Dismount

[Robert Stewart]

Any argument as to why certain weapons can/can't be used indoors/while dismounted is invalidated by the existence of classes like soldiers and armour knights that use things like lances indoors with no problem.

[Baldrick]

Just a thought based on the last few posts, but what if cavaliers and armour knights were made one class, and the former dismounted to become the latter?

what i meant was, going from 7 to 5 mov is not as bad as going from 5 to 3 mov. that's why penalizing dismounted units with worse-than-armored-movement is a poor idea.

Personally, I think going from 7 move + canto to 5 move is worse than even going from 5 move to 2 move, but I'll admit my opinion doesn't mean much because I'm positively biased for low-move units.

Any argument as to why certain weapons can/can't be used indoors/while dismounted is invalidated by the existence of classes like soldiers and armour knights that use things like lances indoors with no problem.

"The lance is a pole weapon or spear designed to be used by a mounted warrior. During the periods of Classical and Medieval warfare it evolved into being the leading weapon in cavalry charges, and was unsuited for throwing or for repeated thrusting, unlike similar weapons of the spear/javelin/pike family typically used by infantry."

Technically, mounted lancers and infantry lancers should not share the same weapon at all. I know realism isn't the be all and end all, but let's stop spreading misinformation that it's more realistic for a cavalier to keep their weapon while on foot.

[dondon151]

Just a thought based on the last few posts, but what if cavaliers and armour knights were made one class, and the former dismounted to become the latter?

great knights should dismount to generals though

[Topaz Light]

I am in support of separate weapon ranks for mounted status or dismounted status though, it accomplishes something very similar to swordlocking while being more intuitive.

This seems like a sorta good way to deal with it, although I'd probably have it work something like...

Every 2 WExp gained while mounted adds 1 WExp to the dismounted rank for that weapon, and vice versa. Maybe not that exact ratio but something like that.

So there is still a penalty, but you don't lose all your weapon rank progress when dismounting.

Besides, it makes a certain degree of sense to me that they'd gain a certain amount of general expertise in a weapon type just from using it at all, even if the majority of their learning was in how to use it on horseback/on foot specifically.

But I'm not a weaponologist or anything so take that with a grain of salt.

...Unless we're talking Genealogy-style weapon ranks, in which case yeah, taking the weapon rank down one level or something would be a good way to do it probably.

Edited November 20, 2014 by Starlight36

[Vorena]

If this is for balance of units, the better way IMo is to simply make scenarios where. a unit type actually is a better choice than a horse. Such as incorporate more defence maps to remove generals bad movement. Or add lots of horse slaying weapons to reduce senting in solely a horse.

[dondon151]

If this is for balance of units, the better way IMo is to simply make scenarios where. a unit type actually is a better choice than a horse. Such as incorporate more defence maps to remove generals bad movement. Or add lots of horse slaying weapons to reduce senting in solely a horse.

that doesn't really work, though. defense maps are difficult to design in such a way that they require the use of generals but are easy enough to be beaten by the average player. if IS's resume of defense map design has anything to show, it's that mounted units are the best regardless of objective. think FE5 chapter 14, FE7 chapter 28, FE10 chapter 3-5, etc.

also the easy way around horseslaying weapons is just to dodge them.

[Vennobennu]

Mounted units being good at everything is in part due to their having good stats all around and multiple weapon types on top of movement +canto. Also IS defense maps are usually very easy to win to begin with.

There aren't many games in which cavaliers have significantly lower stats than their dismounted counterparts. Alec/Noish in Fe4 are only usable thanks to their class. Maybe Fe12 on the higher difficulties too. But usually they're as good or better at combat as foot units and gain xp at the same rate. If more cavs had mediocre stats, and simply couldn't do some things, combat-wise, that most foot units could, they wouldn't be too overpowered, I think

Edited November 20, 2014 by Vennobennu

[dondon151]

i don't think most players find defense maps to be "very easy."

[Vorena]

At dondon151, well balance is always hard. I do not think it exists. Its simply a thing to try, but never have 90% results. Anyway, dodging is hard to do in shadow dragon compared to the ease in fe7. Plus, defence merely needs to be done in a way that promotes taking few steps. Such as say being forced to hold a position, or make enemies outside a particular range so powerful you do not risk going outside a boundary. Horses would have uses in say ferrying things. Although, I really just want map design back. I likdd fe5, 10 ideas

FUFE13

Edited November 20, 2014 by Vorena

[Baldrick]

All too often, defence chapters are easy to cheese by sticking high-def unarmed units in chokepoint(s) and calling it a day. The map should be more open to assault from every angle like FE8 chapter 13 Eirika. The enemy should be strong offensively and have siege weaponry/Canto to make you take a lot of attacks, and most importantly, no ending the chapter early by killing the boss.

Mounts tend to be the most OP when they have enough durability to take on the enemy on their own. I sometimes wonder whether defence/resistance should be a static class-based value, similar to move (outside of Thracia).

[Kirie]

The only one of the older FE games I've played is 4 and even that's been a while, so I don't really have any direct experience with dismounting. That said, I think it's interesting in concept but seems like it would be a bit wonky in practice. If one was designing a game where mounted units were so powerful that nerfing them with forced dismounts for indoor maps was an option, wouldn't it simply be better to rebalance the class in a way that affects all maps rather than letting those classes be very powerful in some situations and badly gimped in others? I think FE in general has been moving to that point; I don't really feel Cavaliers are inherently better than other classes, perhaps at least partially now that Canto is no longer a thing in Awakening (though I never really felt that way for the GBA games either). On the other hand, I can also see where forced dismounting (and/or other similar mechanics) could be a way of encouraging people to use more characters instead of simply fielding the same team over and over again, the same way one might be encourages to not use a flyer in a level where all the enemies were archers.

[Roivann]

On the other hand, I can also see where forced dismounting (and/or other similar mechanics) could be a way of encouraging people to use more characters instead of simply fielding the same team over and over again, the same way one might be encourages to not use a flyer in a level where all the enemies were archers.

Yeah, but Thracia already does that with its fatigue system. To me, dismount was always more of a thing pushing towards (and I hate this word) realism.

[secondworld]

To be honest I don't particularly like or dislike the dismount mechanic,

But when it comes to balancing mounts indoors, I like what FE10 did more.

[Snowy_One]

My only problem with it is that I'd prefer mounted units not be that strong to warrant such a mechanic in the first place. With that said, IF such a mechanic should be introducted...

Neuter Canto from them indoors.

Give them one LESS movement than your normal footsoldiers (They're not used to fighting on foot after-all).

Cut them off from specialized and A-ranked weapons.

CAN ONLY USE HEALING STAVES!

That should keep them in check, especially in later-game, assuming they remain at their current power-level.

[Dark Sage]

I also thought of a good way of nerfing mounts to an extent was to make a riding rank that increases in a very similar manner to weapon rank. It's raised by performing actions such as attacking, healing ,or using items and it increases slower than weapon rank. The benefits of mounts are parceled out based on the rank; a unit with an A rank would get GBA style canto and full movement advantage over other units of his dismounted type and be able to use the usual rescuing mechanics (a paladin would have 2 move mounted over a warrior and a great knight would have 2 move mounted over a general) but a unit with the lowest rank would have only a one move advantage over his type, no canto, and the same rescuing ability as an infantry unit. He'd also be locked from taking skills such as Savior until he increases his rank.

I think this could work whether or not dismounting is implemented but if it's implemented w/dismounting, mounted units could finally be balanced to infantry units (possibly). It's not perfect; a lot of what I proposed requires things like rescuing, skills and to a lesser extent shove for the nerfs to be effective. The basic idea is the same though, you can just adapt it depending on what mechanics are implemented.

[Vennobennu]

i don't think most players find defense maps to be "very easy."

I'm mostly thinking in terms of comparison to other map types. In FE7, C28 and 28x, for example, are well-known for being tough (even if Jaffar in 28 and the 4 Boltings in 28x make them partly luck-based affairs); defence maps like Talons Alight, Unfulfilled Heart and sands of time just aren't on the radar compared. Pirate Ship and Merlinus's chapter are rougher since most of your units aren't very strong at the time, but they're still not too hard to get through.

Or maybe I'm just underselling them because I know now how to trivialize them.

[CT075]

The not being able to use certain weapons is lame and unrealistic. "Durr hurr I'm not going to use this axe without my pony, I'm gonna only use swords until I get back on just for shits and giggles." Makes NO sense.

have you considered the physical difference in trying to stab someone from 5 feet above them and trying to stab them from the ground

i wouldn't trust a cavalry lancer to help me overly much in an infantry fight

[Elieson]

From my PoV, Horsebound soldiers should be able to travel faster. What gets to me is that the class itself is generally supported by units with average to above average speed, allowing them to be dodgy. I have a hard time believing that you're more likely to whiff when thrusting an pike at a horse, rather than just a person.

What I would find more balanced is an avoid mod that cuts mounted avoid by a certain percentage from their base-stat value while outdoors, and even moreso indoors (perhaps a -30% Avo outdoors, -60% Avo indoors), so simulate the impracticality of riding a horse inside. Even if you're charging down a long narrow corridor on horseback, you're still going to have a hard time shimmying to the left/right. I mean, you're already a larger target.

[Roivann]

I've thought about how strange it is to have dodgy cavalry, as well. The conclusion I came to is that FE is trying to simulate real-time combat with a turn-based format. An idea I had was, since it's harder to hit a charging horse than someone on foot, what if cavalry were given a boost to avoid based on how far they moved during the player phase, but then suffer an avoid penalty during the enemy phase? This could also create a distinction between cavalry as hit-and-run classes, and infantry for steadier and more reliable advances.

[Jedi]

From my PoV, Horsebound soldiers should be able to travel faster. What gets to me is that the class itself is generally supported by units with average to above average speed, allowing them to be dodgy. I have a hard time believing that you're more likely to whiff when thrusting an pike at a horse, rather than just a person.

What I would find more balanced is an avoid mod that cuts mounted avoid by a certain percentage from their base-stat value while outdoors, and even moreso indoors (perhaps a -30% Avo outdoors, -60% Avo indoors), so simulate the impracticality of riding a horse inside. Even if you're charging down a long narrow corridor on horseback, you're still going to have a hard time shimmying to the left/right. I mean, you're already a larger target.

Maybe combine this with arrows being good against them as well, considering archers with good vantage points usually nail cavalry, (Unless said cavalry can reach them)

[Buttocksinator]

Speaking as one who has never played either of the games in question i'd have to say no. This mechanics purpose seems to be removing class diversity for the sake of realism, which is usually not a good thing.

[Snowy_One]

Speaking as one who has never played either of the games in question i'd have to say no. This mechanics purpose seems to be removing class diversity for the sake of realism, which is usually not a good thing.

The problem comes from how the mounted units tend to overpower any class that isn't mounted as they hold high movement and decent, if not excellent, stats all-around. The result is that a unit like a swordmaster, which often relies on criticals, finds itself putting out less damage less reliably, more frail, and having less move and possibly worse weapons than a paladin.

[Buttocksinator]

The problem comes from how the mounted units tend to overpower any class that isn't mounted as they hold high movement and decent, if not excellent, stats all-around. The result is that a unit like a swordmaster, which often relies on criticals, finds itself putting out less damage less reliably, more frail, and having less move and possibly worse weapons than a paladin.

If what you're saying is that mounted units are fundamentally better because of these reasons, then they should be tweaked, but for the sake of balance and not realism. One solution could be to equip more enemies with weapons that deal bonus damage to cavalry, incentivising having units like swordmasters for when it's too risky to bring in the cavalry. I dislike this dismount mechanic because from a gameplay standpoint it seems unnecessarily realistic. Take for example a first person shooter game in which you could only take 1 bullet before being laid up in a medical tent for several months before being discharged and sent home with a purple heart. Realistic? Absolutely. More immersive? Probably. More fun? Not really, no.

Realism can create immersion, which in moderation can definitely improve a gameplay experience. In this case however, I'm just not seeing the appeal.

[Refa]

Dismounting helps balance the game far more than whatever example you gave.

EDIT It's also a much more interesting gameplay dynamic than sticking a bunch of horseslaying weapons on enemies.

Edited November 22, 2014 by Refa

[Snowy_One]

It's not a question of realism in the slightest. Unless you're going to do something like making all lances effective against mounts or nerf mounts to the question where if they can even be used comes into play they're still going to dominate due to that extra movement. Dismounting removes that and encourages use of a varied team. Sure, your peggies and paladins are useful outdoors, but building a team out of them is a very bad idea since, indoors, they're weaker and slower than your foot soldiers. Better to train up a variety of units then as opposed to just using mounts and those few really exceptional foot-units for combat.