Would you like to see the Capture/Kidnap mechanic from Fate return?

[ciphertul]

I personally would like to see it return, I just like the idea of “persuading” a generic mook to team up with me.  

[Mattos313]

Yeah, I think capture is pretty cool. It makes generics seem more like real people (With actual names and unique attributes) that can actually change allegiances given the right circumstances. Offering a way for the player to spare enemies and just imprison them rather than killing everything without a second thought is also interesting.

Would kind of like to see them flesh Capturing out properly in future games in order to make sparing and imprisoning enemies a core mechanic of the game (Maybe even keeping them as hostages or selling them back home for money, though I'm not sure if Fire Emblem would go that far).

I'd even be OK with Thracia capture returning, though you'd have to place some limitations on that I feel. 

I always thought figuring out how to get enemies into capture range makes for a pretty cool challenge in terms of gameplay for both Fates and FE5. Makes you think about HOW you deal with enemies rather than just the usual "destroy everything with your strongest guy", so yeah, I'd love more of it

Edited April 21, 2021 by Mattos313

[ciphertul]

I thought it was kinda fun to think up little back stories for them too, like I captured a Lv 2 Maid who had a D rank in staffs but a B rank in daggers. I couldn’t tell if she was an ex-assassin trying to fix her life or if she was just under cover.

Edited April 21, 2021 by ciphertul

[Yexin]

no, unless it's something you need to do in order to survive, just like in Thracia

Edited April 21, 2021 by Yexin

[Eltosian Kadath]

Kinda, the Fates capture mechanic was only really interesting in Conquest, where weird, useful, and difficult to get skill combination came on enemy units. If another FE had a similar sensibility I think I would want it to return, but otherwise I wouldn't bother with it...

[Shadow Mir]

H-e-two hockey sticks no. Especially when it's tied to losers like it was in Fates.

[Hasechi]

@Yexin In Thracia Russia, enemies capture you!

 

[Samz707]

If they do, it would be interesting if they account for capturing specific units again.

Like capturing some royal brat who was made commander of a group of soldiers gets you a big ransom pay-out or something. (and maybe he shows up again later.)

 

[lenticular]

Not if it looks like it did in Fates, and probably not at all. There are three main problems that I have with it.

1. Having it tied to specific characters and their personal skill. If you don't want to use those characters or if they're dead (or not recruited or otherwise unavailable) then that completely disables the mechanic. And it also makes those characters worse than they otherwise would be, since whenever you aren't capturing, they effectively don't have a personal at all.
2. Captured characters not being fully realised. By which I mean a full set of supports, their own personal, etc. Without all the trimmings, captured characters feel flat. With the exception of the few capturables with interesting skill combinations, you're generally just getting inferior versions of what you already have. Which sounds like it might be useful as a way to pick up replacement units in a struggling ironman, but see point 1. It can't even be reliably used for that since the only character who can capture might be dead.
3. Story concerns. It often just doesn't make any storyline sense. We capture someone from the opposing army, imprison them, and then they say "sure, I'll fight alongside you now" so we let them out and completely trust them to help us invade their home territory and kill their royal family? And don't ever stop to think that maybe they were just telling us what we wanted to hear so they could either betray us or just escape? Are we complete idiots?

If I had to design a capture system that I wouldn't hate, I'd start off by having it tied to a class skill rather than a personal skill so that it isn't tied to specific individuals. Then I'd make it so you could only capture named enemies, not generics. Everyone you can recruit by capturing would be a fully realised character with a personality, supports, a personal skill, etc. For most of them, capturing would be one option and not the only way to recruit them. For instance, if there's an enemy character that is normally recruited by talking to them with a specific allied character, you might be able to capture them with a different unit, then recruit them after the battle. A few could be recruited exclusively via capture, though. Give them enough personality and backstory to make it believable that they would switch sides and that we have reason to trust them. Also make it so that capturing can give different results other than just recruitment. Some you might be able to ransom, some you might interrogate for intelligence, some you might be able to take their equipment, etc.

I still wouldn't be super thrilled with capture even if they did all of that, but I'd be much more interested in it than I am in the Fates version.

[Interdimensional Observer]

9 minutes ago, lenticular said:

Story concerns. It often just doesn't make any storyline sense. We capture someone from the opposing army, imprison them, and then they say "sure, I'll fight alongside you now" so we let them out and completely trust them to help us invade their home territory and kill their royal family? And don't ever stop to think that maybe they were just telling us what we wanted to hear so they could either betray us or just escape? Are we complete idiots?

IRL, victorious armies did sometimes force the losers to join them en masse. They tended to be disloyal and melt away from desertion when they got the first opportunity to do so. But inflating your troop counts has its uses I suppose.

Considering FE fighting is about small elite forces, I think the IRL example makes less sense. Although some generals loyally joining up if their original master has been utterly eradicated and there is no hope anymore with that side has happened.

[ciphertul]

8 minutes ago, lenticular said:

Not if it looks like it did in Fates, and probably not at all. There are three main problems that I have with it.

1. Having it tied to specific characters and their personal skill. If you don't want to use those characters or if they're dead (or not recruited or otherwise unavailable) then that completely disables the mechanic. And it also makes those characters worse than they otherwise would be, since whenever you aren't capturing, they effectively don't have a personal at all.
2. Captured characters not being fully realised. By which I mean a full set of supports, their own personal, etc. Without all the trimmings, captured characters feel flat. With the exception of the few capturables with interesting skill combinations, you're generally just getting inferior versions of what you already have. Which sounds like it might be useful as a way to pick up replacement units in a struggling ironman, but see point 1. It can't even be reliably used for that since the only character who can capture might be dead.
3. Story concerns. It often just doesn't make any storyline sense. We capture someone from the opposing army, imprison them, and then they say "sure, I'll fight alongside you now" so we let them out and completely trust them to help us invade their home territory and kill their royal family? And don't ever stop to think that maybe they were just telling us what we wanted to hear so they could either betray us or just escape? Are we complete idiots?

If I had to design a capture system that I wouldn't hate, I'd start off by having it tied to a class skill rather than a personal skill so that it isn't tied to specific individuals. Then I'd make it so you could only capture named enemies, not generics. Everyone you can recruit by capturing would be a fully realised character with a personality, supports, a personal skill, etc. For most of them, capturing would be one option and not the only way to recruit them. For instance, if there's an enemy character that is normally recruited by talking to them with a specific allied character, you might be able to capture them with a different unit, then recruit them after the battle. A few could be recruited exclusively via capture, though. Give them enough personality and backstory to make it believable that they would switch sides and that we have reason to trust them. Also make it so that capturing can give different results other than just recruitment. Some you might be able to ransom, some you might interrogate for intelligence, some you might be able to take their equipment, etc.

I still wouldn't be super thrilled with capture even if they did all of that, but I'd be much more interested in it than I am in the Fates version.

With the exception of making capture a class skill instead of a personal, I disagree with everything you say here. Only being able to capture “realized units” serves no point at all, your just recruiting them. The fun was to get regular soldiers, to have just cannon fodder if you needed it or to make it feel like your army was an actual army. Hell, when I played SD I got a female mage Dua (replacement character) and she ended up one of my best units. This faceless sage could outperform most of my “army” and that was fun, theories and imagination on who she was where enjoyable. You don’t need a character with a full personality, cause and background to have fun.

[lenticular]

3 minutes ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

IRL, victorious armies did sometimes force the losers to join them en masse. They tended to be disloyal and melt away from desertion when they got the first opportunity to do so. But inflating your troop counts has its uses I suppose.

Considering FE fighting is about small elite forces, I think the IRL example makes less sense. Although some generals loyally joining up if their original master has been utterly eradicated and there is no hope anymore with that side has happened.

There definitely are ways to have a captured unit shift loyalty, but it is the sort of thing that needs an explanation. The default assumption would be that someone captured and forced to fight on the opposite side would be disloyal in some form, so if we're being asked to believe that they won't be then I want to see some story or dialogue or something that explains why.

9 minutes ago, ciphertul said:

With the exception of making capture a class skill instead of a personal, I disagree with everything you say here. Only being able to capture “realized units” serves no point at all, your just recruiting them. The fun was to get regular soldiers, to have just cannon fodder if you needed it or to make it feel like your army was an actual army. Hell, when I played SD I got a female mage Dua (replacement character) and she ended up one of my best units. This faceless sage could outperform most of my “army” and that was fun, theories and imagination on who she was where enjoyable. You don’t need a character with a full personality, cause and background to have fun.

If that works for you, then great. It's not for me, though. I just don't really enjoy FE very much if I don't connect well with the characters. Different strokes for different folks.

[Stocking]

I think it'd be cool to see. I kinda wish we got the capture mechanic in Three Houses cause I really like the design for the mages.

[Shadow Mir]

4 hours ago, lenticular said:

Not if it looks like it did in Fates, and probably not at all. There are three main problems that I have with it.

1. Having it tied to specific characters and their personal skill. If you don't want to use those characters or if they're dead (or not recruited or otherwise unavailable) then that completely disables the mechanic. And it also makes those characters worse than they otherwise would be, since whenever you aren't capturing, they effectively don't have a personal at all.
2. Captured characters not being fully realised. By which I mean a full set of supports, their own personal, etc. Without all the trimmings, captured characters feel flat. With the exception of the few capturables with interesting skill combinations, you're generally just getting inferior versions of what you already have. Which sounds like it might be useful as a way to pick up replacement units in a struggling ironman, but see point 1. It can't even be reliably used for that since the only character who can capture might be dead.
3. Story concerns. It often just doesn't make any storyline sense. We capture someone from the opposing army, imprison them, and then they say "sure, I'll fight alongside you now" so we let them out and completely trust them to help us invade their home territory and kill their royal family? And don't ever stop to think that maybe they were just telling us what we wanted to hear so they could either betray us or just escape? Are we complete idiots?

I agree with all of this. Doesn't help that there's no shortage of better units than the characters that can capture in Fates.

[X-Naut]

5 hours ago, lenticular said:

Not if it looks like it did in Fates, and probably not at all. There are three main problems that I have with it.

1. Having it tied to specific characters and their personal skill. If you don't want to use those characters or if they're dead (or not recruited or otherwise unavailable) then that completely disables the mechanic. And it also makes those characters worse than they otherwise would be, since whenever you aren't capturing, they effectively don't have a personal at all.
2. Captured characters not being fully realised. By which I mean a full set of supports, their own personal, etc. Without all the trimmings, captured characters feel flat. With the exception of the few capturables with interesting skill combinations, you're generally just getting inferior versions of what you already have. Which sounds like it might be useful as a way to pick up replacement units in a struggling ironman, but see point 1. It can't even be reliably used for that since the only character who can capture might be dead.
3. Story concerns. It often just doesn't make any storyline sense. We capture someone from the opposing army, imprison them, and then they say "sure, I'll fight alongside you now" so we let them out and completely trust them to help us invade their home territory and kill their royal family? And don't ever stop to think that maybe they were just telling us what we wanted to hear so they could either betray us or just escape? Are we complete idiots?

If I had to design a capture system that I wouldn't hate, I'd start off by having it tied to a class skill rather than a personal skill so that it isn't tied to specific individuals. Then I'd make it so you could only capture named enemies, not generics. Everyone you can recruit by capturing would be a fully realised character with a personality, supports, a personal skill, etc. For most of them, capturing would be one option and not the only way to recruit them. For instance, if there's an enemy character that is normally recruited by talking to them with a specific allied character, you might be able to capture them with a different unit, then recruit them after the battle. A few could be recruited exclusively via capture, though. Give them enough personality and backstory to make it believable that they would switch sides and that we have reason to trust them. Also make it so that capturing can give different results other than just recruitment. Some you might be able to ransom, some you might interrogate for intelligence, some you might be able to take their equipment, etc.

I still wouldn't be super thrilled with capture even if they did all of that, but I'd be much more interested in it than I am in the Fates version.

1) While I agree with this, it's worth noting that it does make capturing into a type of unique utility, even if the map design can undermine it (Revelations' Vallites for example).

2) So what? I guess they could add a few sets of generic voice clips but expecting fully fleshed-out characters is too much to ask for outside of the capturable bosses. You can headcanon or fanfiction them into true characters without writing it directly into the game. In addition, I think giving capturables too much character runs the risk of blurring the definition of what full recruitment entails.

3) It's not that hard to rationalize. Enemies showing compassion, threats, a grayer morality setting... there are plenty of reasons.

If I have a complaint to make about Fates capture, it's that it's too easy: the only penalty is lol -10 hit that can easily be made up, and captured units go directly to the PC unless your box is full. Having to hold onto them until the chapter's over would add a risk to consider after capturing, especially if you're taking multiple prisoners. For battle, halved damage and no follow-up would mean you have to put in prep (no ORKO capture setups). And either no critical hits, or a have crit penalty, with a critkill causing the capture to fail.

[Shadow Mir]

20 minutes ago, X-Naut said:

1) While I agree with this, it's worth noting that it does make capturing into a type of unique utility, even if the map design can undermine it (Revelations' Vallites for example).

That doesn't mean much when the unit it's tied to sucks to the point where I'm better off with just about anyone else, which Fates as a whole is guilty of imho.

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

1 minute ago, Shadow Mir said:

That doesn't mean much when the unit it's tied to sucks to the point where I'm better off with just about anyone else, which Fates as a whole is guilty of imho.

If capturing is made better, then the unit or class it's attached to becomes better. Removing the utility, or its uniqueness, from a bad unit, will have the effect of making that unit worse by comparison.

[Use the Falchion]

8 hours ago, ciphertul said:

I thought it was kinda fun to think up little back stories for them too, like I captured a Lv 2 Maid who had a D rank in staffs but a B rank in daggers. I couldn’t tell if she was an ex-assassin trying to fix her life or if she was just under cover.

That's why I love them too! In my head-canon, a lot of Corrin's army in Revelations comes from soldiers they just happened to capture and recruit along the way. The earliest recruited ones end up becoming their vassals. 

 

Outside of making head-canons and having fun capturing units, I don't really care either way. 

[Shadow Mir]

8 minutes ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

If capturing is made better, then the unit or class it's attached to becomes better. Removing the utility, or its uniqueness, from a bad unit, will have the effect of making that unit worse by comparison.

It's not about capture itself so much as it is about the quality of the units it's tied to. Capture should not be the sole redeeming feature a bad unit has.

[Shanty Pete's 1st Mate]

13 hours ago, Shadow Mir said:

It's not about capture itself so much as it is about the quality of the units it's tied to. Capture should not be the sole redeeming feature a bad unit has.

Eh, that is fair enough. I still found Niles a good combat unit on Conquest - he has some of the highest Speed and Res in your army. But that debate is not the point of the thread.

Anyway, I prefer the "capture Generics" system. With the caveat that, I wouldn't be opposed to requiring it for certain recruitments, a la Thracia 776. On a parallel thread, for instance, I proposed the Nina recruitment in Fates should require Niles (who's a forced bring to the map) to Capture her, rather than kill her.

As for access, I would limit it to a handful of units. More than one, though - if there's only one, then losing the "capture" unit means losing out on a lot of other units. And I'm not a fan of that design model. Or, maybe the "capture" unit could be a Jagen-type, whose death triggers a Game Over (like Sothe in RD)?

[Imuabicus der Fertige]

24 minutes ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

As for access, I would limit it to a handful of units. More than one, though - if there's only one, then losing the "capture" unit means losing out on a lot of other units. And I'm not a fan of that design model. Or, maybe the "capture" unit could be a Jagen-type, whose death triggers a Game Over (like Sothe in RD)?

How about a variation of the Thief promotion? Instead of getting a Trickster, who does dodgy magic stuff you get a... Kidnapper? Or a Slaver? Then again, that may be too dark for FE to integrate as an actual class. 

 

Also, yes to capturing enemies and using them in general. Unlimited Canonfodder Works. 

[Florete]

I'm not exactly against it, I would just ignore it like I did in Fates. Unless it's like Thracia, then I'm absolutely against it, that's part of what I hate about Thracia. Even a more refined version of Fates' capturing I would probably pass on, it's just not my thing. But as long as it is easy to ignore, I don't mind it being there.

[Murozaki]

I'd say screw it, go wilder with it, make every single character be able to do it though with some restrictions (Something like Thracia where it's based on a specific stat like Con and you also need to carry the unit with you to the end of the map). If you're gonna give us a mechanic as wild as that make it fun and let a lot of characters be able to do it.

[joevar]

I say YES. dont care how.

i dont want to kill that smoking-hot, busty-babe enemy mage leader. its a shame, really.

........................

real talk, some people are too prideful to surrender. defeating them without killing should be a thing.

also imagine if capturing or killing gives you not only different outcomes but also different next chapter map, or at least different enemy match-up. would be neat gameplay wise even if you dont care about the character you capture.

-----------------------

ALSO, damn it DOUGLAS! stop making me load save state because you block the requirement for true ending by accidentally killing you

Edited April 25, 2021 by joevar

[starburst]

Absolutely!

I liked that in Octopath Traveller a cleric "guides" (based on her level) otherwise-Non-Playable-Characters, while a dancer seduces them (based on chance) to join your party for a couple of battles. Or that a huntress tames wild beasts to fight by her side, while a merchant hires mercenaries.

Edited April 25, 2021 by starburst