Advantages of Armored Units

[Jotari]

So some units have some kind of trait to them. They're mounted or flying or dragons or armored units. In the case of mounted and flying units they have extra abilities, they can cross terrain differently, have higher movements and in most games have the ability to move again after an action. Dragon units either have the same advantages as flyers or they're manaketes who are statistically superior in all aspects. All these advantages are offset by having attacks that deal extra damage to these units. The exception being armored units.

Armored units have a weakness to certain weapons yet they don't have any natural abilities that make this weakness worth it. The main stats associated with them is based on chance due to the growth rate system and even at that their high defense and strength is offset by low resistance, speed and movement. Armored units are balanced against the other classes statistically yet still they have an added weakness that makes them less effective.

So should armored units have some kind of ability to compensate for the fact that they're weak against an extra set of weapons? And if so what should that ability be? Or am I completely wrong and generals are the most awesome class ever that need a weakness to be balanced?

[JSND Alter Dragon Boner]

Armored units has high defensive stats that give them a durability that can be clutch for some chapters

By usually I mean "at most 5 unit accros the entire series"

But then again, Mounted unit has basically no weakness so you can ask the same question there

Ts;dr: IS sucks at balancing. Suck it up

Edited September 3, 2013 by JSND

[X-Naut]

I've always thought being armored should offer a general resistance to damage, like say, a 20% general reduction in damage after all other calculations. That would allow them to do their job better in spite of being doubled, and while it makes them difficult to break through with normal weapons that's kinda the point of the class.

[Jotari]

Armored units has high defensive stats that give them a durability that can be clutch for some chapters

By usually I mean "at most 5 unit accros the entire series"

But then again, Mounted unit has basically no weakness so you can ask the same question there

Ts;dr: IS sucks at balancing. Suck it up

Well mounted units do have a weakness, the horseslaying weapons (and skills). The computer just doesn't use them enough in ratio to how often players tend to use mounted units. The point is though that something is there that's meant to offset the benefits of mounted units.

[JSND Alter Dragon Boner]

Yeah >_>

In general their advantage only come from those stats. Honestly, AK should have been given something like Weapon Trianle control or an ability to reduce damage, but the latter seems to be pretty broken

[Rehab]

Awhile ago, I bullshitted up the idea that if an armor had moved no more than one space/half their movement (? not sure exactly how much would make them unbalanced) that turn, they could use an "entrench/fortify" command which would lock them in place and have them automatically attack + get the first swing on any unit that came within one square of them that turn, and then if the armor hit that enemy during that round, even if they got hit back, they'd push the enemy back to the square it was in before it came within melee attacking distance, and take away the rest of the attacker's turn. Make armors more potent at the chokepoint/line defense kinda thing I get the idea they're built for, and give cavalry a sort of counter without just making them shit, hopefully.

Maybe this skill could be "countered"/partially nullified if a 2-range attacker hit them before the other enemy came within one range- the armor would still automatically attack the latter enemy and get first hit, but they wouldn't push the enemy back if it moved through the same square that the 2-range attacker occupied before it passed the armor, and said passing attacker wouldn't get the rest of their turn taken away.

In addition, perhaps getting hit by an antiarmor weapon could totally knock the armor out of fortify mode for the rest of the turn.

If that's not enough, maybe it could also get a tiny defense bonus every consecutive turn it used the fortify command, a la Civilization IV.

I also think just having a blanket bonus versus cavalry might be interesting, if people think that idea messes with fe's usual "move unit here, have them smash unit there" dynamic too much.

In any event, I think they could use a buff, yeah.

Edited September 3, 2013 by Rehab

[The Void]

The thing with Armor Knights/Generals is that what they going for them in various FE games isn't enough of a big deal to make up for the drawbacks they do have.

Having a higher defense growth and cap than various other units isn't that big of a deal when you have a Dragonlord or Paladin who can tank in a pinch. Let alone how the inflation of growth rates has led to a chunk of playable characters having a defense growth around 50% with more move.

Honestly, I say Armors/Knights could be better off in a game with lower defense and resistance growths, bases, and caps.

[Shadow Mir]

Honestly, I say Armors/Knights could be better off in a game with lower defense and resistance growths, bases, and caps.

FE6 disagrees with you there, big time.

[Nicolas]

Armored unit are the best!

Just look at those awesome units like Wendy, Gilliam, Bath, Bros, Wallace, Knight!Amelia...

They should be less powerful, because, they are BROKEN!

Seriously only knights, which I fought useful is Oswin and Duessel, mainly because, they just ORKO enmies.

If knight would be like Oswin (maybe quicker and more skilled), I think they would be OK.

And of course in game with enemies with good stats.

Edited September 3, 2013 by Nicolas

[Nobody]

Honestly, I say Armors/Knights could be better off in a game with lower defense and resistance growths, bases, and caps.

Not really, FE6 has some of the worst armored units ever, including the arguable worst unit in all FE games (Wendy). On the other hand, the armored units in RD were pretty good, even if that game has high growths.

Edited September 3, 2013 by Nobody

[dondon151]

would you consider it a special ability if armors had the same base def as most other units but had an innate +10 def skill?

[Nicolas]

Not really, FE6 has some of the worst armored units ever, including the arguably worst unit in all FE games (Wendy). On the other hand, the armored units in RD were pretty good, even if that game has high growths.

Well, If only Bath would have 12 con after promo, better speed, skill and res he would be maybe mid unit

[dondon151]

great tautology there: if only barth were better in many ways, he'd be a better unit!

[charlie_]

With those massive maps? No way.

[Nicolas]

With those massive maps? No way.

Even rescued by Thany?

Well, I believe FE6 need knight like Oswin: rescuable, not doubled by everyone and also not bad at RES.

And Bath is the best of FE6 knights (but still suck, mainly because 16 con, which make him completely unusable).

Edited September 3, 2013 by Nicolas

[Espinosa]

If anything, the game should make such maps (with accompanying options) that the AKs' high Con would matter (e.g. carrying somebody heavy). That would require some creativity, too.

Making survival troublesome is another cause of resorting to using an AK unit, or having combat happen in vicinity of the player's starting position and the AK being competent at said combat.

But even then, don't you let Dalsin die in Thracia efficiency just so that he doesn't slow you down? And that's where high Build matters for robbing baybuhs naked.

[Shadow Mir]

Even rescued by Thany?

Well, I believe FE6 need knight like Oswin: rescuable, not doubled by everyone and also not bad at RES.

And Bath is the best of FE6 knights (but still suck, mainly because 16 con, which make him completely unusable).

You mean the same Shanna who can't rescue him when either she promotes or he does?

[PuffPuff]

But then again, Mounted unit has basically no weakness so you can ask the same question there

Yes they do, Horsekillers(Horseslayer).

Armored unit are the best!

Just look at those awesome units like Wendy, Gilliam, Bath, Bros, Wallace, Knight!Amelia...

They should be less powerful, because, they are BROKEN!

Um...Wendy's awful bases don't make up for her joining time and that she doesn't get enough Defense to clarify for her to be useable.

And Wallace is completely obsolete with Oswin around.

-----

If only Armors were like Barons in all games, they would be great units to use.

Edited September 3, 2013 by Dark_Huntress

[Espinosa]

Wouldn't Barth actually have higher risk of death than some units with existing luck and good avo (knowing the game's hit rates and all)? But even given the fact that he does withstand an enemy phase, he'll have trouble connecting with his own attacks.

[Blademaster!]

This begs the question of how often do armor slaying weapons even show up in enemy hands. Armored units are designed as units who take next to no physical damage at all, and such weapons exist to give more options towards killing them since otherwise they would be somewhat difficult to kill and that way you don't always have to rely on your mages to do so. For the most part, playable AK's taking little to no damage works in many games throughout the series(Especially 2, 11, and 12), with FE4 and FE5 being the only games where armored units really suffer as a class because of 4's large maps and 5 having so many enemies with hammers, but even then Armored units in 5 were the only ones capable of using lances indoors as a small advantage of some kind.

There are then other questions you need to ask such as how good is the person playing the game because the average person won't know all the ins and outs of the game and will feel more comfortable using a unit they know can survive rather than one they don't know if they can or have to rely on the RNG.

[Vennobennu]

Why do Knights only have four movement? Why do Generals take greater movement penalties than other infantry units? It makes no sense.

If Knights had the same movement as other unpromoted infantry, and Generals could cross terrain more easily than other promoted infantry (e.g. cross forests and pillars with no penalty), they might be able to keep up with the rest of your units. It's not like armors have such incredible utility that they need low movement to hold them back anyway.

[PuffPuff]

Why do Knights only have four movement? Why do Generals take greater movement penalties than other infantry units? It makes no sense.

If Knights had the same movement as other unpromoted infantry, and Generals could cross terrain more easily than other promoted infantry (e.g. cross forests and pillars with no penalty), they might be able to keep up with the rest of your units. It's not like armors have such incredible utility that they need low movement to hold them back anyway.

Their high con and heavy armor would make sense as to do so.

Edited September 3, 2013 by Dark_Huntress

[Shadow Mir]

This begs the question of how often do armor slaying weapons even show up in enemy hands. Armored units are designed as units who take next to no physical damage at all, and such weapons exist to give more options towards killing them since otherwise they would be somewhat difficult to kill and that way you don't always have to rely on your mages to do so. For the most part, playable AK's taking little to no damage works in many games throughout the series(Especially 2, 11, and 12), with FE4 and FE5 being the only games where armored units really suffer as a class because of 4's large maps and 5 having so many enemies with hammers, but even then Armored units in 5 were the only ones capable of using lances indoors as a small advantage of some kind.

There are then other questions you need to ask such as how good is the person playing the game because the average person won't know all the ins and outs of the game and will feel more comfortable using a unit they know can survive rather than one they don't know if they can or have to rely on the RNG.

I'd add FE6 to the games where armors suffer as a class.

[Nicolas]

Their high con and heavy armor would make sense as to do so.

Screw realism in video game.

[X-Naut]

Personally I would give them the same movement as other infantry but keep the higher penalties (albeit somewhat lighter). Medieval armor was usually designed to provide defense while maintaining mobility, but that's on neutral terrain.