The next Fire Emblem story

[secondworld]

Not really. Its obvious why he did that. He wanted to challenge Greil, straight up. It makes perfect sense why he would go to Greil and ask for it.

It wasn't him fighting Greil that's the problem, it's the whole questioning part. His dialogue during the fight makes it clear that he doesn't know where the medallion is, if he did then why ask any questions about it at all if his only reason for fighting was to beat him.

[Radiant head]

He should know where it is. There was the memory scene where Sephiran decides Mist should keep it because she's unaffected by it, and Zelgius is literally right there.

[blah the Prussian]

Okay, here we go. I want, firstly, no supernatural stuff except for magic and mages whatsoever. No dragons, no cults, just a war of nations. Now what FE needs in order to be fresh is something revolutionary. I don't mean a new engine or whatever, I mean a story focused on a revolution. I want an FE set in an era with Napoleonic technology. In terms of good villains, the writers should look to the evil doers of real life, because real people tend to not feel unrealistic. Ashnard was, I felt, the closest recent FE has come to a realistic villain, in that he has a goal and sticks to it throughout the entire story. I want a utopian villain who is nonetheless pure evil. A villain like Maximilian Robespierre. Hell, the utopia could even be a dystopia; so long as the villain has motivation. The heroes, though, should never be pure good. I can't think of a single real life person with no flaws (if you say Gandhi I will go into a rant about how overrated Gandhi is.) Think how interesting a story it would be if the heroes were the princes and kings of normal FE, fighting a revolutionary demagogue? Probably the best written thing I have ever watched is Legend of the Galactic Heroes, and it does a great job of making no one perfect, not even Yang Wenli. If you think about it, FE could easily emulate LOGH. Just for he love of god no dragons.

[AnonymousSpeed]

My personal idea for a story?

This, obviously. Yay for promoting a several month old thread of mine. Still though, I do actually quite like this idea, and I think it's pretty close to what people here are asking. The protagonists are flawed, there's no clear good guy, it's about nations and political conflict instead of an evil cult, you know...that stuff. And if I could actually make it a game, you wouldn't even need go buy two versions.

Now, since we were talking about FE8's story and cults in all that, I have a pair of pennies to give in regards to the matter. Perhaps it's because of my religious background, but I myself don't mind demons and cults just being...evil. I'm okay with that, really, and at least from my perspective, not being good in any regard is kind of a trait of such things. They're evil because, well, they're demons. That's what they do. So, Fomortiis being evil and just evil is perfectly fine for me.

In fact, sometimes a villain who's simply evil is better. That's not to say they shouldn't be interesting, but, like, tons of iconic villains don't really have redeeming qualities, and yet people love them. Like, the Joker. He's just an evil, psychotic clown murderer. There's no reason for him being that way, he doesn't have any good in him at all, but he's the most famous villain in comic book history. Having a clear bad guy is okay, just don't pretend it's something else.

[blah the Prussian]

My personal idea for a story?This, obviously. Yay for promoting a several month old thread of mine. Still though, I do actually quite like this idea, and I think it's pretty close to what people here are asking. The protagonists are flawed, there's no clear good guy, it's about nations and political conflict instead of an evil cult, you know...that stuff. And if I could actually make it a game, you wouldn't even need go buy two versions.

Now, since we were talking about FE8's story and cults in all that, I have a pair of pennies to give in regards to the matter. Perhaps it's because of my religious background, but I myself don't mind demons and cults just being...evil. I'm okay with that, really, and at least from my perspective, not being good in any regard is kind of a trait of such things. They're evil because, well, they're demons. That's what they do. So, Fomortiis being evil and just evil is perfectly fine for me.

In fact, sometimes a villain who's simply evil is better. That's not to say they shouldn't be interesting, but, like, tons of iconic villains don't really have redeeming qualities, and yet people love them. Like, the Joker. He's just an evil, psychotic clown murderer. There's no reason for him being that way, he doesn't have any good in him at all, but he's the most famous villain in comic book history. Having a clear bad guy is okay, just don't pretend it's something else.

That sounds quite interesting, although maybe Prince Shaka is a bit too directly referencing a certain Zulu king. However, while it is okay to be pure evil, being evil for evils sake doesn't work in a political setting. For a villain to be threatening in anything dealing with war, they need to have followers, and being a sociopath prevents that. Even insane monarchs were often quickly overthrown. The reason why the Joker works is that he doesn't need minions to pose a threat, while people like Ashnard or real world villains like Hitler obviously did. No matter how purely evil a villain is, they need to appeal to someone. For example, no matter how disgusting it is, you can see how Ashnard's social Darwinism would appeal to peasants treated like slaves merely because of their birth. The villain needs to have a realistic motivation.

[AnonymousSpeed]

That sounds quite interesting, although maybe Prince Shaka is a bit too directly referencing a certain Zulu king.

Most likely...put at this point it's sort of already cemented in my mind as being that way, so...meh.

However, while it is okay to be pure evil, being evil for evils sake doesn't work in a political setting.

That is something I will generally agree with, so, in hindsight, the Joker might not be the best example.

For a villain to be threatening in anything dealing with war, they need to have followers, and being a sociopath prevents that. Even insane monarchs were often quickly overthrown. The reason why the Joker works is that he doesn't need minions to pose a threat, while people like Ashnard or real world villains like Hitler obviously did. No matter how purely evil a villain is, they need to appeal to someone. For example, no matter how disgusting it is, you can see how Ashnard's social Darwinism would appeal to peasants treated like slaves merely because of their birth. The villain needs to have a realistic motivation.

This, however, I do kinda disagree with. Not because the idea that a villain in a Fire Emblem game needs minions, because, well, they do, but because the Joker does have minions. As crazy and violent as he is, the Joker would be far less threatening if he didn't have thugs under him, which he does. Provided, having henchmen and being able to control an army are a different thing, but through things like manipulation and intimidation could achieve that end. Also, many crazy rulers, either out of loyalty, remaining out of the public eye or flat out fear, have remained in power enough to cover the events of a Fire Emblem game.

I mean...a villain does need a motivation though, even a villain who's actions are very clearly wrong and treated as such does actually need a reason to do them. Whether they be a nationalist willing to go inhumane lengths to secure power and glory for their country, or people who just want power for themselves, you are right in that they do need motives. When we say Black and White versus Grey, I see the former as the villain being a clear bad guy and the heroes the clear good guy, even if the villain has a reason which might even be understandable or relatable. Their actions speak louder than their reasons for them, kind of.

Since we're bringing up real like villains, there is quite a bit of potential in them for inspiration...as utterly horrible as that sounds. Like, for instance, Joseph Stalin might have been a terrible, paranoid dictator who had tons of people killed, but no matter what, he never wanted his mother to find out about it. There's something oddly human about, no matter how powerful and heartless you are, not wanting to upset your parents. A reason I think might work better for an overarching plot is Japan and Italy. As I recall, these two nations fought with the allies in the first World War, contributing more men and money than the Americans, and at the end...kinda got nothing. Neither really gained land or a notable voice in the League of Nations, and basically felt they helped the allied cause for no benefit. So, come the second world war, they sorta...changed sides. Really, the last century has had a lot of political intrigue in it. I mean, I assume most have, I just know more about this last one because...it was more recent.

[blah the Prussian]

You are spot on about Italy, however Japan pretty much got what it was promised. It turned against the Entente because it's military got the idea that all of Asia should be ruled by a Pan Asian state led by Japan. That's the kind of utopian vision we've both been talking about.

[Alazen]

Using the Joker really doesn't help since corporate owned superhero comics are contrived by design. A more ''believable'' Gotham would have the Joker either dead or stuck in a maximum security prison instead of getting sent to Arkham over and over.

Edited November 16, 2015 by Alazen

[AnonymousSpeed]

You are spot on about Italy, however Japan pretty much got what it was promised. It turned against the Entente because it's military got the idea that all of Asia should be ruled by a Pan Asian state led by Japan. That's the kind of utopian vision we've both been talking about.

Ah, I see...well, good to learn that. Personally, though, looking at it...I kind of like the idea of seeing 'Italy' being the antagonist more, so, if you ask me, I'd like to see a Fire Emblem game were you fight Benito Mussolini. I mean, not actually Benito Mussolini, but you get the idea...

Using the Joker really doesn't help since corporate owned superhero comics are contrived by design. A more ''believable'' Gotham would have the Joker either dead or stuck in a maximum security prison instead of getting sent to Arkham over and over.

Well, fiction itself is usually inherently contrived, it's a little unfair to call comics out specifically, even if they are a bit more contrived than other mediums most of the time. I mean...that is very true though, but, see, over the years, writers have realized this and tried to incorporate that into the mythos and situation of the Batman comics. A lot of the time, very interesting things originate as solutions to problems in stories.

[Alazen]

I've seen attempts by writing teams to address issues like ''How is the Joker still alive?''. By large, they haven't really done a good job at doing so without drawing attention to how contrived the state of affairs in the world is. If Gotham really had a believably corrupt police force, then you can be sure that a shoddy approach to the insanity defense (which not every state includes) or whatever wouldn't stop one from shooting the Joker. Let alone if Gotham had a little something called ''stand-your-ground''.

Actually, the notion of Batman having a ''no-kill'' rule is silly considering the force he uses against enemies. You expect me to believe a man built like Bruce who goes around beating the stuffing out of criminals as he plays vigilante has NEVER killed a man in a fight?

Honestly, from my experience the best works that focus on superheroes are either one or more of the following:

A. Write something that at heart isn't really a superhero story and introduce the trappings of one as fittingly as possible. Batman The Animated Series does this through being done in the style of past crime noir stories.

B. Embrace how silly superheroes or elements of them are.

C. Point out how silly, contrived, or how unbelievable superheroes or elements of them are. Alan Moore's Watchmen does this. So does The Incredibles.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Alazen

[blah the Prussian]

Ah, I see...well, good to learn that. Personally, though, looking at it...I kind of like the idea of seeing 'Italy' being the antagonist more, so, if you ask me, I'd like to see a Fire Emblem game were you fight Benito Mussolini. I mean, not actually Benito Mussolini, but you get the idea...

You kind of did fight Mussolini with Excellus.

[AnonymousSpeed]

You kind of did fight Mussolini with Excellus.

...okay, how about a good story where you fight Mussolini?

[blah the Prussian]

...okay, how about a good story where you fight Mussolini?

I was joking, but yeah. Mussolini's shtick in real life was that he talked big but relied on uncle Dolfy to back him up. I guess the big thing to think about is how much of a let down he would be if WWII was fiction. He's the creator of Fascism, come on! He should be more threatening! Maybe the Mussolini like character could appear in the Prologue and burn down the lord's castle or whatever, and then when the Lord fights him later he goes down easily. If he was the leader of a nation, the closest analogue would probably be Shagall, in FE4. Obviously he wouldn't be the main villain, but I suppose he could go through a character arc of how far he has fallen; Mussolini ended up as just another Petain or Quisling for Hitler's empire, his New Roman Empire just another satellite of the Third Reich. For the love of god, though, don't make Hitler some cult leader or dark dragon!

[AnonymousSpeed]

I was joking, but yeah. Mussolini's shtick in real life was that he talked big but relied on uncle Dolfy to back him up. I guess the big thing to think about is how much of a let down he would be if WWII was fiction. He's the creator of Fascism, come on! He should be more threatening! Maybe the Mussolini like character could appear in the Prologue and burn down the lord's castle or whatever, and then when the Lord fights him later he goes down easily.

Eh, I don't know, Benny did actually manage to conquer Ethiopia, which...you know, that's something other European countries can't claim to have done. Of course, Italy still wasn't the powerhouse of World War 2, but we're not remaking the second world war. So, there really is nothing saying we couldn't have a more Benito-inspired character as the main antagonist. You know, someone of common birth in a country with a proud history, but after a recent war didn't exactly get much. And, despite the origins of the antagonist, they managed to reach an influential position, topple the active government and establish a state based on his own ideals, and then starts a war to get the things his country was promised. There's at least some potential there.

Obviously he wouldn't be the main villain, but I suppose he could go through a character arc of how far he has fallen; Mussolini ended up as just another Petain or Quisling for Hitler's empire, his New Roman Empire just another satellite of the Third Reich.

That...is also a very interesting angle though...

For the love of god, though, don't make Hitler some cult leader or dark dragon!

I mean, to be fair, nazis aren't exactly strangers to being associated with the occult. Personally though, I think it would be cooler to fight an expy of Alexander the Great who was an actual demigod, if we were going that route. Something with a lot of Greek influences could be interesting...right? I mean, it's not a cult leader, at least.

[Locke087]

On other parts of the forum I've not been silent about my opinion of Fire Emblem's writing in general: I consider it mediocre at best and dreadful at worst. Many elements of a well-told game narrative are often either lacking or completely missing, which I think is a shame, because I love the gameplay and believe there is potential to make a story as good as Suikoden II, a game with many elements similar to Fire Emblem, provided it was handled by capable writers.

My you are picky, oh and Fire Emblem 4 & 7 & 9 (and 8 while not amazing is still great) say hello (though 6, 10, 11, and 13 (though if it stopped after the first part it's story could have been good) do all have very very bad writing)

(i can and did http://serenesforest.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=58047&hl= write essays (i know never finished but that is my bad for being lazy not the games) about these games so they must be pretty good...)

I personally only have a few suggestions. One of these would be to entirely scrap the playable character - I know I said I didn't want posts that just listed content they wished to have removed, but bear with me. To me, player avatars are very rarely done right. I've seen it done correctly in Knights of the Old Republic II: The Sith Lords, but that's about the only time I can think of where a self-insert really improved the narrative in ways a normal protagonist could not due to the nature of the game. The choices were always yours, you were forced to think hard about pretty much every major event and the game never treated you as a sue, something that is sadly very common with avatars.

Agree , though FE 7 Mark actually works really wells allows the player personal investment without having a robin like character

Just removing the self-insert doesn't suddenly fix all the problems, naturally. In the Tellius series people inexplicably fell in love with Ike and the narrative went out of its way to show us what an utter badass he is, and too many lords in the series are way too similar. However, like I've said, I think it's much easier to portray a balanced narrative well without a self-insert involved. As long as they don't make the new protagonist a goody two-shoe, an edgy teenager or as interesting as a piece of wet cardboard, it's an improvement.

In 10 this is true but in 9 Ike is a really well developed character though 10 had to come and make a boring cuttout badass, seriously sometimes I wonder if IS just up and fires their writers after every game of cause there is no way the same person who wrote 9 wrote 10 and so on for every game....

Secondly, I wish to see more political conflicts. The era in which Fire Emblem takes place lends itself well to manipulation, backstabbing, schemes, plots, family feuds and other such interesting elements. The key here is not only to make it a bit harder to see who is right and who is wrong, but also to not make it needlessly convoluted. If we take another well-written, exciting game with a lot going for it (also called "the best game no one ever played"), Ghost Trick, there are plenty of things going on at once, such as keeping people from dying, a time limit, finding out the identity of the protagonist, several kinds of supernatural elements and a colorful cast of characters - yet it never gets confusing. There's never an abundance of details to keep in mind, nor lame plot twists in an attempt to shock the player - the events unfold naturally, as the many mysteries progressively get clearer. - It is, more or less, the opposite of a game like Persona 3, but I won't go into detail there, since the post is already long enough.

????????? what Fire Emblem doesn't have political conflict as a big part of it plot................. I mean 4 is the most fixed on the subject and it's story is good but.... I get don't this comment.... most of not all the Fire Emblem have these elements in them and it not what make them good, it is all about how you do it. ie. The political conflict in 10 actually undermines it's plot with bad villians and bad plot devices like the blood pact, or it could be like 4 and actually execute it well.

overall Fire Emblem could use improvement, but I think that if they actually keep and work with there writers, not just I don't know, having some random anime creator write you in story so they can butcher it in post, they could make better games... no but seriously after playing all the fire emblem again back to back it became really clear that IS has no in house writers they just hire new one for every new game (the only games that could possibly be written by the same person is 7 and 8 as they are written similarly) which make sense with Nintendos active policy of gameplay first story second (this is a real thing at Nintendo it is their policy to make story a afterthought) sadly, though some of the best story's in games have come from Nintendo (Mother 3, Majora's Mask, FE 4, 7, and 9) and some that are still they tend have great ones as well (Paper Mario 1-3, the rest of the 3d Zelda's, FE 8, and Earthbound, Xenoblade, and some others) for the most part though Nintendo really does think it matters, that fact the stories in 4, 7, and 9 are as good as they are is amazing, and Majora's Mask and Mother 3 being some of best stories ever told is nothing short of a miracle, So I praise Nintendo every time they start heading the right direction, cause we all know story does not mean much to them, don't believe me, FE 10 is living proof it being nothing more though a bad FE 9 fan fiction(Majora's Mask 3ds as well, but that was greezo not nintendo).

TLDR: IS (as Skyward Sword and Xenoblade are there most resent great stories) need to take notes from Zelda Team and Monolith Soft and actually write a good story for the first time since Super Paper Mario.

[Alazen]

Seeing the current direction of the series really makes Gaiden all the more impressive.

Neither of the nations were ''innocent and did nothing wrong''. The gods were figures of conflicting ideals who both hindered mankind's development. Duma wasn't even the one behind it all.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Alazen

[secondworld]

Seeing the current direction of the series really makes Gaiden all the more impressive.

Neither of the nations were ''innocent and did nothing wrong''. The gods were figures of conflicting ideals who both hindered mankind's development. Duma wasn't even the one behind it all.

At the same time the story was kind of non-existent for most of the game, and it featured one of the worst plot twists in the series and just in general really in the reveal of Rudolf's motivations.

[-Cynthia-]

I was joking, but yeah. Mussolini's shtick in real life was that he talked big but relied on uncle Dolfy to back him up. I guess the big thing to think about is how much of a let down he would be if WWII was fiction. He's the creator of Fascism, come on! He should be more threatening! Maybe the Mussolini like character could appear in the Prologue and burn down the lord's castle or whatever, and then when the Lord fights him later he goes down easily. If he was the leader of a nation, the closest analogue would probably be Shagall, in FE4. Obviously he wouldn't be the main villain, but I suppose he could go through a character arc of how far he has fallen; Mussolini ended up as just another Petain or Quisling for Hitler's empire, his New Roman Empire just another satellite of the Third Reich. For the love of god, though, don't make Hitler some cult leader or dark dragon!

Jiol is kinda like this actually. Gra's betrayal is a big deal in the Prologue, but the Gra chapter later is just business as usual and Jiol's just another general boss.

[Alazen]

At the same time the story was kind of non-existent for most of the game, and it featured one of the worst plot twists in the series and just in general really in the reveal of Rudolf's motivations.

Please keep in mind Gaiden is a NES video game. I would say that the problems you listed are more of an issue of technological limitations.

And really, with Gaiden's technological limitations in mind what's Fates' excuse?

Edited November 20, 2015 by Alazen

[blah the Prussian]

Jiol is kinda like this actually. Gra's betrayal is a big deal in the Prologue, but the Gra chapter later is just business as usual and Jiol's just another general boss.

The problem with Jiol was that he was handled too anticlimactically. Just because he goes down easily to the heroes doesn't mean there shouldn't be a buildup to fighting him.

[The DanMan]

Seeing the current direction of the series really makes Gaiden all the more impressive.

Neither of the nations were ''innocent and did nothing wrong''. The gods were figures of conflicting ideals who both hindered mankind's development. Duma wasn't even the one behind it all.

Gaiden really seems like the anti-Fates.

It did a lot of things right, but the core game is dated and leaves much to be desired.

With Fates, the core gameplay is all well and good; it's mostly everything else that doesn't hold up.

[Rapier]

Seeing the current direction of the series really makes Gaiden all the more impressive.

Neither of the nations were ''innocent and did nothing wrong''. The gods were figures of conflicting ideals who both hindered mankind's development. Duma wasn't even the one behind it all.

Most of the time, issues with FE's story rise from the writing itself (or rather, with the plot proggression) and not from the story/worldbuilding (that is left with unexplored potential), like in FE10, 13 and arguably 14 (haven't played it yet, but it seems to be the case).

Edited November 20, 2015 by Rapier

[AnonymousSpeed]

On the note of Gaiden...I mean, I haven't played it, but it's an NES game. I think a good thing to remember is that what you can do on an NES is not what you wanted to do on an NES game, and...I mean, honestly I shouldn't say much more about a game I haven't even seen a full lets play of. I mean, from what David said these traits we desire don't disguise numerous other issues, so...yeah.

My you are picky, oh and Fire Emblem 4 & 7 & 9 (and 8 while not amazing is still great) say hello

I'd argue seven's plot is actually...kinda weak. I mean, it's presented well, but when you remove the fluff, the actual plot largely boils down to going from point A to point B and having random skirmishes along the way. I think Lyn's mode personifies the issues with FE7's plot perfectly: Everything is under used (when no one dies seems like a good time to have other characters actually be important, for instance, and Lyn is never important after this, nor even that important in it), it's really forced and thin, is unable to work within the confines of being FE6's prequel, and pretty much the entire section of the game is going to Caelin, with bandits and Black Fang getting in your way. It's at most four chapters of plot, counting the prologue, spread over ten chapters. At no point does the goal change, and that's just a problem which permeates the FE7 in general.

Agree , though FE 7 Mark actually works really wells allows the player personal investment without having a robin like character

I, ever the one to hate on FE7's plot, once again disagree. Very rarely is the tactician ever mentioned or present or acknowledged in anyway, and when it does happen it's usually a bit jarring and personally, I feel it takes you out of the experience. It feels like the game is occasionally breaking the forth wall, especially given how little about the tactician there actually is to get invested in, given, well...they don't do a lot.

Okay, that's enough being mean about FE7, sorry if that got tiring.

????????? what Fire Emblem doesn't have political conflict as a big part of it plot................. I mean 4 is the most fixed on the subject and it's story is good but.... I get don't this comment.... most of not all the Fire Emblem have these elements in them and it not what make them good, it is all about how you do it. ie. The political conflict in 10 actually undermines it's plot with bad villians and bad plot devices like the blood pact, or it could be like 4 and actually execute it well.

But, it does involve conflicts between nations and leaders of nation, yes? Doesn't that mean it really is about political conflict? I mean, it's not necessarily done well very often, as we've said, but usually it does fall under the category of being political. Besides, people clamor for games to innovate, so in an RPG (which generally has a fair bit of story), is there something wrong with innovating with the story? You are right, pretty much every FE game centers around demons, dragons, or build up to such, but they aren't inherent to the gameplay, so...I mean, what's wrong with a little experimentation? Especially given how the 'human' aspects of Fire Emblem are one of its bigger draws.

no but seriously after playing all the fire emblem again back to back it became really clear that IS has no in house writers they just hire new one for every new game (the only games that could possibly be written by the same person is 7 and 8 as they are written similarly) which make sense with Nintendos active policy of gameplay first story second (this is a real thing at Nintendo it is their policy to make story a afterthought) sadly

Well...I mean, I would argue against that being sad but I've spent a lot of words complaining about the story in Fire Emblem games. I will say I still enjoy FE7, but not for its story, but rather the gameplay. However, as a game which has story as a pretty big part of it, and the series recently having taken an apparent turn of making it more important, I see nothing wrong with desiring to improve it. I suppose none of us do, that's why we're posting here and all, but, you know, I would have bought and enjoyed Fates had I decided not to buy it for moral reasons. I'd just have whined about the story.

Gaiden really seems like the anti-Fates.

It did a lot of things right, but the core game is dated and leaves much to be desired.

With Fates, the core gameplay is all well and good; it's mostly everything else that doesn't hold up.

You know, because of this. I have heard the gameplay in Fates is really good, so I would give it that much. But it's much easier to know what a story is for a game you've only heard people talk about than what the gameplay is like for a game you've only heard people talk about.

[blah the Prussian]

FE 10's plot was disappointing because there was so much they could have done with it that they didn't do. For example, I think it would be far more interesting if Pelleas actually was evil. Think about it. The Daein Liberation Army is almost entirely made up of former soldiers of Ashnard. Further, the people of Daein still feel resentment towards Ike, and many of them still express hate for Laguz. What if by liberating Daein, Micaiah unleashed a monster on the world? I still maintain that liberating Daein was absolutely not the right thing to do. And then, they portray the Crimeans who are scared by this as evil, when in fact they have every right not just to hate Daein, but to demand reparations. Ooh, don't forget the scene where the Dawn Brigade liberate the equivalent of the Waffen SS! Jarod was a dick, sure, but the solution isn't to give Daein independence in its un reformed state, it's to put a Governor General in charge who isn't a corrupt asshole.

[AnonymousSpeed]

...yeah, that's actually a great point. I mean, I never liked Micaiah anyway, and that does sense. I remember you once said that Tellius was basically a big remake of the second world war, with Daein as Germany. The difference, of course, being that Germany was split into east and west and partly controlled by the allies instead of just Russia, was liberated after forty years instead of three, and they had a legitimate reason not to make them pay for things. That being that making Germany pay for things last time broke their economy so hard the second world war happened. Oh, and their leader wasn't Micaiah, there's that too.