War Elephants!

[SpearOfLies]

13 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Who's bothered about adding realistic stuff?

From far I can see people who want war elephants with bow and lance with trample(which war horse do to).

[Jotari]

2 minutes ago, SpearOfLies said:

From far I can see people who want war elephants with bow and lance with trample(which war horse do to).

Because that's the most interesting thing the class could do (and the mot logical weapons they would have). The only realism that's come up is that realistically they just wouldn't exist because they're massively impractical.

Edited March 3, 2017 by Jotari

[Slumber]

Fire Emblem typically takes from Germanic European mythology and legends for inspiration. War elephants are typically a fantasy thing to indicate a fantasy analog to Persia or India, which really don't fit in middle/northern Europe. Plus, Lord of the Rings and the like are all high fantasy, and while Fire Emblem is also high fantasy, it's a bit more subdued.

Of course, Fates added in a fantasy Japan to fight fantasy Germanic Europe, but I think that had more to do with IS going "Hey, we're Japanese, we put some vague Japanese elements in our games before, why not just go whole hog with it?"

Plus, adding in more mounts is something I've never liked. Keep that whacky shit in Langrisser.

Edited March 3, 2017 by Slumber

[Jotari]

4 minutes ago, Slumber said:

Fire Emblem typically takes from Germanic European mythology and legends. War elephants are typically a fantasy thing to indicate a fantasy analog to Persia or India, which really don't fit in middle/northern Europe. Lord of the Rings and the like are all high fantasy, and while Fire Emblem is high fantasy, it's a bit more subdued.

Of course, Fates added in a fantasy Japan to fight fantasy Germanic Europe, but I think that had more to do with IS going "Hey, we're Japanese, we put some vague Japanese elements in our games before, why not just go whole hog with it?"

Plus, adding in more mounts is something I've never liked. Keep that whacky shit in Langrisser.

Well there was also the pretty mongolian inspired Sacae which proves they're not beyond expanding their inspiration at little bit. At least it seemed Mongolian to me. Definitely not European at any rate. I also get a pretty middle eastern feel from Isaac and the Lopt Sect in Jugdral. But that could be down to aesthetics I'm just not aware of.

Edited March 3, 2017 by Jotari

[Slumber]

Just now, Jotari said:

Well there was also the pretty mongolian inspired Sacae which proves they're not beyond expanding their inspiration at little bit. At least it seemed Mongolian to me. Definitely not European at any rate.

The Sacaens are an odd duck in the series, but the Mongolians get the benefit of being historically nomadic and having presence in middle-Europe. As far as I recall, the Persian empire never made it to Poland like the Mongols did.

[Randoman]

I'd actually be up for war elephants, though mostly because I find the idea of it strangely amusing. 

Why do I find it amusing? Well, it's mostly because of this one episode of this TV show Mr. Young, where through time travel a world is created where humanity is enslaved by elephants. It's actually quite comedic since elephants rob people of their teeth and make miniature pianos out of them, to get back at them for using their tusks for ivory.

[Azure Sen]

5 hours ago, Jotari said:

Well there was also the pretty mongolian inspired Sacae which proves they're not beyond expanding their inspiration at little bit. At least it seemed Mongolian to me. Definitely not European at any rate. I also get a pretty middle eastern feel from Isaac and the Lopt Sect in Jugdral. But that could be down to aesthetics I'm just not aware of.

The Sacae were based on the Scythians, a group of nomads who lived in both Europe and Asia; in Europe, they mostly resided in modern day Ukraine, Crimea and parts of Russia. (In fact, Sacae is one of the real-world names for them; it's a latinization of Saka, the Persian word for their people.) They Scythians were skilled at mounted combat, much like the Sacaeans.

[Dragrath]

It is an interesting idea however I worry that they wouldn't really have a unique role other than as a massively terrain impaired mounted unit weak to bows but able to rampage through infantry...

That aside  it is also worth considering how they would fair with the series current mounts as the aerial advantages would likely hinder the main advantage of height that Elephants have (Especially Wyverns seeing as some legends of them list Elephants as their preferred prey... Good luck getting an animal to march into battle against its predator :P )

[Jotari]

6 hours ago, Dragrath said:

It is an interesting idea however I worry that they wouldn't really have a unique role other than as a massively terrain impaired mounted unit weak to bows but able to rampage through infantry...

That aside  it is also worth considering how they would fair with the series current mounts as the aerial advantages would likely hinder the main advantage of height that Elephants have (Especially Wyverns seeing as some legends of them list Elephants as their preferred prey... Good luck getting an animal to march into battle against its predator :P )

Oh, what if they played up the terrain impairment by making them physically bigger units? Like instead of being positioned on one square, they're positioned on four. Meaning there's be certain paths and routes they literally cannot take that infantry can (though to compensate give them the ability to outright trample of forests).

[Dragrath]

Just now, Jotari said:

Oh, what if they played up the terrain impairment by making them physically bigger units? Like instead of being positioned on one square, they're positioned on four. Meaning there's be certain paths and routes they literally cannot take that infantry can (though to compensate give them the ability to outright trample of forests).

That could be interesting So from that I presume they could attack any unit in range of that 2 by 2? That could lead to some really interesting characteristics as the con would be that you could be attacked by far more units at once...

While your at it with the mechanic idea of larger than 1X1 units; that might be a good way of handling fully shifted Manaketes and the like as opposed to the wimpy morphs to attack only making them glorified mages with stat items at best...

Say a shift command where if there is enough space they could morph and gain 1-2 range and full stat buffs at the cost of being able to be swarmed thus you couldn't just throw them at the enemy randomly... (I think I'm liking the larger unit size  thing more than the war elephant lol)

But back to the elephants having them gain a unique ability to destroy terrain would be an interesting way to make them unique I could see it working on forest, pillars, fields etc. but they would suffer the inability to travel through 1x1 doors or ledge/mountain terrain 

What do you think about that? (I'm going by the assumption that the mentioned weapons bows/lances/or possibly magic would be their full arsenal assuming multiple class positions and what not

[Jotari]

4 minutes ago, Dragrath said:

That could be interesting So from that I presume they could attack any unit in range of that 2 by 2? That could lead to some really interesting characteristics as the con would be that you could be attacked by far more units at once...

While your at it with the mechanic idea of larger than 1X1 units; that might be a good way of handling fully shifted Manaketes and the like as opposed to the wimpy morphs to attack only making them glorified mages with stat items at best...

Say a shift command where if there is enough space they could morph and gain 1-2 range and full stat buffs at the cost of being able to be swarmed thus you couldn't just throw them at the enemy randomly... (I think I'm liking the larger unit size  thing more than the war elephant lol)

But back to the elephants having them gain a unique ability to destroy terrain would be an interesting way to make them unique I could see it working on forest, pillars, fields etc. but they would suffer the inability to travel through 1x1 doors or ledge/mountain terrain 

What do you think about that? (I'm going by the assumption that the mentioned weapons bows/lances/or possibly magic would be their full arsenal assuming multiple class positions and what not

Yeah that was generally what I was thinking. Have cliffs and mountains be their bane but make walls and forests be something they can outright destroy. You'd need to charge them through first to clear a path for your infantry but them being exposed at the front like that would leave them quite vulnerable to a lot of enemy attacks. OH and bring back dismounting or just outright ban them in indoor chapters because that would be ridiculous!

[Dragrath]

Just now, Jotari said:

Yeah that was generally what I was thinking. Have cliffs and mountains be their bane but make walls and forests be something they can outright destroy. You'd need to charge them through first to clear a path for your infantry but them being exposed at the front like that would leave them quite vulnerable to a lot of enemy attacks. OH and bring back dismounting or just outright ban them in indoor chapters because that would be ridiculous!

Yeah My thoughts on dismounting would probably be to make the mount a separate unit with most if not all mounts kept outdoors(but with none of the weapon changing ********)

That said rather than indoor outdoor distinction it probably should be a space distinction personally. For instance if an "indoor" map is sufficiently large enough to support huge monsters and or dragons :P (I can think of several) then it might be a bit of a "really" moment.

But yeah I could also see it being a "soft" limit based on the fact they simply couldn't go through the doors preventing them  from leaving the spawn(as the interior walls would be unbreakable ;) )

[Jotari]

If I was to have dismounting return then I'd make a skill that lets you ride mounts in doors. Best of both worlds.

[Dragrath]

13 hours ago, Jotari said:

If I was to have dismounting return then I'd make a skill that lets you ride mounts in doors. Best of both worlds.

Yeah gameplay wise that would probably be best I just thought it would be funny to see the game basically do a "oh you thought you could try and sneak a mount through the door? Lol nope you can bring the mount just good luck getting it inside :P