Dismount

[KMT4ever]

aren't dismounted cavalry still cavalry? i mean, the distinction between infantry and dismounted cavalry still exists.

They're technically cavalry, but they don't act as cavalry, which is the point.

[Chiki]

FE9: What if you don't want to abuse the crap out of Marcia?

Abuse the crap out of Jill.

FE10: Thunder magic is already awful.

Thunder magic can be troubling in certain chapters like 3-11 if your Haar hasn't used Pure Water.

FE10 - jill destroys about 1/3 of the game and haar destroys about 1/2 of the game.

Oh, donny...

Edited November 24, 2014 by Chiki

[eclipse]

The hell does my ability to come up with weird strategies in-game have to do with this thread?!

it is neither arrogant nor elitist, for example, for a pro quarterback to teach a novice how to properly throw a ball or read a defense. we can't evaluate the quality of pro football teams by pitting them against college teams.

Except you're missing the part where you elaborate on the statements quoted in here. In your analogy, you're saying "you're wrong", and offering no other reasons why.

As for the topic, eh. Not all foot units in your army wield swords, so why should a dismounted unit be forced into it? How 'bout a rule where all mounted units dismount indoors, and use their main weapon, while throwing in some outdoor maps where flying units were forced to dismount?

[dondon151]

Except you're missing the part where you elaborate on the statements quoted in here. In your analogy, you're saying "you're wrong", and offering no other reasons why.

eclipse, i don't know what your problem is here. i have elaborated in great length on every perceived offensive comment. why are you accusing me of not supporting my statements when the literal content of buttocksinator's previous post is an accusation of elitism? elitism is not even a valid argument.

let me sum up that post: "you're elitist. also, you're arrogant." remind me why you're calling me out for "offering no other reasons why?" (why what, exactly? why fliers have never been hindered by their weaknesses?)

i've been abundantly clear not only in stating that i don't think there exists a "right way to play the game," but also in explaining why the assumption of a highly skilled player when evaluating unit competence is not elitist. i'm not going to apologize for my choice of words - a less skilled fire emblem player is unequivocally worse at the game, has more limited tactical insight, etc. but that doesn't stop him from having the freedom to play however he wants.

Edited November 24, 2014 by dondon151

[Jedi]

Tbh @eclipse the discussion is really good I feel and it ties in, but that's just my two cents as thread maker.

Its quite some good insight on how people play (on various ends of the spectrum I'd place myself in the middle. I know the LTC tactics and have fun with that but I also have tons of fun just using whomever and the underdogs etc not caring about turns and all kinds of funky runs) and how balancing may be better worked which is part of why I made the thread. Should I change the title?

Edit: I feel dondon wasn't attacking. He just puts out facts bluntly, like it wasn't meant to be insulting. However I do feel part of it is simply the wording.

Edited November 24, 2014 by Jedi

[eclipse]

eclipse, i don't know what your problem is here. i have elaborated in great length on every perceived offensive comment. why are you accusing me of not supporting my statements when the literal content of buttocksinator's previous post is an accusation of elitism? elitism is not even a valid argument.

let me sum up that post: "you're elitist. also, you're arrogant." remind me why you're calling me out for "offering no other reasons why?" (why what, exactly? why fliers have never been hindered by their weaknesses?)

i've been abundantly clear not only in stating that i don't think there exists a "right way to play the game," but also in explaining why the assumption of a highly skilled player when evaluating unit competence is not elitist. i'm not going to apologize for my choice of words - a less skilled fire emblem player is unequivocally worse at the game, has more limited tactical insight, etc. but that doesn't stop him from having the freedom to play however he wants.

YOU know what you're thinking, and why. However, the response in-thread seems to indicate that not everyone can follow your logic. I don't expect you to apologize for what you've said (as I don't see a need for it). I think it would help a lot if you'd put the assertion and the logic behind it in the same post. It's a lot harder to miss, and it'll be more apparent if someone tries to cherry-pick things.

Tbh @eclipse the discussion is really good I feel and it ties in, but that's just my two cents as thread maker.

Its quite some good insight on how people play (on various ends of the spectrum I'd place myself in the middle. I know the LTC tactics and have fun with that but I also have tons of fun just using whomever and the underdogs etc not caring about turns and all kinds of funky runs) and how balancing may be better worked which is part of why I made the thread. Should I change the title?

Edit: I feel dondon wasn't attacking. He just puts out facts bluntly, like it wasn't meant to be insulting. However I do feel part of it is simply the wording.

No, it's fine! I think this thread has some interesting insight, and I'd rather not have this thread turn into a giant argument. I have my own ideas of balance, but I'll leave that for a personal patch of mine.

[dondon151]

YOU know what you're thinking, and why. However, the response in-thread seems to indicate that not everyone can follow your logic. I don't expect you to apologize for what you've said (as I don't see a need for it). I think it would help a lot if you'd put the assertion and the logic behind it in the same post. It's a lot harder to miss, and it'll be more apparent if someone tries to cherry-pick things.

i don't think it's possible to be significantly clearer. it's very difficult to tell someone that they are worse at a task than someone else while preventing the possibility that it be viewed as an affront. people tend to get defensive about these things.

i also think it's a waste of effort for me to point to evidence that exists throughout this forum unless prompted to. that would be like if i were a paleontologist and you asked me for evidence of cambrian fauna while standing in the burgess shale.

Edited November 24, 2014 by dondon151

[Snowy_One]

Maybe we're going about this the wrong way? Maybe the problem isn't with mounted units, but rather the lack of units that mounted units aren't good against? I mean, think about it for a second. Mounted units tend to be good all-around, but aside from movement, they don't really excel at anything. If they run into a unit too fast, they can't double and have a sharp cut into their stats.

I mean, let's put aside mounted units and simply look at the physical units for a second.

Swordsmasters are fast, can hit will, and can deplete HP REALLY fast, but are frail and struggle against high DEF units. They are good against warriors, but weak against knights.

Warriors are powerful and great for breaching defenses, but have a hard time hitting dodgy enemies and doubling reliably. They are good against knights but bad against swordmasters.

Knights have great defenses and strength, but can't double to save their lives. They are good against swordmasters, but horrible against warriors.

Mages are great at bypassing defenses and can avoid damage, but are frail and often struggle to deal enough damage to kill. They are great 'artillery' and support, but you wouldn't want them fighting on their own.

Archers can deal a large amount of damage relatively safely and are decent all-around, but have poor enemy-phase defenses.

Soldiers are middling and don't really excel or falter in one area.

It almost seems... balanced. At least in theory. Every class has a role and over-stocking on one can lead to serious shortcomings with another. Get too many knights and a few mages and warrior can wreck you. Get too many swordmasters and you'll tink a lot. Get too many warriors and you'll struggle to hit anything. Get too many soldiers and you won't be able to really take advantage of situations, and so-on. The problem with mounted units is that they get a soldiers stats and lack of serious weaknesses on TOP of higher movement as well as not being really limited in number (unlike soldiers). It could even be said that they have their own, somewhat similar, triangle (Peggy beats paladin beats wyvern beats peggy). Not as pronounced, sure, but that's not the point.

Mounted units seem to function on an entirely different tier with no real drawbacks to them. Dismounting seems to be a viable method, but what about, say, cost?

Let's assume you have a certain amount of points that can be spent to deploy units on a level, 10 points for the sake of argument. Foot soldiers cost 1, while mounted units cost 2.5. You can deploy 10 foot soldiers or 4 mounted units. That would serve to keep them in check somewhat without throwing the chance of suddenly having one of your units become worthless due to a map being indoors.

Edited November 24, 2014 by Snowy_One

[General Horace]

i think the gap between mounted units and unmounted will always be large; people are always going to find a way to make better use of mounts and fliers regardless of restrictions.

[eclipse]

i don't think it's possible to be significantly clearer. it's very difficult to tell someone that they are worse at a task than someone else while preventing the possibility that it be viewed as an affront. people tend to get defensive about these things.

i also think it's a waste of effort for me to point to evidence that exists throughout this forum unless prompted to. that would be like if i were a paleontologist and you asked me for evidence of cambrian fauna while standing in the burgess shale.

. . .and then threads blow up when the person you're talking to can't figure out your point of view. You're welcome to make a post somewhere, explain yourself and why you see things the way you do, and link that in your sig. Or put it in your profile. Either way, I think some explanation, somewhere, will help.

(source: a certain forum where arguing is part of the game)

Let's assume you have a certain amount of points that can be spent to deploy units on a level, 10 points for the sake of argument. Foot soldiers cost 1, while mounted units cost 2.5. You can deploy 10 foot soldiers or 4 mounted units. That would serve to keep them in check somewhat without throwing the chance of suddenly having one of your units become worthless due to a map being indoors.

. . .and why wouldn't I want to bring, say, a staffbot, a mage, and three mounted units? Low-manning is a great way to get a select few units really strong. It's an interesting idea, but I don't think it really addresses the issue of mounted units being good.

[Baldrick]

@Horace what do you think of mounted units having 2 move indoors? The consensus before was that it was too much of a nerf to mounted units.

In order to balance mounted units even on outdoor maps, you'd need to ensure they really can't survive the enemy phase, so that they fill a similar niche to archers. Like I said earlier, making defence a class-based static value could do this, though it'd be a fairly radical change.

[General Horace]

@Horace what do you think of mounted units having 2 move indoors? The consensus before was that it was too much of a nerf to mounted units.

In order to balance mounted units even on outdoor maps, you'd need to ensure they really can't survive the enemy phase, so that they fill a similar niche to archers. Like I said earlier, making defence a class-based static value could do this, though it'd be a fairly radical change.

I think 2 movement would cripple the class too much for one reason; if you think about every FE lategame (except FE4 since it doesn't have any indoor maps) almost all the maps are indoors which automatically cuts out roughly a third of your team for use in endgame. Sure, you could work around it and have an outdoor endgame like FE9.

Having 2 movement also pretty much screams "I'm useless if you deploy me" this chapter, and people already knock on knights for having one less move compared to other unmounted class. (although their stats are pretty bad too). I'm just not a fan of having a third of your team pretty much unavailable for about a third of the game. Indoor chapters also tend to be more important ones story wise too.

Having a static value would be a huge change, I don't know if i'd like it, considering all your other stats are growing. If this were implemented im sure growths would be reduced all around, but can you imagine playing lategame with a 7 defence unit fighting against units with 20+ strength?

I think i've just come to terms with the fact that FE isn't going to be and isn't meant to be a balanced game; this isn't going to stop me from using units like Ardan and Virion who are hilariously bad, but it makes you play differently, which imo adds even more replayability into the games.

[Snowy_One]

. . .and why wouldn't I want to bring, say, a staffbot, a mage, and three mounted units? Low-manning is a great way to get a select few units really strong. It's an interesting idea, but I don't think it really addresses the issue of mounted units being good.

Then you're still functioning at only half capacity. Especially if you need to have units in multiple places as opposed to a bumsrush towards the end. With less units you take out less on the player-phase, have less flexibility, and can be ganged up on easier. My bigger balance issue would be 'what if they only deployed TWO mounted units?'. Then they'd have seven units, likely enough to handle whatever came their way with out it being overly-difficult, and still tapping in to the power of the mount. But hey, discussion, this is what it's for.

Also, another, HUGE, factor in the success of the mounted unit is the ease of using 1-2 range weapons like the javelin and hand-axe. These weapons allow them to rush in to combat and deal with threats at both 1 and 2 range. Three archers doesn't seem like a threat when you can kill them all, but when you have to spend three turns chasing down each one and mopping them up or suffer their constant stings that mounted edge isn't as pronounced. Especially since this now gives mages and archers a VERY distinct edge over horses.

IMO, the big four things that need to be dealt with regarding mounts are these...

1) They need a defined weakness.

2) They can't be allowed to just run ahead.

3) They need to be given a set role as opposed to being a viable jack-of-all-trades.

4) They need situations where they fail but other units succeed.

Dismounting does this but it is very map-dependent and still lets them excel on out-doors maps while still being viable, if slow, on indoors maps.

Edit: For example, Oscar at 20/1 has stats of 38 HP, 15-16 STR, 6 MAG, 16 SKL, 16-17 SPD, 10 Luck, 16 DEF, and 8 RES.

Nephenee at 20/1 has 33 HP, 15 STR, 5-6 MAG, 19 SKL, 20 SPD, 9 Luck, 15 DEF, and 8 RES.

Pretty similar despite Oscar having a mount. In fact I'd say Oscar is BETTER since he'll have axes and more HP/DEF while Nephenee's SPD is overkill. Sure, on an indoor map with a movement nerf he'd still struggle to keep up, but if you're not obsessed with the lowest possible turncount he's still perfectly viable. Heck, he'd probably be no worse-off than the knights unless you confined him down to, like, 3 movement. But when the outdoor maps come he'll get right back and possibly more, ESPECIALLY if the maps aren't evenly split between in and outdoors.

Edited November 24, 2014 by Snowy_One

[Baldrick]

I think 2 movement would cripple the class too much for one reason; if you think about every FE lategame (except FE4 since it doesn't have any indoor maps) almost all the maps are indoors which automatically cuts out roughly a third of your team for use in endgame. Sure, you could work around it and have an outdoor endgame like FE9.

I don't think they'd be unusable, at least no more than Ardan is. It'd be a horses (teehee) for courses thing, where mounts are the best for outdoor maps and infantry are the best for indoor maps.

but can you imagine playing lategame with a 7 defence unit fighting against units with 20+ strength?

Yeah, it'd mean you wouldn't want to expose your cavaliers to more than 1 attack at a time. Armour knights, with their superior defense, would suddenly be useful. It'd make a neat symmetry where the class with high move has low defence, as well as the class with high defence having low move.

Of course, it goes without saying you wouldn't have static defence and 2-move dismounting in the same game.

I think i've just come to terms with the fact that FE isn't going to be and isn't meant to be a balanced game;

Personally, I haven't yet.

[KMT4ever]

Yeah, it'd mean you wouldn't want to expose your cavaliers to more than 1 attack at a time. Armour knights, with their superior defense, would suddenly be useful. It'd make a neat symmetry where the class with high move has low defence, as well as the class with high defence having low move.

But what about mages and swordmasters and other frail non-mounted units? If a cavalier with full-body armor and a tough physique has x defense, then a skinny myrmidon wearing little to no armor at all should have a defense much lower than x. I feel that the best way to nerf mounted units is to nerf the mounts themselves, not inflict some sort of statistical handicap. Fliers already have weaknesses to bows and wind magic, which means they can't just fly around everywhere. Likewise, horses could, as I mentioned somewhere earlier in this topic, take severe penalties to their movement range across terrain. Currently it's three "points" to enter terrain, but it could be four. This would mean that cavaliers in anything bigger than a single forest tile are screwed movement-wise by inching along one tile at a time. A paladin has two effective move while non-general infantry have three. Even with single forest/fort spaces it significantly cuts their mobility if they want to use those tiles.

[Snowy_One]

Ummm... Peggies and wyverns are part of the problem as well. Paladins are just the more common unit.

Edit: Also, note, maybe Tanith, Reinforce aside, is the most balanced Peggy and we should take a look at her to figure out what can be done to mounted units?

Edited November 24, 2014 by Snowy_One

[Roivann]

So I'm going to just spout stuff right now. Bear with me.

• What if cavalry suffered a movement cost (like when entering forest tiles) to make hairpin turns?
• What if cavalry could have their mounts injured/killed, weakening the unit severely?
• What if infantry got all the best attacking skills, and cavalry got mostly support skills (charm, etc.)?

[eclipse]

Then you're still functioning at only half capacity. Especially if you need to have units in multiple places as opposed to a bumsrush towards the end. With less units you take out less on the player-phase, have less flexibility, and can be ganged up on easier. My bigger balance issue would be 'what if they only deployed TWO mounted units?'. Then they'd have seven units, likely enough to handle whatever came their way with out it being overly-difficult, and still tapping in to the power of the mount. But hey, discussion, this is what it's for.

Someone else (I think it was dondon) mentioned the positive snowball effect - the more experience a unit got, the stronger they became. By having less units on the field, experience is concentrated on those units, thus making them stronger in a shorter time frame.

If the maps were designed such that having three to four combat units was completely out of the question, it might work. However, this isn't the case on the majority of FE maps.

So I'm going to just spout stuff right now. Bear with me.

• What if cavalry suffered a movement cost (like when entering forest tiles) to make hairpin turns?
• What if cavalry could have their mounts injured/killed, weakening the unit severely?
• What if infantry got all the best attacking skills, and cavalry got mostly support skills (charm, etc.)?

My idea of bullet points are dashes because I'm lazy

- Cavalry already has a movement cost on stuff like forests. Perhaps a steeper movement cost (say, 4 as opposed to 2)?

- I have no idea how that could be implemented, but it sounds interesting.

- Unless the cavalry had nonexistent offense to back it up, it wouldn't address the problem.

[Snowy_One]

My thoughts...

- Unless there is a LOT of unique terrain, it doesn't really matter.

- This is just a really bad idea since it kinda removes mounts from being anything (poor Huey). Not to mention just how would these new mounts at sea. Will the paladins ride sea-horses?

- Yea... Unless the Paladin's really get an offensive nerf having the 'weaker' skills doesn't matter too much. Heck, it's already kind of this way with foot soldiers getting things like Vantage and Wrath and mounts getting bad skills, yet the mounts still dominate.

[Paper Jam]

- Cavalry already has a movement cost on stuff like forests. Perhaps a steeper movement cost (say, 4 as opposed to 2)?

Having maps with more forests and mountains would also work, I think.

But that's not what Rovan was talking about. He was talking about penalties to making hairpin turns, like swerving left or right, similar to the penalties that already exist for moving through forests.

Here's an idea for a penalty for making hairpin turns: For every three spaces that a horse or flying unit moves in a specific direction on Turn N, that unit must move at least one space in that same direction on Turn N+1. So, for example, if a cavalier moves three spaces north and four spaces east on Turn 1, he must move at least 1 space north and 1 space east on Turn 2. He can then use his remaining five moves to move south or west if he wants, but his movement will be greatly penalized if he does.

Edited November 24, 2014 by Paper Jam

[dondon151]

i'd rather not have convoluted mechanics to nerf cavaliers. one proposal i made awhile ago is to prevent mounted units from being able to double attack, but they get an atk boost to slightly compensate.

[Jedi]

i'd rather not have convoluted mechanics to nerf cavaliers. one proposal i made awhile ago is to prevent mounted units from being able to double attack, but they get an atk boost to slightly compensate.

This idea is pretty solid, but I think some people may complain that its like FE4 the whole (Pursuit) skill detail. Minor complaint sure I just think it would be one if it were to become a thing.

dondon, how would you feel about archers getting some anti cavalry bows? Considering how obnoxious they are in enemy hands.

Edited November 24, 2014 by Jedi

[KMT4ever]

Having maps with more forests and mountains would also work, I think.

We could also go Advanced Wars style and have more types of terrain. Right now "mountainous" maps are really massive peaks with valleys of plains in between them. We could create tiles like "rough ground" or "mud" that act similar to forest tiles, but not exactly the same. Rough ground could boost avoid slightly but still incur a heavy movement penalty. Mud could just flat out cut mobility without any benefit, especially for cavalry. Imagine slogging through a field of mud as archers with longbows shot you from nearby forts. It would be Agincourt all over again. If we got 3D again we could even bring back RD's ledge mechanic, which was quite fun. We could also make slopes a thing, where being on a "higher" slope gives you a slight boost and gives the enemy a slight nerf. Imagine if Cog of Destiny was like that? A constant upward struggle against hordes of mages who now have hit bonuses. (Shudders at the thought)

None of this hits fliers though. We could just make archers more common. Medieval armies like those in FE usually didn't have so many professional (read: expensive) troops like knights, cavaliers, and mercenaries (the actual class), instead relying on cheap spearmen (soldiers), axemen (fighters), archers, crossbowmen (Maybe?), and mercenary troops (variety of units). It kind of takes away from the fun, but it just has to be in moderation. For the player army we could always hand-wave it as your guys being an elite unit like Hector's Horde, the Shepherds, or the Greil Mercenaries.

[eclipse]

i'd rather not have convoluted mechanics to nerf cavaliers. one proposal i made awhile ago is to prevent mounted units from being able to double attack, but they get an atk boost to slightly compensate.

But will it matter if the unit can OHKO with the new ATK boost?

[bottlegnomes]

That'd have to be a pretty big attack boost to worry about that. Generals are basically in that high attack, but only once category now, and they aren't exactly in danger of being combat juggernauts. The extra move would probably help a fair bit, but even the better generals in the series (save Gatrie because what the hell is a general doing with that speed?) would still need to be fairly over-leveled to reliably double.

Having mounts take damage is essentially what Berwick Saga did. The horses were sort of like weapons. They could be bought and equipped (providing some bonuses and extra move), but they took damage whenever the equipping unit got hit, and they couldn't be healed, save by a certain skill. The damage was mitigated by having the higher end horses have fairly large amounts of HP, as well as combat working slightly differently, but that's the general gist.