Diverse Chapter Objectives

[Anacybele]

Oh, I'm all for more diverse chapter objectives, and even chapters that have more than one in a single map like RD sorta did in that one chapter where you had to have both Ike and Ranulf reach certain spots to finish.

I'm thinking that could be taken a bit further though, where one objective could be, say, rescue a hostage, and the other is seize. That'd add to the strategy and difficulty.

I've also come up with some unique objectives of my own for my fic, one of which is "Close the Floodgate." You have to get the army over to the gate, get rid of the boss, and close that gate before your limited number of turns run out (or else a bunch of enemy reinforcements come in on the river and it's GAME OVER).

I'd also like some chapters divided into phases again like in PoR (just not as annoying as in that case) and I believe RD had at least one chapter like this too. Except if the army is split into different groups/separated like in RD, you get to control different groups in each phase. This would've worked great in part 4 of RD. Everybody would get use in each chapter instead of every couple of chapters and there would be more room for units like the weak DB to grow.

[NekoKnight]

That's why I'd like to see Bonus EXP make a return. It's a really great way of penalising or rewarding the player in a way that's significant, but not too significant. While the idea of taking out your enemies supplies and having it effect later chapters seems cool in concept, in practise I think it would serve to either make the final chapters even easier than they tend to be in a lot of games or just annoyingly difficult due to over inflated stats if it so happens that you didn't succeeded with some seemingly optional side content. I'd rather something like that lead to an outright different chapter down the line as armies find themselves in different positions with different advantages but still similarily balanced maps.

I meant to imply it would effect a single, subsequent chapter, not all chapters thereafter. Alternate chapters would also be an option but it would take more development time than just altering the strength of enemies on a preexisting map. BEXP would be great for optional objectives, though.

I've also come up with some unique objectives of my own for my fic, one of which is "Close the Floodgate." You have to get the army over to the gate, get rid of the boss, and close that gate before your limited number of turns run out (or else a bunch of enemy reinforcements come in on the river and it's GAME OVER).

Rather than an instant game over, I'd prefer a switching of priorities. After the enemy reinforcements show up, the victory condition becomes Escape with it being up to the player how long they want to stick it out before getting out of there.

[Anacybele]

Rather than an instant game over, I'd prefer a switching of priorities. After the enemy reinforcements show up, the victory condition becomes Escape with it being up to the player how long they want to stick it out before getting out of there.

Thing is, these aren't that kind of reinforcements, it's just an added scene to the limited turn count dropping to zero to make the lost battle really look like a loss and dooming of your army. It goes like this: you and your army have, say, ten turns to get to the flood gate and close it. If you don't do it in ten turns, the game ends, and a short scene occurs showing a few boats carrying tons of soldiers on the river. This scene then fades into the game over screen.

That being said, a switching of priorities isn't a bad idea so long as it isn't overdone. It's unrealistic for an army to fail at a bunch of objectives, and yet not automatically lose the battles due to failing them. There can be some occasions where they still have a chance to win, but there also should be others where they completely screw themselves over if they can't do one objective. People DO totally fail sometimes, even in war.

Edited January 9, 2017 by Anacybele

[Jotari]

I meant to imply it would effect a single, subsequent chapter, not all chapters thereafter. Alternate chapters would also be an option but it would take more development time than just altering the strength of enemies on a preexisting map. BEXP would be great for optional objectives, though.

Yeah I was taking your statement as referring to just one or two chapters. I still just don't think it would be a good feature for the sake of gameplay. Certainly easy to do but like I said before, you'd either be penalizing the player too heavily or rewarding them too much by doing something like that. Maybe it would work for a single group of enemies guarding an optional objective like an S ranked weapon though.

[Roflolxp54]

One problem with certain maps with non-rout objectives is that you can still (and should, for exp) clear the map by killing every enemy. I think IS should try making more maps where it isn't possible or recommended to kill all the enemies because they are either too numerous or too powerful. Defend and Escape are obvious candidates but they could do other things like Raid (kill/destroy select targets to clear the map) or Rescue (sneak into a place to save a captured ally). Here are some basic scenario pitches:

-The enemy has your castle under siege with a large force so you must sneak out and destroy their supplies so they starve or retreat.

-Soldiers/citizens from your country were forcefully conscripted into the enemy army. Your goal is to avoid fighting them and assassinate the enemy general

-The main enemy force is too large to engage directly but by taking advantage of fog-of-war you can ambush them and capture their commander (to be used as a hostage later).

Edit: It would also be neat if later maps were effected by how well you cleared a prior map. For example, if you raided more of the enemy supplies, the enemies in the later map would have worse equipment or lower stats.

FE1/11 as well as 3/12 did maps that involved prisoners/hostages to rescue if you want more units joining the roster.

FE3/12 also had a map in which a unit only joins and stays as a permanent recruit as long as certain units on the map aren't harmed. Said unit is also required to recruit a related unit nearby on the map. In FE12, both units become enemies again should those certain units get killed after you recruited those 2.

The same game also had a lengthy fetch quest that spans for several maps that would require you to target/recruit certain enemy units, loot certain treasure chests, and visit certain villages if you want to recruit a certain unit as well as achieve the good ending.

[geraq]

1- The enemy has your castle under siege with a large force so you must sneak out and destroy their supplies so they starve or retreat.

2- Soldiers/citizens from your country were forcefully conscripted into the enemy army. Your goal is to avoid fighting them and assassinate the enemy general

3- The main enemy force is too large to engage directly but by taking advantage of fog-of-war you can ambush them and capture their commander (to be used as a hostage later).

Edit: It would also be neat if later maps were effected by how well you cleared a prior map. For example, if you raided more of the enemy supplies, the enemies in the later map would have worse equipment or lower stats.

1 - sounds like FE10 chapter 3-3, in which you have to set the supplies crates on fire on a turn limit count. Awesome map.

2 - sounds like Mystery of the Emblem chapter 17, in which you have to avoid killing Gra soldiers in order to recruit Sheema. Another cool idea.

3 - sounds like Defeat Boss missions, even if optional (Ludveck's case in FE10 chapter 2-E) or mandatory (Izuka's case in FE10 chapter 4-5). Combined with the previous one, could lead to interesting and challenging maps, and certainly different from regular missions.

I loved FE10 variety in objectives. I found the Defense maps incredibly fun and exciting (even the DB defense maps in Part 3), and I might be in the minority here but I liked very much the low unit count maps like 1-9, 2-P, 2-1, 2-2 and 3-9. Those maps felt very different from traditional maps, and I enjoyed them a lot. Even if I don't like defending NPCs, 3-10 was amazing and I'd like to have more maps like that. I'm not a big fan of Arrive and Escape maps but I don't mind to have more of them either.

How about having multiple sequential objectives, like in GoldenEye? For example, how about having to resist a number of turns until reinforcements arrive, and then charge into the enemy army and defeat the boss. Honestly, I hoped 2-E would be like that, with an AND of the winning conditions instead of an OR.

[NekoKnight]

How about having multiple sequential objectives, like in GoldenEye? For example, how about having to resist a number of turns until reinforcements arrive, and then charge into the enemy army and defeat the boss. Honestly, I hoped 2-E would be like that, with an AND of the winning conditions instead of an OR.

That would be pretty cool. I don't think ALL chapters need to be so multilayered but a few maps with evolving conditions would be welcome.

Edited January 10, 2017 by NekoKnight

[Augestein]

I don't think the chapter objectives necessarily need to be different. I think the sub-objectives in the map need to remain diverse. I really miss having to reach towns before stupid brigands destroyed them. Or reaching chest before thieves got to them (now they just have chest there, and you can pretty much get them at your own pace). Also, having to figure out how to recruit enemy units that were in a sea of enemies without obliterating them was also fun. These little things have slowly filtered out of Fire Emblem. They should come back.

Like let's use an example, Seize objectives aren't much different from "defeat boss." The only difference is that your lord needs to be next to the seize point, and even THAT isn't a thing anymore, so really there's absolutely no difference between them for the most part. How the map plays out is what matters. I did like RD playing around with reinforcements on a defeat boss map where the boss RUNS from you for instance, that made it completely different from the standard "boss sits idle in one spot and waits for everyone to kill you." Having chapters where you had to stop enemies from taking your throne was also cool in 7. Things like that should come back.

Heck, Death or Glory played around with "defeat boss" by having a chapter where you were on a psuedo-timer based on how the green units were fairing. You could help them to give yourself more time, or you could just rush to victory. Stuff like that helps to make a chapter seem a bit more diverse without changing the main objectives.

[geraq]

I don't think the chapter objectives necessarily need to be different. I think the sub-objectives in the map need to remain diverse. I really miss having to reach towns before stupid brigands destroyed them. Or reaching chest before thieves got to them (now they just have chest there, and you can pretty much get them at your own pace). Also, having to figure out how to recruit enemy units that were in a sea of enemies without obliterating them was also fun. These little things have slowly filtered out of Fire Emblem. They should come back.

I always found bandits and thieves annoying so I'm actually glad it is not so prevalent anymore. It was particularly egregious in FE4 as it took forever to reach a given town. I agree with the last point, mostly, although I remember that trying to talk to Eltshan without having him kill someone with Mistoltin wasn't that much fun.

Heck, Death or Glory played around with "defeat boss" by having a chapter where you were on a psuedo-timer based on how the green units were fairing. You could help them to give yourself more time, or you could just rush to victory. Stuff like that helps to make a chapter seem a bit more diverse without changing the main objectives.

I like this idea, it is like that chapter in PoR in which Geoffrey is defending Castle Delbray, or the map in RD part 1 when you meet Tauroneo, Zihark and Jill.

[CappnRob]

I'd love to see some hybridized objectives myself, like combine Routing or Seizing with a hard or soft turn limit. You have to defeat the enemy within a certain amount of time or else reinforcements arrive and start bearing down on your ass, give things a sense of tension and drama.

I'd also love to see FE4 style multi-castles/thrones return and expanded on, as many have posted already. FE4 style villages where they don't immediately burn down the second a brigand breathes on them would also be nice, as someone was mentioning the decline of enemy thieves in the series.

Battle Experiece was also a great side reward for secondary objectives: someone mentioned conscripts serving as fodder and that's been around since FE3 iirc. Sheema wouldn't join Marth if you killed any of her soldiers (which were conscripted by the enemy to serve alongside them, they're all level 1 compared to main enemy force's like level 10+ soldiers). FE9 had the vigilantes in the port escape mission where you recruit Zihark, and then the Laguz Renegades in the desert level (although avoiding killing them is a lot harder and the game doesn't quite so make it clear it might be better to spare them), and of course the hostage priests near the end of the game.

[Augestein]

I always found bandits and thieves annoying so I'm actually glad it is not so prevalent anymore. It was particularly egregious in FE4 as it took forever to reach a given town. I agree with the last point, mostly, although I remember that trying to talk to Eltshan without having him kill someone with Mistoltin wasn't that much fun.

Well Fire Emblem is just a "different" game. Let's just leave that one out of it. It was poorly done there. :D