How to make Armor Knights more valuable?

[Dunal]

it just so happens that the easiest way to clear defense maps also requires the least amount of effort.

Know that I don't disagree with this statement. I think there's a lot of issues/flaws in regards to certain defense maps.

Everything requires a balance. The timed maps in FE6, especially CH14 -- are good maps. I just think defense maps offer a lot more potential. You can create objectives that go against defending that offer balance to the situation, and encourages multiple units. That's the ideal.

Siege maps are going A to B. Defend maps have a par required to fulfill it, and anything extra is a bonus. The latter just offers more opportunity IMO.

[dondon151]

also if you're playing the game for umpteenth time what's the fun in cheesing it like seriously

why even pick it up

FE5 has more than just chapter 14

i mean if you're playing FE5 for the umpteenth time, what's the fun in not recruiting xavier like seriously. why even pick it up.

Siege maps are going A to B. Defend maps have a par required to fulfill it, and anything extra is a bonus. The latter just offers more opportunity IMO.

you are saying this as if seize maps don't offer "anything extra."

Edited January 1, 2015 by dondon151

[General Banzai]

i mean if you're playing FE5 for the umpteenth time, what's the fun in not recruiting xavier like seriously. why even pick it up.

I'd ask the same question, recruiting Xavier is the best

[Dunal]

you are saying this as if seize maps don't offer "anything extra."

Point of my argument is that:.

Alternative objectives tend to be completely segregated from seiging. And adding difficulty to the actual siege doesn't affect that.

Alternative objectives tend to be entirely conflicting to defending. And adding difficulty to the actual defending does affect that (in regards to balancing how you deal with those objectives).

Difficulty in defend maps is a lever that feels far more natural as a means to rewarding those extra objectives.

Piling on difficulty in siege maps just makes them take longer to beat. Aside from specific things like bandits attacking villages, it doesn't change the check-list of other objectives to do.

There's a big difference to each of those statements. And it's why I feel defend maps have more potential to be stronger in design.

Edited January 1, 2015 by DLuna

[dondon151]

Point of my argument is that:.

Alternative objectives tend to be completely segregated from seiging. And adding difficulty to the actual siege doesn't affect that.

Alternative objectives tend to be entirely conflicting to defending. And adding difficulty to the actual defending does affect that (in regards to balancing how you deal with those objectives).

what is the difference

if you have to divert resources away from the seize objective in order to complete a secondary objective, then the objectives are conflicting. this is the same criterion that you are using to define a conflicting objective in a defense map.

[Baldrick]

if you have to divert resources away from the seize objective in order to complete a secondary objective

That's not necessarily true. Sometimes you can send a thief or filler units to complete the sub-objectives, and sometimes there will be a lack of time pressure/reinforcements, which means you can delay the assault on the throne until after the sub-objectives are cleared.

[Dunal]

what is the difference

if you have to divert resources away from the seize objective in order to complete a secondary objective, then the objectives are conflicting. this is the same criterion that you are using to define a conflicting objective in a defense map.

The difference is that Defend has a failure state that is challenged more through additional difficulty/stats/AI. Siege doesn't. Unless there is a very specific time requirement.

Because the only thing difficulty does in a siege map is make you take longer to clear it. That has zero factor on how other objectives are approached unless the aforementioned. In fact, making a siege map 'easier' (whether that's to do with weak enemies or things like staff/rescue chains) arguably makes it so doing other objectives is even less efficient. Since the only factor in sieging is time.

If you were to tightly design a siege map that's actually reasonably difficult to beat within a non-self imposed time limit then there's no reason it can't be good. Some maps in FE6 attempt this to an extent.

I mean, I understand that the perspective in that they're no different is due to defend maps rarely, if ever actually having their failure state being challenged. But the fact that they exist makes difficulty tuning them naturally better as a whole.

Maybe it's just that I feel that failure states on a per turn basis is stronger design than longer-term failure states. In that case, I suppose it's just my opinion. That, and the fact that defend maps tend to encourage more types of units in general, rather than a mobility-heavy focus. But the extent of that could be based off the map design than objective.

Edited January 1, 2015 by DLuna

[dondon151]

That's not necessarily true. Sometimes you can send a thief or filler units to complete the sub-objectives, and sometimes there will be a lack of time pressure/reinforcements, which means you can delay the assault on the throne until after the sub-objectives are cleared.

there are opportunity costs to deploying thieves or filler units.

The difference is that Defend has a failure state that is challenged more through additional difficulty/stats/AI. Siege doesn't. Unless there is a very specific time requirement.

all seize maps have the same failure condition that all defense maps have: you fail if your lord dies. a soft failure condition is if any unit dies.

If you were to tightly design a siege map that's actually reasonably difficult to beat within a non-self imposed time limit then there's no reason it can't be good. Some maps in FE6 attempt this to an extent.

this is impossible because turtling beats everything in fire emblem. the only way to remedy this is to impose a hard time limit (i.e., you fail if you don't seize within X turns, X being a rather low value) or a soft time limit (e.g., unkillable reinforcements past a certain turn).

also it's a fucking seize map and not a siege map. those two words mean completely different things.

Edited January 1, 2015 by dondon151

[Baldrick]

there are opportunity costs to deploying thieves or filler units.

sometimes that opportunity cost is 0, if you have more deployment slots than are necessary for an optimal clear.

[dondon151]

sometimes that opportunity cost is 0, if you have more deployment slots than are necessary for an optimal clear.

of course you would object to something in a pedantic manner.

[eclipse]

of course you would object to something in a pedantic manner.

But that situation does arise. What I don't know is how often this occurs, or how relevant it is (for example, Sands of Time has a lot of deployment slots, but the side objectives are fairly limited).

[dondon151]

sands of time is a defense map

any time you have to grab a chest that's not along the way, you have to plan out how to grab the chest. there's technically no opportunity cost to all of the treasure in FE6 chapter 16 given that you're staying the full 11 turns to recruit cass, but don't tell me that's somehow different or imply to me (directed at DLuna, not eclipse) that that's somehow easier than looting all of the treasure in FE7 sands of time.

Edited January 1, 2015 by dondon151

[eclipse]

It looks like defense maps have a set count, so getting to secondary objectives should be (theoretically) easier.

Would it be possible to, say, finish Chapter 16 faster, and recruit Cass later? Unless it's even more of a pain in the neck or something? It feels like there's a ton to do on that chapter, and Cass doesn't have to be recruited right then and there.

[Baldrick]

of course you would object to something in a pedantic manner.

Do you disagree that the opportunity cost is sometimes trivial?

but don't tell me that's somehow different or imply to me (directed at DLuna, not eclipse) that that's somehow easier than looting all of the treasure in FE7 sands of time.

It is different. If your strategy was such that one needs 20 turns to reach the chests in both chapters, for Chapter 16 you are fine, but in Sands of Time you would need to improve your strategy.

This is why sub-objectives like obtaining chests is a conflicting objective in defend maps, but not in non-timed seize maps.

[Psych]

why are we recruiting cass in 16 and not 12

[Gradivus.]

the opportunity cost of thieves, unless they can contribute combattively, actually influenced my decision on deployment pretty often on an fe6 run, so I just bought tons of chest keys, which allowed me to distribute the experience better to my longterm units / to generally make the map more manageable due to having one more good combattant. though I have no big clue how grabbing those chests affects turns on fe6, I don't bother to play quickly when every 2nd boss is a dodge vs dodge battle.

Edited January 2, 2015 by Gradivus.

[dondon151]

It is different. If your strategy was such that one needs 20 turns to reach the chests in both chapters, for Chapter 16 you are fine, but in Sands of Time you would need to improve your strategy.

This is why sub-objectives like obtaining chests is a conflicting objective in defend maps, but not in non-timed seize maps.

this is a worthless distinction that only survives because you can word it in one way instead of another. a defense map often doesn't even have an objective that has to be worked towards. a defense map completes itself - there is no such thing as "a conflicting objective" in a defense map.

EDIT: it shouldn't take very much effort to show that DLuna's argument is total nonsense. take FE7 kinship's bond, which is a defense map. suppose for a moment that its only win condition is defend 11 turns. under this paradigm, the side objectives (2 chests, recruit heath and rath, go to the secret shop, maximize EXP gain) are "conflicting" with the defense objective. now suppose for a moment that its only win condition is kill boss, which is logistically similar to seize [point]. suddenly the side objectives fall under a different "segregated" category with regard to the kill boss objective.

FE7 kinship's bond has both alternative win conditions, so either side objectives can be simultaneously "conflicting" and "segregated," or the dichotomy doesn't exist.

what DLuna really means when he says all of this is that he thinks defense maps are amazing because most non-defense maps don't have a hard turn limit. if you took any two identical maps, one with a hard turn limit and one without a hard turn limit, the one with the hard turn limit is better by definition. can't complete FE6 chapter 21 in 4 turns? too fucking bad, you're a fucking terrible player, and you should feel bad.

Edited January 2, 2015 by dondon151

[General Banzai]

siege mode's failure state solely relies on the player losing control of the enemy

enemies may be strong but a fundamental element of the game's strategy and really strategy in general is to keep the enemy where you want them, this is accomplished quite easily in FE because a core element of FE's enemy AI is if they are in range of something they can attack they will attack it

this is why it is so rare that you fail a siege mission because the enemy actually got to the throne

the only way to counteract this would be to program more enemies to be like the FE13 Tiki chapter where enemies will actively avoid your units to get to Tiki but this is not really a fun game mechanic as the only counter strat is forming a literal barricade around the point necessary to defend

a good defense chapter doesn't even necessarily need to be an actual defense chapter it's more a state of mind, whether your units are on the defense or the offense

take for instance that chapter in FESD where you recruit Maria and Minerva, Ch. 10 I think. The typical strategy for that chapter, and the strategy the game guides you toward through how it structures its secondary objectives (i.e., recruit Maria) is to offensively take the castle in the map's middle and then hold that castle from the deluge of enemies that swarm in as reinforcements

I know you can probably beat this chapter just by moving so fast that the reinforcements never catch you but bear with me here

this chapter thus has an offensive component and a defensive component in the same map, regardless of whatever the objective actually is (it's FESD so surprise the objective is seize). Even in H5 a good strategy for this chapter is to get into the castle fast and hole up in there with Wolfgar whittling down the enemies who pour in after you. It's a chapter that feels far more defensive than, say, the Denning chapter in FE7, which you mostly just play like a normal chapter

for another example let's take another frequently-misused objective: escape. ch. 6 in PoR is ostensibly an escape chapter and plotwise is an escape chapter but you don't ever feel like you're escaping. there is a bright yellow square on the map that you need to get to and enemies are in your way to getting there but the map might as well be a seize objective because you are not really escaping from anything. there is nothing behind you chasing you that you need to keep ahead of or else it will overwhelm you. compare again to the previous example of Ch 10 from FESD. let's say instead of doing the defensive strat you instead decide to flee from the massive wave of reinforcements chasing after you. thus, even though the objective is still seize, you are actually escaping far more than in the so-called escape objectives of PoR (and even many of the Thracia escape objectives, like Ch. 5).

in short, posted objectives are more or less meaningless, a well-designed chapter will create the objective organically out of enemy placement etc. I have no idea what this whole opportunity cost discussion is about

[dondon151]

take for instance that chapter in FESD where you recruit Maria and Minerva, Ch. 10 I think. The typical strategy for that chapter, and the strategy the game guides you toward through how it structures its secondary objectives (i.e., recruit Maria) is to offensively take the castle in the map's middle and then hold that castle from the deluge of enemies that swarm in as reinforcements

yeah this used to be a hard chapter until we started using warp to recruit maria or stopped recruiting maria altogether

although most players probably have a ton of trouble with this map because there are like a zillion reinforcements that come from the top right corner of the map. i mostly agree with you; i think that FE5 chapter 19 is a cool defense map, but it's a not-really-defense-actually-escape map.

[Baldrick]

I thought DLuna's point was that a variety of objectives is more interesting than repeating the same objective, and given treasure chests are essentially seize points they complement defend maps better than seize maps.

[dondon151]

by that logic chokepoints are basically seize points too

[Nicolas]

I think that low-movement units are complete fail. Main objective of game is giving fun and people have fun because they do something. Idea of unit which can do less than other units and it's specialty is standing still and taking hits I think it's awful idea. There is nothing entertaining in having unit which slows you down and it's not very useful. If map are designed to stand still I think they are bad maps. Playing defensive and waiting it's not fun.

I'm looking of perspective of many other strategic games (RTS and turn based) or competitive TF2 and whole design of FE as strategic game is really bad. Only real way to have tactical challenge in FE is LTC or any other form of effective run. In every other way you need really low skill to beat map. FE it's game which don't kill your units easily and you can push whole enemy team with one unit (what?!).

I think this series need something fatigue system (but not like in FE5) and better counterattack system(maybe something like Heroes of Might and Magic 3 counterattack system). Now you can move your units to another half of map in one turn (without wrap) and in enemy phase this unit will murder EVERYTHING on it's way. yeah, much tactical skill is needed to accomplish that :/ .

In my opinion fatigue should be checked by every turn and if it's too high unit have lower stats, or something like that. Also fatigue should be based not only on how many battle unit finished but also on how far this unit moved every turn. If it's something like Seth moved 4 turn full 8 space then he should be more tired than Franz who moved same space but in 6 turns. And now knights and generals can be useful because they are though soldiers who are not tired by moving full possible distance every turn and always fight with full power.

Also I'm thinking about counterattack system. In HoMM3 most of units has only one counterattack what mean popular strategy is sacrifice bad units to waste counterattack of something strong. In FE when you have Sety who is thrown in middle of the battel, murdering 234567898765432 units in one turn it's something ridiculous. Maybe some units should have limited number of counterattack? And maybe though soldiers should have unlimited counterattack?

Also knight are too slow. They are ALWAYS behind your main force, ALWAYS! How they can be useful if they are afar from battle? FE is really fail if we are looking at them like strategic games.

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

as i said in another thread liek this, all knights need is one more movement

[General Banzai]

I completely disagree with Cageolas. Frequently offensive-oriented maps are exactly the "move unit 8 spaces, skip enemy phase" he decries later in his post, whereas defensive maps are often more difficult simply because of the restriction on movement. Incorporating some complicated and bullshit fatigue system sounds totally unfun. What's the point of having a unit who has such and such stat if you're not allowed to use that stat, and that stat is actually half of what it really is? And why would a guy who is riding a horse get fatigued by movement anyway? Unless this mechanic only applied to mounted units, in which case it would make opposite-sense, all it's going to do is be obnoxious as all your other units will be held back by the same asinine restrictions.

Maybe a better design strategy is not to give the player units like Seth and Sety. The Full Move Wolf Gang Kill Them All strat only works because those individual units are so stupidly strong. But of course there was a design philosophy in giving the player such strong units, as a crutch for less killed players. It just so happens that good players continue to use these amateur hour units and then complain that they trivialize the game

[dondon151]

if seth didn't exist, the first 8 chapters of FE8 would be a little slower, and then franz would stomp through the rest of the game.

in an LTC context, i'd argue that jagen-archetype units add a layer of complexity to the game. seth-stomping by itself is easy. seth-stomping while grinding artur's staff rank to A is much harder.