Rescue or Pair Up

[arvilino]

the point of rescuing is that there's a tradeoff between mobility and combat.

If the point of rescuing is a tradeoff between mobility and combat then only a small proportion of the units in the games with it can actually use it as described, as it only really applies to mounted units(and kind of requires canto/re-move to be as useful as it is).

I think rescue would be improved by allowing it to be more widely usable, hence why I think pair up is an improvement. e.g. An Armored Knight rescuing a Paladin doesn't improve mobility but a Paladin moving(about 5 squares) to pair up with an Armored Knight who still has his/her turn does have the potential to improve mobility.

Edited May 30, 2013 by arvilino

[dondon151]

If the point of rescuing is a tradeoff between mobility and combat then only a small proportion of the units in the games with it can actually use it as described, as it only really applies to mounted units(and kind of requires canto/re-move to be as useful as it is).

perhaps you think that only mounted units can use rescue because they are better at it, not because unmounted units can't use rescue effectively. unmounted units can use rescue quite well given circumstances where you don't have mounted units doing it better.

It'd help to use two units instead of one if there were more chapters like defense, but there aren't any.

that's not strictly true either, as i've said before that defense is just a euphemism for rout with no way to end the chapter early. choking points is an inferior option to nuking the enemy if you can do both.

you name a defense map and i'll name a way to trivialize it. i already did it for FE5 chapter 14.

Edited May 30, 2013 by dondon151

[Espinosa]

If the point of rescuing is a tradeoff between mobility and combat then only a small proportion of the units in the games with it can actually use it as described, as it only really applies to mounted units(and kind of requires canto/re-move to be as useful as it is).

I think rescue would be improved by allowing it to be more widely usable, hence why I think pair up is an improvement. e.g. An Armored Knight rescuing a Paladin doesn't improve mobility but a Paladin moving(about 5 squares) to pair up with an Armored Knight who still has his/her turn does have the potential to improve mobility.

Why is the Paladin so far behind the AK in the second situation in the first place? If you imagine a similar one in the older FEs, you can think of a similar case - a Paladin is behind the party, then an AK can contribute just as well by rescuing the Paladin and then giving it to a mounted unit next turn; as a result, the distant Paladin will be at the avantgarde of your frontline after these two turns.

[JSND Alter Dragon Boner]

Yeah, Tiki's chapter can. Too bad it isn't in the main game.

Can be 2 Turned with 2 Galeforce user, so it does not count

[dondon151]

actually, one should also consider the difference between FE5 rescuing and conventional rescuing. FE5 rescuing was far stronger and it was purely because you could give immediately after using rescue or take.

[Redwall]

Can be 2 Turned with 2 Galeforce user, so it does not count

I'd say it counts since most people aren't going to have two Galeforce users, and will instead fight unpaired for the two-turn clear or paired for the five- or six-turn clear.

[XeKr]

this is the problem though

there is little depth to the mechanic if one of its consequences is that the player can hide weak units with impunity. the point of rescuing is that there's a tradeoff between mobility and combat. pair up's only tradeoff is that you have one less unit on the field, a drawback that is typically an afterthought.

Yeah, that's what I was getting at. I like Pair Up thematically, but it also inherently causes these kinds of issues. Even if disregarding the op other bonuses like stats, Dual Strikes, etc. To give more depth to Pair Up would require other strategic pressure besides the raw bonuses and mobility concerns. Something that exploits the fact you're giving up more potential combat units for stronger ones (ideally not that much stronger, but that’s not the case here).

If the point of rescuing is a tradeoff between mobility and combat then only a small proportion of the units in the games with it can actually use it as described, as it only really applies to mounted units(and kind of requires canto/re-move to be as useful as it is).

I think rescue would be improved by allowing it to be more widely usable, hence why I think pair up is an improvement. e.g. An Armored Knight rescuing a Paladin doesn't improve mobility but a Paladin moving(about 5 squares) to pair up with an Armored Knight who still has his/her turn does have the potential to improve mobility.

I think it's important to note there's no trade off for Pair Up. It pretty much just improves mobility. Maybe if it halved stats as suggested, but then it becomes kinda silly, as Pairing is "supposed to" make you stronger.

Re: More defense maps: I don't think they would help much because you can still just send a superpair out in the middle of the enemy to steamroll stuff. They'd have to be like Tiki's map where it's wide open and the AI deliberately ignores your units to go for NPCs. But those kinds of maps also tend to be ones where you can just mash end turn after setting up a formation. Having chokepoints instead still encourages stronger, paired units unless deployment slots are super strict (which they typically aren't).

Even in Tiki’s map there are enough slots to surround Tiki with a group of 5 Pairs if trying to defend. Not pairing units is probably more useful in a quick hyperoffensive clear since there’s enormous pressure to finish in 2 turns before more reinforcements, since there’s no enemy phase in that strat.

Emphasizing player phase more is actually something that can encourage not Pairing. For example, in C3 there’s pressure to clear one side before the other reaches the team. It’s not so easy to clear in time with enemy phase alone because of Counter, Pavise+, and Aegis+ and the weak team in general. More units to chip and such results in a more reliable and flexible clear.

Or else could emphasize player phase by higher offenses, lowered defenses, sorta FE12 style, etcetc. Could help.

Edited May 30, 2013 by XeKr

[Jotari]

As an alternate suggestion to the current stats of pair up. In order to stop it being overpowered you could have it so all the stat upgrades are based on class rather than the units stats. So a Swordmaster will always give a +5 to speed and a General will always give at +5 to defense etc. Movement being the exception where the movement of the pair is equal to the lowest movement in the pair (since the way it is now kind of implies the Armor Knight is running over mountains as fast as the Pegasus). This would keep a large number of the benefits while stop it being overpowered.

Edited May 30, 2013 by Jotari

[JSND Alter Dragon Boner]

I'd say it counts since most people aren't going to have two Galeforce users, and will instead fight unpaired for the two-turn clear or paired for the five- or six-turn clear.

I don't think you can 2 Turn it unpaired(mostly because of the Griffon), but eh

[dondon151]

Movement being the exception where the movement of the pair is equal to the lowest movement in the pair (since the way it is now kind of implies the Armor Knight is running over mountains as fast as the Pegasus). This would keep a large number of the benefits while stop it being overpowered.

if you kill movement, the mechanic is basically useless in efficient settings.

[PKL]

I'd say it counts since most people aren't going to have two Galeforce users, and will instead fight unpaired for the two-turn clear or paired for the five- or six-turn clear.

It can also be 2 turned without galeforce by rescuing Tiki to one of the sides and having her killed. The rest of the enemies suicide on your units then.

[Refa]

But only jerks do that.

[Anouleth]

if you kill movement, the mechanic is basically useless in efficient settings.

I don't know. It's actually quite hard to 1-round enemies in Lunatic without pairing up.

As an alternate suggestion to the current stats of pair up. In order to stop it being overpowered you could have it so all the stat upgrades are based on class rather than the units stats. So a Swordmaster will always give a +5 to speed and a General will always give at +5 to defense etc. Movement being the exception where the movement of the pair is equal to the lowest movement in the pair (since the way it is now kind of implies the Armor Knight is running over mountains as fast as the Pegasus). This would keep a large number of the benefits while stop it being overpowered.

So basically, the one saving grace of Kellam, that he can provide good pair up boosts, is now lost, because he shits all over his partner's move.

If such a change occured, it wouldn't be a change at all to efficient. You'd just pair high move units together. It's already the case that high move units are really strong in FE, but this would make them even more superior.

[Jotari]

That would severely limit the number of high movement units you actually have on the field though.

[Florete]

that's not strictly true either, as i've said before that defense is just a euphemism for rout with no way to end the chapter early. choking points is an inferior option to nuking the enemy if you can do both.

you name a defense map and i'll name a way to trivialize it. i already did it for FE5 chapter 14.

This is just the way they've been in the past, not the way they need to be in the future.

Technically a hypothetical, but: RD 2-E assuming you can't just defeat Ludveck to get it over with. HM, of course. 3-13 with the same assumption isn't a bad one, either.

[Refa]

Some of the FE8 Defense maps might've been pretty challenging too (well, for FE8) if they weren't Kill Boss missions in disguise.

[dondon151]

FE10 2-E has like, 3 chokepoints. this is way too easy. 3-13 is also totally trivial because laguz can't attack up ledges, so you just need to block off the ledges with scrubs and allies and let your 2 strongest units block off the center stairs.

refa does have a point, though. FE8 chapter 13 eirika is the kind of map that wouldn't be so easy as a defense map. assuming that killing the boss didn't end the map immediately, though, the enemies are still too weak to actually make the objective a challenge. phantom ship is probably one of the most difficult defense maps, except defense is not its stated objective.

contemporary FEs don't feature a minimum deployment limit, so defense maps need to have three traits in order to be not trivial:

1. an actual area or unit to defend, otherwise low-manning is the dominant option

2. wide open areas with few chokepoints, otherwise pacifism is the dominant option

3. appreciable enemy strength, otherwise there is no urgency to defend

and i guess it has to not have "kill boss" as a secondary objective. i can't think of a single map that is like this.

[Florete]

FE10 2-E has like, 3 chokepoints. this is way too easy. 3-13 is also totally trivial because laguz can't attack up ledges, so you just need to block off the ledges with scrubs and allies and let your 2 strongest units block off the center stairs.

Oh, well, yeah. With your first line in the quote I responded to I assumed you'd always have a way to win that didn't require choking. You know, the standard defense strategy? If your answer is to choke, that's hardly "a euphemism for rout with no way to end the chapter early."

Edited May 30, 2013 by Red Fox of Fire

[dondon151]

nothing's stopping you from throwing haar or jill in there and raining death on all of the enemies.

i guess in my head i made a distinction between between choking the standard way and choking the pacifist way but forgot to articulate it in one of my previous posts. i should amend my statement and say that any defense map that is not easily routed can be easily beaten by occupying chokepoints and mashing end turn.

but i'm pretty sure that there's a good way to rout every defense map out there. even in FE5 chapter 14, you can park finn with +40 in avo boosts in the middle of the map and he'll never die.

Edited May 30, 2013 by dondon151

[Jotari]

I don't see why choke points go against the idea of a defense map. I mean Castles do naturally have choke points because having one person defending against a dozen is a good defensive strategy, And having alternative kill boss conditions occur so you aren't just sitting there waiting for the turn limit to go up since you've routed every enemy. In all of the examples mentioned killing the boss is quite difficult and the primary objective is to defend (at least for me, maybe I'm just bad at the game. I don't think I've ever managed to kill Ike in 3-13).

[Florete]

nothing's stopping you from throwing haar or jill in there and raining death on all of the enemies.

Except Thunder Mages (for 2-E).

i guess in my head i made a distinction between between choking the standard way and choking the pacifist way but forgot to articulate it in one of my previous posts.

Is the difference between the two so significant, though? And I'm assuming the difference to be that pacifist keeps the choker unequipped or equivalent.

Edited May 30, 2013 by Red Fox of Fire

[shadykid]

I thought the point of removing kill boss conditions in defend maps was to encourage defensive tactics, whether you're blocking a chokepoint or not

[Jotari]

I thought the point of removing kill boss conditions in defend maps was to encourage defensive tactics, whether you're blocking a chokepoint or not

But there needs to be some other victory condition otherwise the player might be able to rout the enemy and be stuck with absolutely nothing happening while waiting for the turns to count up. If its a rout victory condition then there's the possibility of destroying all the initial units before the reinforcements turn up ending the chapter really early (and really aggressively for a defense chapter). Having a boss not only gives some weight towards the chapter Plot wise (since they usually more than one scene characters) but also adds an eventual goal if you do mange to get the waves of units going after you under control, encouraging you to make an effort in killing enemies instead of just hiding.

[dondon151]

Is the difference between the two so significant, though? And I'm assuming the difference to be that pacifist keeps the choker unequipped or equivalent.

yes, oddly enough. a lot of players don't naturally come to the realization that a defense map often doesn't require the player to try to defeat enemies at all.

I don't see why choke points go against the idea of a defense map. I mean Castles do naturally have choke points because having one person defending against a dozen is a good defensive strategy, And having alternative kill boss conditions occur so you aren't just sitting there waiting for the turn limit to go up since you've routed every enemy. In all of the examples mentioned killing the boss is quite difficult and the primary objective is to defend (at least for me, maybe I'm just bad at the game. I don't think I've ever managed to kill Ike in 3-13).

i'm not well-versed in the intricacies of medieval combat, but in practice, one guy blocking a small passageway can't fend off an entire enemy army. fire emblem's unit system and tiled maps yield an abstract depiction of positioning, and unfortunately, we have to cope with the shortcomings of this design. so when something abusable such as an impenetrable pacifist chokepoint presents itself, it has to be designed around.

in almost every fire emblem game, the enemy has no way to get around your chokepoint short of killing the blocking unit or forcing the player to change his formation. FE5 has capture to remove unarmed infantry, which doesn't completely solve the problem. FE13 has enemies with pass. FE9 and FE10 have shove, which could work in theory, but enemies can't shove. there's nothing to prevent the player from setting up an impenetrable pacifist defensive formation like in that one screenshot i posted earlier and waiting out the map while enemies pile up because only one enemy can attack each choking unit. for an armed player unit, there is an element of risk, as killing enemies exposes the unit to more attacks, but unarmed player units do not take this risk.

a good defense map should not have the player routing every enemy, and a kill boss secondary objective doesn't need to exist to guard against that. for 3-13 specifically, olwen/chiki killed ike in 2 turns with jill in his LTC, vykan killed ike in 2 turns with tauroneo in his speedrun, and i killed ike in 4 turns with volug in 0% growths.

[Jotari]

A unit cannot stand there indefinitely though unless they have really good defense. Assuming the choke point is two spaces wide as they usually are they can be attacked from at least three units a turn. Unless your stocking a lot of vulneries your going to need a healer there too and placing he healer there means its at risk of getting hit from a range attack unless you use shove or rescue (and hey on the original topic another use of rescue above pair up that doesn't involve correcting a mistake). That is of course if the healer doesn't have a psychic. All in all it is a decent strategy but not perfect especially if the developers consider it before hand (which it seems they didn't since enemies with pass destroy it completely. As do flying enemies and we did see a little bit of that in Radiant Dawn). It does fall down in one aspect. The problem being that in Fire Emblem if your not killing things then your units aren't getting stronger and while it might get you through the map it won't do you any favors in the long run.