isn't too good in that regard.

Or, we can base Shanan judged on the usefulness to the average Fe player (my original point), and he's still an invincible one rounding unit given to you for free extremely early. Stop bringing up efficiency/ltc reasoning because it still doesn't negate the fact that several overpowered units are given to you in Fe4 with faults that no average Fe player cares about.

[Integrity]

I personally beat the game for the fourth time (no interest in drafts when I"ve got like a million unplayed games). It's incredibly fun to play through all the way.

Eh. I found FE5 to just be *alright* overall. It was a good game, don't get me wrong, it just never had me going all ga over it.

You don't have to use every character, but there's no incentive not to use all of them. It'd be like saying you don't have to use silver weapons.

I'd say that FE4's interface is incentive enough to use as few characters as possible.

Edited February 16, 2013 by Integrity

[Constable Reggie]

I can see why people wouldn't like Fe5 and those reasons are totally valid (extremely unpolished, feels unfinished, etc), but I think Thracia's really the only game to add such a fun and awesome mechanic and actually implement it extremely well into the game's story/atmosphere (knowing this forum though, no one else actually cares about the plot in Fe). Not even Awakening can say that ("OH Chrom was rescued by Sumia that's a mechanic did you know that player?" ).

Edited February 16, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Chiki]

There's no incentive to use all of them.

[Constable Reggie]

It's a good thing I didn't say there was.

[Chiki]

You can't use that argument because there's no incentive either way. Why use every unit when there's equal reason not to? Argument goes both ways.

[Constable Reggie]

You only have two choices: use them or not. One's clearly a negative and the other's clearly a positive. If the game gives me no incentive or benefit to picking or even contemplating the negative over the positive, then I'll always be choosing the positive option, because even with no incentive, it's still better than the negative option.

This is something that Thracia also handles really well with it's fatigue system, by the way.

Edited February 16, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Chiki]

Lol. I'm pretty sure using every unit would be a negative since it's a waste of experience and turns. You don't use every unit in efficiency playthroughs. Not even close.

[Constable Reggie]

Again, no one gives a shit about your ltc/efficiency playstyle regarding the original point.

Edited February 16, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Integrity]

I maintain that the game is incentive enough to not use all your units because screw moving them all.

[Chiki]

Again, no one gives a shit about your ltc/efficiency playstyle regarding the original point.

Yes they do. Why don't you give us your idea of a good unit then?

[Constable Reggie]

"Man, this fighting character is really fun to use and easy to play, but using him makes the arcade mode feel too easy. I wish they'd made the enemies a bit harder or the character a bit less weak."

"No, that fighting character sucks because you can beat the arcade mode in 5-10 less minutes with this other character if you know exactly how to you use him. Therefore, your playstyle is definitely wrong."

All the second line does is affirm the first's consensus, but criticizes him for the method he uses instead of his own perceived correct one.

Why'd you even write in this topic if all you're going to do is denounce everyone who doesn't prioritize ltc/efficiency playstyle.

Edited February 16, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Chiki]

So, according to you, we should judge characters based on how easy they make the game?

That's subjective. I feel that Olwen makes the game easy with DaimThunder and Ambush, but someone else might feel that it's harder because of the risk involved.

How can people ever agree on something like easiness?

The only way to judge something is to take something measurable, like reliability and low number of turns. Characters who cut turns are good, and characters who don't are bad. It's that simple.

[Constable Reggie]

Where the hell did I say we should judge it on that basis? My point in all this, that you apparently don't seem to care about, is that the characters handed to you in Fe4 are able to easily destroy the game's difficulty, casual and veteran player alike. Playing ltc/efficiency doesn't suddenly eliminate Shanan's or Sigurd's ability to annihilate almost everything with almost no risk.

[Chiki]

"Man, this fighting character is really fun to use and easy to play, but using him makes the arcade mode feel too easy. I wish they'd made the enemies a bit harder or the character a bit less weak."

[Constable Reggie]

Quit the semantics crap. If you can't even understand what my point was behind the parallel, then I've got no more reason to respond to you.

[Chiki]

Quit the semantics crap. If you can't even understand what my point was behind the parallel, then I've got no more reason to respond to you.

You indicated very clearly in all of your posts that how much a unit trivializes the game is the most important quality to you, yet there's no objective way to measure easiness. I'm simply pointing out a flaw in your line of reasoning.

[GreatEclipse]

I haven't played FE5, but Constable Reggie is completely right about FE4. Character balance was terribly done, and his point is only strengthened when someone as powerful as Shanan is dismissed as "not that good" because you also get three or so other characters that are just as good at killing things, but have horses to go with it. The game was really only notable for having a huge number of excellent ideas that are just begging to be borrowed from and refined.

Edited February 16, 2013 by GreatEclipse

[Chiki]

I haven't played FE5, but Constable Reggie is completely right about FE4. Character balance was terribly done, and his point is only strengthened when someone as powerful as Shanan is dismissed as "not that good" because you also get three or so other characters that are just as good at killing things, but have horses to go with it. The game was really only notable for having a huge number of excellent ideas that are just begging to be borrowed from and refined.

I don't get it. What's the big deal if Shanan isn't as good if you have units that are amazing as he is on horses?

[Constable Reggie]

You've done nothing to refute the claim that Fe4 is an easy game. You've done nothing to refute the claim that Shanan has the ability to destroy almost everything with no major risk from the start of his recruitment (how fast he can do this is irrelevant), and that him and a bunch of other similar units are obscenely powerful from the start. All you've done while in here is promote your style of play, while ignoring the fact that Fe4 is easily beatable (again, how fast it's beatable is irrelevant) due to these investment-free units. You can prioritize movement and quickness and shit all you want, and you can say Shanan/other units are terrible all you want. That does not refute the fact that Shanan/other units are able to trivialize Fe4's difficulty if allowed.

I don't get it. What's the big deal if Shanan isn't as good if you have units that are amazing as he is on horses?

Geez, no wonder your arguments are so ridiculous. My point (again, which you seem to ignore) is that Shanan requires no prior investment in order to wreck, unlike other powerful units like HolsetyArther or Leaf. Are you going to somehow argue now that Tristan or Dimna is better than Shanan 100% of the time they're both recruited?

Edited February 16, 2013 by Constable Reggie