Low-manning: FE games encouraging small teams, and what could/should be done?

[Tables]

Something that's been grinding my gears recently, and which I've complained about in a few other places, is how much many FE games encourage you to have a small team. And often how the fastest way to improve a planned team is, counterintuitively, to remove characters from it. Awakening is the biggest offender, for a few reasons, but of all the FE's I've played (7-11, 4, 13), only one manages to actually fix this in a reasonable way (spoiler: It's 4). I'm not going to be too thorough in this thread, just listing what I think are the main things encouraging small teams and what I would like to see change, so the game system encourages reasonably sized teams. By "encourage" I mean, the mechanics should work in a way that training more characters is generally beneficial for the player aiming to complete the game; it should generally make his life easier and not harder to train up a full sized team.

Just to clarify, I am of the opinion that being able to use and train a larger team, and further this helping me complete the game rather than hinder me, is a very good thing. It means the player is doing more things on their turns, they have more choices, if characters were to die, it would be less damaging to the player to continue on without them, and it feels more like they're commanding an army of people, rather than a small, overpowered team. It doesn't have to mean the player should be able to, or indeed would benefit from, deploying every character. In fact I think that's probably a bad thing, since it decreases team variability. A healthy sized team of 12-20 characters being best would be about what I'd like, others may find different numbers preferable.

So, what factors go into making small teams better than big teams, in the FEs where that's the case? Here are ones I think are big factors:

An EXP formula that makes overlevelling easy.

This is a big factor especially in Awakening and Shadow Dragon. In those, the EXP you gain from beating similarly levelled enemies is around 30, and drops by about 3 points per level differences... until you're about 5 levels above them, at which point the rate which EXP gains per level increase drops to about 1/3 per level. Suddenly that means, your characters are gaining 14 EXP per kill for quite a while, then it drops all the way down to... 13 EXP per kill. Meanwhile if you tried to use a bigger team, they'd likely get that 30 EXP per level, then 27, then 24... and pretty soon they too would be 5 levels above the enemy, getting 15 EXP per kill each, while a comparative small team is getting about 12 EXP per kill, but with 10 levels more. And well, 10 levels is a pretty massive difference in terms of unit competence, especially considering promotion, weapon levels etc.

Outside of those games, it's less extreme, but this is still somewhat present in the Tellius games and GBA games. I know less of them (EXP wise), so I will speak less about them. FE9 had a good formula, EXP dropped quite a bit as you levelled, although not really quickly enough. Unfortunately, BEXP happens.

Looking at FE4's formula, you might notice that EXP gain drops pretty quickly if you're overlelvelled. Or if you don't perhaps some numbers will help. At the same level as an enemy, you get 10 EXP for hitting, 30 EXP for killing. Cool, nice numbers. At 5 levels above them, you get 6 EXP for hitting, and 20 for killing. That's already taking about 50% longer to level up. 10 levels above them? 0 for hitting and only 10 for killing. And it slows down even quicker from there. But even that's enough to seriously limit how quickly a small team will grow. They'll get to maybe 10-12 levels above the enemies, but will hover there consistently, needing 10-20 kills per level. Compared to perhaps a team twice their size, who will comfortably sit around 6-8 levels above the enemy, only ~4 levels behind the small team.

FE4's formula makes training a small team much harder than training more characters, compared to the later games. "But Tables, that was the point of the game! You're meant to train everyone!" You might be saying. Well, that doesn't really explain why it's not unusal to want to train up well below the normal max deployment slots in later games. FE8 gives you 12 slots typically, but I generally find myself only wanting to use about 6, for example. Those later games EXP formulae just make training few characters too fast. And this combines actually with the next point...

Growth rate power creep.

This one could easily become a rant, but I'll try and make it just a summary of key points. Later FE games have higher growths, typically. Without checking all the numbers to back me up, I'd say FE4 gen 1 growths average around 250%, while FE13's average around 420%. On top of this, stats are actually less valuable in FE4 (due to various factors, mainly stronger weapons, higher HPs and broken holy weapons), so actually the difference in effect is probably larger. Gen 2 FE4 has higher growths, but still lower than FE13, and notably a LOT of FE4's growths were in their massive HP growths. Why does this matter? Because stat difference is a huge factor in terms of beating enemies.

A character with stats roughly equal to an enemy is going to, well, probably only win if you're tactical or get support.

A character with stats slightly better will beat that enemy and perhaps another

A character with stats moderately better might well beat multiple enemies, due to doubling.

A character with stats significantly better can probably solo whole waves of enemies, perhaps taking on 5+ at once.

Now this combines especially with the first point, about EXP gain and training fewer characters. But the growth rates are another big factor into it. In FE4, you don't really gain much every level - you gain usually 1-2 HP, and maybe another important stat point, if you're lucky. But in Awakening, every level gives you a rather notable boost - your offence, defense, avoid and accuracy are not unlikely to increase regularly.

I've been slightly unfair here and focused on Awakening, and well that's because it's the worst offender. But the same argument applies more or less to the GBA or Tellius games, just in a slightly more moderate dose. The issue, in short, is: high growths mean units become considerably stronger than the enemies too quickly meaning getting few units to that point is much more useful than training lots of units, and having them all be just slightly better.

...Oh, it looks like I kind of lied about not going on a rant. Sorry, I did try. Well, it's 3am and I'm somehow trying to write a psuedoessay, what could possibly go wrong? I did tag for incoherent rambling, right? Yes? Good. Moving on.

So so far, what I would like to see in the next FE is:

Lower growths. Make the characters not get too strong too quickly, make them work for those stat increases.

A more balanced EXP formula. Make it so high level characters gain very little EXP beating weak enemies. They aren't going to learn much in doing so, why should they gain EXP?

Well okay I think those were my big two points, and I'm tired now, so... I think I'll leave it here.

Oh actually, here's a thought: I think that the way lowmanning is currently encouraged is leading to FE games with broken difficulty curves. Looking back at, well, pretty much all recent FE games, which parts are the hardest? I think you'll probably agree it's been the earlygame, since Path of Radiance. Why? Because you can follow a simple formula in each game, even on the hardest difficulties:

1) Struggle through early game.

2) Key Units are starting to grow. Focus EXP onto them

3) Key Units now strong. Ditch Jeigan. Focus on them more.

4) Key Units solo game. Late game is now trivial.

Sound familiar? I think it works for... FE9, FE11, FE13, and kind of for FE10 as well. But it's especially true in Awakening, with infinite levelling. The key issue here is in points 2 and 3. You CAN focus your EXP onto those few units to train them up at ridiculous rates, and because of the EXP growth formulae, they get stronger faster than the enemies, making most of the rest of the game fairly easy. If those strategies were less effective because you needed to train up more of a team, well, IS could maybe tone down earlygame just a little, but knowing roughly how strong the player will constantly be (because big team of roughly predictable level) they can keep the pressure and difficulty up right to lategame, and also make lategame actually harder!

Okay so now I'm actually tired, I apologise if anything I've said is either totally incoherent, repeated or I've left sentence fragments, but hopefully the core of my thoughts are clear. I'd like to hear what others think on the subject. Am I just a crazy person crying over spilt milk because it's better to use 6 characters and not 8, or are these thoughts actually quite reasonable? Is this an area of Fire Emblem worth thinking about, or do people not really care if they deploy 2 or 20 characters?

[JSND Alter Dragon Boner]

FE12 seems to manage to do it >_>

Competent enemy stats, and threatening enemies I guess

Enemy variety work in the context of FE5. Fatigue system does not do much, but the late game are not solo-able with an overlevelled *insertunithere thanks to the status problems. The Final stage is also the epitome of anti low-manning IMO

Also FE4 is so much of a joke on this regards

Part 1? Jeigan Lord Solo

Part 2? HW spam. Seliph solo is loljoke for Part 2

Also most of the FE that I played followed generally one rule. Spam Jeigan and have your Jeigan as the key unit. Comes mid game, and they are still your key unit, and you get units who could fill in the rest >_>

Edited June 27, 2013 by I have a Dragon Boner

[Nobody]

They could also force you to deploy all the units you can, like, in a map that you're allowed to use 12 units, you would be forced to use 12 units, unless you have less than 12 units, obviously. Of course, you can avoid that by letting the units you don't want to use die, but I doubt many would be willing to do that.

[dondon151]

the third part of the solution is to offer more subobjectives on maps.

[PKL]

Umm, how does FE4 solve this, exactly? Isn't that the game famous for Sigurd and Seliph solos? FE13 is a joke in this too. Shadow Dragon is a lot more team oriented than the others you mentioned. Who, exactly is solo'ing stuff in that game? o_o Anyway, I think the solution is like, dondon said, subobjectives since they require you to have a split team to accomplish them. Making enemies better and not allowing your units to be solo masters is also a way.

EDIT: Ugh, forgot about Warp. Technically you can Caeda Warp solo FE11 until Medeus where youre better off Tiki Nagi'ing.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Peekayell

[XeKr]

Just make player phase more important (lower defenses, higher offenses, multiple objectives).

No need to have many units when a single one can counterattack and oneround everything on enemy phase. That's inherent to the FE system.

Just inflating enemies stats is not the way. FE13 mostly shows this. It just encourages more low-manning, since it's not worth it to train others to keep up.

Deflating player growths/stats can indeed help as then focusing exp into a few units has meaningful diminishing returns. That's kinda "boring" though. I think many players like seeing their units growing a lot, getting stronger, and maxing stats.

Edited June 27, 2013 by XeKr

[JSND Alter Dragon Boner]

Umm, how does FE4 solve this, exactly? Isn't that the game famous for Sigurd and Seliph solos? FE13 is a joke in this too. Shadow Dragon is a lot more team oriented than the others you mentioned. Who, exactly is solo'ing stuff in that game? o_o Anyway, I think the solution is like, dondon said, subobjectives since they require you to have a split team to accomplish them. Making enemies better and not allowing your units to be solo masters is also a way.

Looking back on older posts, SD h5 used to be called Sedgar STOMP >_>

And Warp skip if that counts

Edited June 27, 2013 by I have a Dragon Boner

[PKL]

Looking back on older posts, SD h5 used to be called Sedgar STOMP >_>

And Warp skip if that counts

Sedgar and Wolf kinda suck though.

I think pair up is a big thing on why FE13 encourages solo'ing.

[Sublime Manic]

They could also force you to deploy all the units you can, like, in a map that you're allowed to use 12 units, you would be forced to use 12 units, unless you have less than 12 units, obviously. Of course, you can avoid that by letting the units you don't want to use die, but I doubt many would be willing to do that.

I really like the way FE5 handles it: there's a maximum number of units you can bring but also a minimum. So for a particular map, you might have to bring at least 8 units but no more than 16.

Fatigue encourages you to use a greater variety of units as well, to an extent.

[Agro]

give dream of five a try, that discourages low manning well enough imo

[Refa]

Part 1? Jeigan Lord Solo

Part 2? HW spam. Seliph solo is loljoke for Part 2

1) FE4 is actually easier if you use other characters (WHAT A SHOCK). Sigurd solo is all well and good for Prologue and Chapter 1, right before it fails hard in Chapters 2 and 3 (and even Chapter 4, if you're not particularly lucky against Wind Mages) because apparently he's not very good against spams of Armor Knights! Or Eltshan! And again in Chapter 5 against horseslayers! Celice solo is lolno, there are so many reasons that is not true (good luck beating Chapter 7 without Fin, Leaf, Nanna, Shanan, or Patty every getting into combat), but I'll just say Chapter 10 and not enough RES, you fucked.

2) He said the game system didn't encourage soloing, and indeed it doesn't. IS could easily make another game with the exact same system in which the lords are not overpowered.

[JSND Alter Dragon Boner]

In my experience, Sigurd Solo is actually easier so, I dunno >_>

Its only somewhat hard for chapter 2 because I just can't see a dead Lachesis

@PKL: They kinda suck, but that does not stop the old days of using Warp on Sedgar on the fort of the chapter after the Fire Emblem Chapter(IIRC 7 or 8. Its the first stage where Minerva appeared), and later on warp a trained Sedgar with Light Orb while wielding Gradivus during late game to solo the majority of the late game enemies with an infinite use Gradivus >_>

It might not be efficient, but the fact is, it works and it is kind of a solo

Edited June 27, 2013 by I have a Dragon Boner

[Anouleth]

I don't see subobjectives as making a big difference. Technically, the biggest subobjective is Rout, because it means that every enemy on the map is an objective. The reality is that subobjectives are not really a problem for low-man teams, and definitely not a problem if turn count isn't a concern.

Just make player phase more important (lower defenses, higher offenses, multiple objectives).

No need to have many units when a single one can counterattack and oneround everything on enemy phase. That's inherent to the FE system.

Just inflating enemies stats is not the way. FE13 mostly shows this. It just encourages more low-manning, since it's not worth it to train others to keep up.

Deflating player growths/stats can indeed help as then focusing exp into a few units has meaningful diminishing returns. That's kinda "boring" though. I think many players like seeing their units growing a lot, getting stronger, and maxing stats.

Since inflating enemy stats and deflating player stats have the exact same effects, what's the basis for claiming that one encourages low-manning and the other doesn't?

I think Tables covered this pretty well. The problem is the EXP formula. If even a 20/15 unit still gains 8 exp per kill compared to a level 15 unit gaining 30 exp per kill, then you can have one 20/15 unit for every three level 15 units. And a 20/15 unit is always going to be way more useful than three level 15s. One interesting case in a ROMhack is Dream of Five. In order to prevent player levels from spiraling out of control in a game with so many enemies, enemies are almost universally level 1 unpromoted units. As a presumably unintended result, level gain slows down pretty hard and training a well-balanced team is more important.

Another issue is resources. Resources like BEXP, statboosters, or forges were probably intended as being ways to get weaker units up to par with stronger units. The reality is that dumping lots of BEXP and boosters into one unit was a way more effective strategy.

Also, one possible solution is unbalanced stat spreads. The reason why low-manning is effective is because we have access to units with good stats in everything. Well-balanced units, with enough STR to 2HKO, enough SPD to double, enough DEF to survive waves of enemies on enemy phase, and enough MOV to go places, are the dangerous ones. After all, we're not worried about the results of overlevelling a Thany or a Wade; even overlevelled, these units still have serious issues because they have awful growths in certain areas and wouldn't be able to solo anything. And I think, this is part of the problem with FE13. Units don't have serious flaws, or at least, no flaws that can't be corrected with more levels and pair-up, except for swordlock and movement. Every unit can be balanced across all important stats. Unlike FE6 where certain units will always be bad at certain things.

[Constable Reggie]

I don't see subobjectives as making a big difference. Technically, the biggest subobjective is Rout, because it means that every enemy on the map is an objective. The reality is that subobjectives are not really a problem for low-man teams, and definitely not a problem if turn count isn't a concern.

I don't think this is necessarily true, it's just that no FE game has really utilized the possibility of multiple objectives, save for very few examples (Fe5's final chapter). For instance, having to defend 3-5 lightly defended thrones scattered throughout the map would theoretically be difficult to manage for low man teams. Those 3-5 objectives can't be handled by a small number of units, unlike rout.

I also thought that Fe5 handled this issue pretty well, specifically in two ways, the fatigue system and the minimum required number of units. The first, although pretty easily circumvented given the abundance of S drinks, encourages switching out units often. The second encourages usage of units that otherwise would have been ignored. After all, if you're required to deploy them, why wouldn't you use them in some way, with exception being that specific units are a serious liability? The system, further refined and tweaked, could definitely help discourage low manning.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Anouleth]

I don't think this is necessarily true, it's just that no FE game has really utilized the possibility of multiple objectives, save for very few examples (Fe5's final chapter). For instance, having to defend 3-5 lightly defended thrones scattered throughout the map would theoretically be difficult to manage for low man teams.

How would it? If your team of three super-units has no problem with clearing out a rout map in two turns, they should have no trouble with a defense map. "Killing all the enemies as quickly as possible" beats every chapter in every Fire Emblem ever, and low-man teams are typically the best at doing that. Until low-man teams are not the best way to rout maps, they will dominate.

I also thought that Fe5 handled this issue pretty well, specifically in two ways, the fatigue system and the minimum required number of units. The first, although pretty easily circumvented given the abundance of S drinks, encourages switching out units often. The second encourages usage of units that otherwise would have been ignored. After all, if you're required to deploy them, why wouldn't you use them in some way, with exception being that specific units are a serious liability? The system, further refined and tweaked, could definitely help discourage low manning.

Even in games that have a big focus on low-manning, deployment slots are usually filled in some way, even if it's just for shovebots, so I don't see minimum deployment limits being a constraint.

[Constable Reggie]

How would it? If your team of three super-units has no problem with clearing out a rout map in two turns, they should have no trouble with a defense map. "Killing all the enemies as quickly as possible" beats every chapter in every Fire Emblem ever, and low-man teams are typically the best at doing that. Until low-man teams are not the best way to rout maps, they will dominate.

Same reason for why you need to use more than 3 units in Fe7's ch 15. One unit can't defend all the chokepoints per throne room. This is with the assumption that the throne rooms wouldn't be blockable by standing on it.

Even in games that have a big focus on low-manning, deployment slots are usually filled in some way, even if it's just for shovebots, so I don't see minimum deployment limits being a constraint.

Fe13, probably the fe game that emphasizes low manning the most, on lunatic/+ at least, passively punishes you for using anyone other than a small number of your very best units due to high enemy density+strength, and wide open maps. A full team simply can't keep up with the exponentially growing enemy stats.

But again, it's somewhat psychological. If you have to deploy extra units (I'm assuming a game with no shove), why not use them? There were enough extra units in Fe5 that were very helpful even if they weren't being used in the longterm, so try something like that again.

[Anouleth]

Same reason for why you need to use more than 3 units in Fe7's ch 15. One unit can't defend all the chokepoints per throne room. This is with the assumption that the throne rooms wouldn't be blockable by standing on it.

Pretty sure you don't need to use more than 3 units in chapter 15. Pretty sure you can solo it just by leaving Marcus on the throne and hiding Hector in a corner somewhere (or even just putting Hector on the throne, if you've concentrated a lot of resources into him). Pretty sure this is not just possible, but easier than bringing 7 units who all need to be protected. Pretty sure that Marcus could rout the map singlehandedly. Pretty sure there's no need to block chokepoints in a low man run because your units are overlevelled and can take on and 1-round infinite numbers of enemies on enemy phase.

Fe13, probably the fe game that emphasizes low manning the most, on lunatic/+ at least, passively punishes you for using anyone other than a small number of your very best units due to high enemy density+strength, and wide open maps. A full team simply can't keep up with the exponentially growing enemy stats.

Yeah, but just because those extra units are deployed doesn't mean you have to train them. Most FE13 maps make it possible to shove extraneous units out of harm's way in a corner somewhere, so being forced to put say, 6 units on the field in Chapter 17 isn't going to really hamper the player.

But again, it's somewhat psychological. If you have to deploy extra units (I'm assuming a game with no shove), why not use them? There were enough extra units in Fe5 that were very helpful even if they weren't being used in the longterm, so try something like that again.

But players like to use lots of units anyway. I like using a range of units. I'd imagine most other players do too. You don't have to force the player to deploy extra units. The problem is that using extra units is a bad idea. It is provably less efficient than focusing on a small team. Players should not be punished for using a wider range of units.

That's true in other games. Many units in FE10 are very helpful in the short term even if you don't want to use them long-term. But that isn't a good antidote to low man runs. The fact that Vika is very helpful in her few Part 1 chapters doesn't make it any less of a good idea to dump all BEXP and statboosters into Jill and have her solo all of Part 3. So I don't understand your point at all. How would putting a minimum deployment limit on 1-E make life harder for Jill? How would it solve any of these problems?

[XeKr]

Since inflating enemy stats and deflating player stats have the exact same effects, what's the basis for claiming that one encourages low-manning and the other doesn't?

True, it’s not the main issue, I was mainly talking about an interesting trend. Note that your examples are all cases of deflating player stats (less exp, less resources, looking at Thany/Ward vs. FE13 characters).

Inflating stats tends to make exp/growths more valuable and makes some of the behaviors you mentioned like focusing exp/resources into a single unit stronger. There is likely little incentive to make other units competent. Deflating stats makes exp/growths less valuable and allows units at base to fight competently. You could imagine a well-balanced game with inflated stats, but because of the FE “growth unit” syndrome and typical abundance of resources, it’s inherently more unlikely.

It’s increasing potential variances vs. not. Essentially FE13 vs. FE5 is what I was originally getting at. Or even just looking at lategame vs. earlygame for most FE games.

Also, as an aside, I’ll note even in FE13 Lunatic, which is much (and rightfully) maligned for low-manning, the most efficient fastest turnwise and most reliable clears should use nearly every character for utility in some way (even if small like chip/ferrying). Pair Up gives pretty much everyone a niche as well.

However in general, FE is just not condusive to large teams for combat. There is typically no pressure to use multiple combat units when the single best one, with the necessary investment, can just counter everything on enemy phase. That’s why I think the first step is emphasize player phase. The strongest unit gets only 1 attack/kill there (even with Dancing, etc, it’s not that many more). This has the added benefit of feeling more "tactical" as the most impactful actions are you ones you do (on PP), instead of watch (on EP).

Edited June 27, 2013 by XeKr

[PKL]

Xekr- I'm pretty sure LTC'ing Lunatic is all about Fred with Sumia pair up until Avatar picks up Galeforce and reclasses to Sorcerer. It's the most mindless way to do it and probably the most effective, since training a team longterm in Lunatic LTC is just lol. Heck, Hard Mode LTC without paralogues is already lol, exp-wise.

EDIT: Any other playstyle is practically begging to be Avatar solo'd too.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Peekayell

[XeKr]

True enough. However, I made a distinction between combat and utility. Though Frederick and Avatar do the overwhelming majority of combat, other characters have niche utility roles.

Nearly every character (but Donnel, I think) will improve turncount/reliability at some time in some way, which is why I mentioned it.

Edited June 27, 2013 by XeKr

[Shengar]

I agree about inflating stat push low manning even more. At the start of Awakening Chapter 2, if I'm not mistaken, most enemy unit in lunatic have 40-60 stats or so, while yours have roughly between 30-40 except overleveled avatar and Frederick. Mercenary and soldier in that chapter would double almost all of your unit that isn't paired up with Chrom or Avatar. Not only that, it takes two or three units to bring down one enemy unit. So, what the right amount of enemy stat should they have?

Also, how to emphasize player phase actually when the enemy unit mostly outnumbered your units?

[Jotari]

I don't think reducing Growth Rates is a good idea. Seeing a good level up in Fire Emblem is one of the Joy's of playing the game. Stats should be moderate and not overpowered but seeing 1/2 stat ups should not be the normal. I think the way to go is, as people have suggested, have maps with more objectives that are designed to need bigger teams. Have it so you need to quickly get to several places at once so you need to split your army. In fact having it so in game there's a story based reason to split your entire army for a few chapters (like Part 4 in Radiant Dawn only without being handed overpower units and with chapters that have objectives other than rout) meaning you have to divide your units up. That'll really encourage you to have enough good units to fill both armies. If you have only three powerful units and suddenly one of them has to be shipped off to another army your screwed with only one should a rescue map of some sort pop up.

[shadykid]

Umm, how does FE4 solve this, exactly? Isn't that the game famous for Sigurd and Seliph solos?

this, and just because you can deploy everyone doesn't man it's optimal (as i'm sure people have brought up regarding FE4 before)

regarding the talk about routing defense maps: ideally, this wouldn't be possible with better designed objectives/maps (for example, FE10's 3-13 without allied units or the bosskill copout would be impossible to solo, couldn't block off all the ledges)

[arvilino]

I think the defense stat is the biggest, if not the sole contributor to this(speed/evade second). If it was fixed for characters or certain classes(or lower cap-wise than any other stat in the game) it'd pretty much solve any low-manning problem(except for evading) since it limits the number of enemies a character can survive engaging which also limits their offensive capabilities.

At the lower end of the spectrum defense is not bad but it gets exponentially better(in terms of how many units a character can survive) as the stat gets higher and higher, whereas the other stats usefulness are generally more linear as they increase. Like a character with 21 HP and 15 Defense can take on 4 enemies with 20 ATK each , but a character with 21 HP and 19 defense can take on 20 of those same enemies just from an extra 4 defense, and as the stat climbs the number of enemies a single character can survive on(especially with healing such as Nosferatu, Sol, Aether) will reach infinity.

Really high defense is only really being stopped by things that ignore defense(and also resistance), enemies having an overwhelming amount of attack(which is in some games like FE12 H3, FE13 Lunatic,Lunatic+ but leads to some characters just being so weak they can't be used in other difficulty settings with the enemy offense almost balanced round those with the best durability and even then those best characters have methods to still outpace the enemy offense).

So in short low manning probably wouldn't be as possible if defense(Maybe Resistance, but magic isn't abundant enough for it to be a problem) was fixed for each character/class and the game was balanced around that.

Edited June 27, 2013 by arvilino

[Constable Reggie]

Pretty sure you don't need to use more than 3 units in chapter 15. Pretty sure you can solo it just by leaving Marcus on the throne and hiding Hector in a corner somewhere (or even just putting Hector on the throne, if you've concentrated a lot of resources into him). Pretty sure this is not just possible, but easier than bringing 7 units who all need to be protected. Pretty sure that Marcus could rout the map singlehandedly. Pretty sure there's no need to block chokepoints in a low man run because your units are overlevelled and can take on and 1-round infinite numbers of enemies on enemy phase.

You're probably right about ch15, I dunno, but I was taking in mind that in future chapters you wouldn't be able ot just camp on the throne. So putting one overleveled unit near the throne would be pointless, since they would just walk past you and beat the chapter.

Yeah, but just because those extra units are deployed doesn't mean you have to train them. Most FE13 maps make it possible to shove extraneous units out of harm's way in a corner somewhere, so being forced to put say, 6 units on the field in Chapter 17 isn't going to really hamper the player.

But players like to use lots of units anyway. I like using a range of units. I'd imagine most other players do too. You don't have to force the player to deploy extra units. The problem is that using extra units is a bad idea. It is provably less efficient than focusing on a small team. Players should not be punished for using a wider range of units.

I wouldn't say most fe13 maps, more like a few. Just a few chapters off the top of my head that make it extremely difficult to just move units out of the way: 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 24

This goes back to the Fe13 problem of using too many units is just too difficult due to power creep. Players shouldn't be punished for using a number of units, but should also be encouraged to do so, A minimum limit is just one possibility for doing so.

That's true in other games. Many units in FE10 are very helpful in the short term even if you don't want to use them long-term. But that isn't a good antidote to low man runs. The fact that Vika is very helpful in her few Part 1 chapters doesn't make it any less of a good idea to dump all BEXP and statboosters into Jill and have her solo all of Part 3. So I don't understand your point at all. How would putting a minimum deployment limit on 1-E make life harder for Jill? How would it solve any of these problems?

Bexp encourages lowmanning, so I wasn't taking that into account. I assume that neither was IS since they haven't used it since Fe10.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Constable Reggie