Toggle shoutbox
Shoutbox
|

Ideal Team Composition?
#21
Posted 20 February 2013 - 04:54 AM
???????
QUOTE |
Bobryk -- holy crap I look away for two seconds and I have knots all up in my shit |
#22
Posted 20 February 2013 - 05:22 AM
QUOTE (Rujio @ Feb 19 2013, 09:54 PM) |
Bows aren't necessarily bad. Shinon was plenty good in RD (and not because of crossbows) and early PoR. |
Stats. At some point pure, raw stats overtake weapon weakness. If you can't be hit and deal damage like a truck running over an old woman, it doesn't matter if you can get surrounded an nullified as long as you aren't the only unit on the map.
QUOTE (Rujio @ Feb 19 2013, 09:54 PM) |
Louise is decent, Klein's solid, Jeorge is pretty good for a while, etc. |
They're plugs, but not much else. Louise relies heavily on you needing another Sage and having synergy with said sage. If you just needed another support slot, it probably wouldn't go to a sniper unless you don't have another reasonable mage to fill it with. The exceptions generally are because of statistical advantage, which fade as your team catches up.
As a secondary weapon, a bow users is actually pretty lethal. They provide a great flexibility with range that the character either has rare (sword) or weak (axe) attacks in. The problem is snipers are restricted to a 2 range weapon and must be kept at exactly one spot in formation. There's no utility in it, making it hard to justify using limited spots for it.
Shameless Self-Plug - Updated May 30 - A Letter to a Younger Me – Anime Edition
#23
Posted 20 February 2013 - 05:26 AM
Although I'm trying out Virion on my hard mode file and he's actually not too bad. His growths are good...it's just, no enemy phase =\
Bow Knights/Nomadic Troopers make it a bit better because swords, but having 1 or 2 range is definitely inferior to 1-2 range.

#24
Posted 20 February 2013 - 06:16 AM
QUOTE (Bobryk @ Feb 19 2013, 10:26 PM) |
Yeah, it doesn't help that archers tend to start and grow really slowly either. I was a bit disappointed not to find crossbows in Awakening, not going to lie... Although I'm trying out Virion on my hard mode file and he's actually not too bad. His growths are good...it's just, no enemy phase =\ Bow Knights/Nomadic Troupers make it a bit better because swords, but having 1 or 2 range is definitely inferior to 1-2 range. |
No doubt, but when you generally have the choice of squishy 1-2 range mages without HP healing mechanics who'll crumple if a few bad 20% odd hits (shown hit chance: 50%) taking the front lines or some 1 or 2 who will survive more attacks (with 5-8% real hit chances), I'll take the latter.
Shameless Self-Plug - Updated May 30 - A Letter to a Younger Me – Anime Edition
#25
Posted 20 February 2013 - 06:27 AM
QUOTE (kirant @ Feb 19 2013, 08:27 PM) |
They need to act like magic and have a 1-2 range, while having really (and they actually do in my mod...which is going the speed of dirt) |
Er, while having really...what?
I don't think bows should be 1-2 range, personally. I do think that archers should at least get some close range crutch though, like maybe a dagger specialized for them or like the crossbows(though, those are actually rather good, instead of being something of an emergency weapon) in Radiant Dawn.
I believe in judgment of humans through their judgment of fiction, for nothing else tells better of their disposition freed from apprehension.
#26
Posted 20 February 2013 - 06:38 AM
QUOTE (Hatless @ Feb 19 2013, 11:27 PM) | ||
Er, while having really...what? I don't think bows should be 1-2 range, personally. I do think that archers should at least get some close range crutch though, like maybe a dagger specialized for them or like the crossbows(though, those are actually rather good, instead of being something of an emergency weapon) in Radiant Dawn. |
Apologies. I tend to get distracted when I post, create Simulink programs, and write lab reports at once.
I meant to say that Bows should have weaker weapons stats and 1-2 range. This is more to simulate reality, where (as FE generally hates switching weapons on it) bows would be usable in close and long range, don't have the pinpoint accuracy that FE tends to bestow them with. In fact, they're more of a grinding weapon, best suited for fights where the opponent can get hit multiple times. They are not one-shot weapons and tend to miss quite a bit. The biggest advantage they own is range. Even games with pseudo-real tactics such as the Total War franchise tend to show exactly what ranged attacks are useful for (the Total War franchise is good for identifying trends in the area, but aren't simulators of reality by any means)...then again, reality suggests that heavy armour is much better than speed, something I intend to break away from...though to a lesser degree than FE games traditionally do.
Shameless Self-Plug - Updated May 30 - A Letter to a Younger Me – Anime Edition
#27
Posted 20 February 2013 - 07:39 AM
Unless you are suggesting that the bow itself be used as a melee weapon. Or that an arrow be used as a psuedo-spear.
(That said, 2 squares as "long range" is extremely unrealistically close to begin with, so...)
Then again, I suppose this is all irrelevant in a game where everybody is expected to take turns in a war field.
I believe in judgment of humans through their judgment of fiction, for nothing else tells better of their disposition freed from apprehension.
#28
Posted 20 February 2013 - 01:17 PM
EDIT: Analysis time. Give me like half an hour.
EDIT 2: I lied, expect it today but not any time soon.
Images - 11/22 Writing - 5/17 FE: Immortal Shrine
Need help with hacking? Post in the subforum, or Skype me (smashedfish76).
#29
Posted 20 February 2013 - 01:55 PM
???????
QUOTE |
Bobryk -- holy crap I look away for two seconds and I have knots all up in my shit |
#30
Posted 20 February 2013 - 03:16 PM
QUOTE (SmashedFish @ Feb 20 2013, 05:17 AM) |
I may be wrong, but I feel that in general, bow users have more HP and defense than mages. That's why I throw in one or two in my armies- if they are countered by a melee physical enemy, they have alright odds of living. On the other hand, if your mage finds themselves adjacent to a physical-oriented enemy, they'll get good damage off on said enemy, but you'll need a mop to wipe up the remains. Archers are by no means tanky (they're probably outclassed by even sword-exclusive classes in that respect), but they can take a hit here and there. |
They're also at much higher risk if they get surrounded, though. And enemies are inclined to attack enemies in a way that puts them at least risk (most of the time) making archers high priority for melee enemies.
I suppose that you'd need to use rather bad tactics for that to actually happen, though. (It happened to me like, once, in FE6, but I just left Wolt to die anyway since I never actually use him, and IIRC there was another person next to him that could use melee weapons who did survive but couldn't save Wolt, since rescuing the guy would have decreased dodge rates too much)
I believe in judgment of humans through their judgment of fiction, for nothing else tells better of their disposition freed from apprehension.
#31
Posted 20 February 2013 - 07:15 PM
Mages everywhere (main and support, eventually healers)
Archers back (support)
Theives with high attack in back
Main games are easy sooooo...........


This won't be removed until Chile wins the World Cup - Started 24/06/12
BTW, I take map requests if anyone wants to make one XD, just send me a PM and I'll most likely accept. If you wanna see some of previous work you can visit my gallery here, I'd skip to the end because I've improved alot XD.
#32
Posted 20 February 2013 - 07:26 PM
QUOTE (Bobryk @ Feb 19 2013, 07:29 PM) |
-DANCER! I usually roll with small teams, so I can afford to deploy a dancer/filler unit like this. Whether they'll actually be put to use is game dependent, but they're out there for the ohshit moments ![]() -No archers. Sorry, but **** bows. They were only good in Fe10 because of crossbows. Their use is very situational, as well, such as lunatic/harder modes and even in early chapters where chip damage is actually useful. Lategame, though? See ya. |
Yeah, I sometimes use dancers (definitely the herons).
And no enemy phase is so annoying with archers/snipers. I'll take a nomad sometimes, but they have swords and nice movement. Shinon in 10 is an exception.
#33
Posted 20 February 2013 - 07:28 PM
QUOTE (SmashedFish @ Feb 20 2013, 06:17 AM) |
I may be wrong, but I feel that in general, bow users have more HP and defense than mages. That's why I throw in one or two in my armies- if they are countered by a melee physical enemy, they have alright odds of living. On the other hand, if your mage finds themselves adjacent to a physical-oriented enemy, they'll get good damage off on said enemy, but you'll need a mop to wipe up the remains. Archers are by no means tanky (they're probably outclassed by even sword-exclusive classes in that respect), but they can take a hit here and there. |
That depends what type of mage

Shameless Self-Plug - Updated May 30 - A Letter to a Younger Me – Anime Edition
#34
Posted 20 February 2013 - 07:32 PM
QUOTE (Hatless @ Feb 20 2013, 10:16 AM) |
They're also at much higher risk if they get surrounded, though. And enemies are inclined to attack enemies in a way that puts them at least risk (most of the time) making archers high priority for melee enemies. I suppose that you'd need to use rather bad tactics for that to actually happen, though. (It happened to me like, once, in FE6, but I just left Wolt to die anyway since I never actually use him, and IIRC there was another person next to him that could use melee weapons who did survive but couldn't save Wolt, since rescuing the guy would have decreased dodge rates too much) |
Yeah, if an Archer gets surrounded, they're gone- but if you keep them behind the front lines, that shouldn't happen.
QUOTE (kirant @ Feb 20 2013, 02:28 PM) |
That depends what type of mage ![]() |
Fair enough. Given that Nosferatu is frequently a Dark tome and that Dark users generally have low speed, however, I can see being doubled by units who can dodge being a problem, especially lategame.
Anyway, onto the big analysis thingy! Parts of it will seem obvious, but I just wanted to point out my reasoning for some things. I apologize beforehand if I got anything wrong. Point it out and I will fix it.
Archers vs Mages: Who's Better?
There are many ways to look at this problem, so let's go through a few and then discuss them in more detail.
Note: This entire analysis is based around FE8, though most concepts outside of actual stats/promotions should hold true for the other games. When I use the word mage, I refer to a unit with magical attacks. I will use the capitalized form Mage to refer to the class. Ditto for archers/Archers. I will also use the word Shaman to describe what other games call Dark Mages, as I am more familiar with the former term.
Contents, annotated for your Ctrl+F pleasure:
-Base Stats/Growths (as1)
-Conclusion (AvM1tldr)
-Weapons (AvM2)
-Conclusion (AvM2tldr)
-1v1 Situations (AvM3)
-Conclusion (AvM3tldr)
-Large Fight Situations (AvM4)
-Conclusion (AvM4tldr)
-Wrap-Up (AvMtldr)
Base Stats/Growths (AvM1)
In this section, we will be looking at each class' default and max stats, as well as the default growth rates used for enemies and NPCs. This will give us an idea of what a person of each class can be expected to be like without looking at each character of each class. The question of whether an archer is better than a mage isn't specific enough in this case, so when comparing stats, I will include Monks, Mages, and Shamans/Dark Mages for each stat. I will be specifically looking at data from FE8. The data will be spoiled to prevent wall of text. In each spoiler, for each stat, the class(es) with an obvious advantage in each stat will be bolded. If no class is bolded, I didn't judge an obvious advantage.
Conclusion:
Among the unpromoted classes:
Archers have the best HP, Skill, Speed, Defense and Constitution
Monks have the best Luck and Resistance
Mages have the best Skill and Speed
Shamans have the best Constitution
Conclusion:
Snipers excel in Health, Skill, and Defense
Rangers excel in Skill, Speed, Defense, Move, and Constitution
Bishops excel in Resistance
Sages excel in nothing
Mage Knights excel in Speed, Luck, and Move
Druids excel in Magic
Summoners excel in nothing
Valkyries excel in Speed, Luck, Resistance, and Move
However, one mustn't forget the abilities that the classes posess, which they derive a lot of usefulness form.
Rangers, Mage Knights, and Valkyries have Canto, which is nice for the utility, but that's about it.
Snipers and Rangers have anti-flier efficiency. This makes them good as a specific counter-pick.
Snipers have Sure Strike, allowing them a guaranteed shot. They don't often need this, but it comes in handy occasionally.
Snipers have ballista access. This gives them an edge over others for long-ranged strikes in maps that have ballistas.
Bishops have Slayer, which does triple damage to monsters. This can make their use a godsend in monster-filled chapters.
Summoners have access to Summon, a skill that makes an axe-wielding spirit to fight for them. Since it draws all enemy focus, they can be incredibly useful for baiting foes- or for plain old fighting.
Conclusion (AvM1tldr): Not counting abilities, Archers have generally better stats than mages, except in terms of Strength/Magic and Resistance.
Weapons (AvM2)
We've concluded that archers have slightly better stats than mages, but that means little to nothing if mages have superior weapons. Next up, we will be comparing the weapons of the two classes.
For Bows, there isn't much variety to the weapon line. There are the Killer and Short bows, which give more critical chance, The Brave Bow for consecutive attacks, and the Longbow, which has a range of 2-3 spaces- more than any other bow, or most magical tomes. The sacred weapon is Nidhogg, which grants monster efficiency and 5 Luck, to help with their accuracy, dodging, and critical evasion- all things that a weapon that can be range countered needs.
Swords are a lot more varied. Besides the normal Iron-Silver line, there's the Blade line which also runs Iron-Silver and offers more damage at the cost of a higher weight and lower hit chance and durability. There's the Slim Sword, Killing Edge, and Shamshir for added critical chance, and the Brave Sword for consecutive strikes. There's a sword to counter each kind of special unit (Armourslayer for heavily armored units, Wyrmslayer for wyverns, and Zanbato for mounted units). In addition to their strength over axes, there's the Lancereaver to counter Lances and add even more versatility. There are even magic swords whose strikes count as Light (Light Brand), Anima (Wind Sword, also effective against fliers) and Dark (Runesword, has a life steal effect). These magic swords have the range of normal magic, making them uncountable if used right. The S-ranked sword is Audhulma, which gives monster efficiency and 5 Resistance. This is great for swordsmen, as for the most part, non-magical units are not known for their resistance. The drawback to swords in this analysis is that only Rangers can use them, not Snipers.
With the physical weapons out of the way, it's time to look at the magic- which, sadly, is not nearly as varied as the physical weapons. (In general, magic can be somewhat likened to the weapon triangle in that Light has good hit chance but low damage, like Swords, Dark is slow but powerful, like Axes, and Anima is in the middle, like Lances.) Light magic follows a standard E-A rank pattern, with each tome increasing in weight, might, and crit chance while decreasing in uses and hit chance. The exception is the B-ranked tome, Purge, which has a range of 3-10 instead of 1-2 (the same range as a ballista). The S-rank Light tome is Ivaldi, which gives a much appreciated +5 defense to squishy Light mages. The same holds for Anima magic, including the ballista-ranged B-rank tome, Bolting. The S-ranked tome of Anima is Excalibur, which gives 5 speed; useful for attacking more than once and evasion, both of which fit a glass cannon sort of character, which is one possible and effective playstyle of Anima mages.
Quite the opposite of Light and Anima, all of Dark's tomes besides the D- and A-ranked tomes do something extra. One of the C tomes, Luna, ignores its enemies' resistance when doing damage. This is balanced by a very low hit chance (50% base), even compared to other Dark tomes' hit chances. The other C tome, Nosferatu, has a life drain on-hit effect and good strength, making it a very useful tome for anyone who can use it. The B-ranked ballista-ranged tome, Eclipse, doesn't do any direct damage- instead, it halves the enemy's current HP. This is an amazingly useful effect on enemies with high defences, though it cannot be as effectively used on enemies who are already low on health. The A-ranked tome, Gleipnir, grants 5 skill, increasing the likelihood of hitting a foe with your attacks and of scoring a critical hit, which are two things that Dark mages can struggle to do with their low accuracy.
What does all this mean? Well, the more variety a weapon type has, the more versatile its users are. As such, Rangers are quite versatile, having access to Swords (not to mention Bows). Druids fall into second place for their three weapon effects on Dark, and the option to master Anima for Excalibur. The dual-type magic users are also very good, as they are less likely to be countered. Archers have some level of versatility, being able to hit from 3 spaces away or increase their crit chance as needed. Solo-type Light and Anima users have the least level of variety in their attacks, but they can be quite strong despite this. For example, Bishops have Slayer, and Mage Knights have extra mobility from their mounts.
Conclusion (AvM2tldr): Swords > Dark > Bows > Light/Anima in terms of variety. Using more than one type of weapon is preferred. Rangers are looking good.
1v1 Situations (AvM3)
Simply put, if you have a unit in a solo fight versus an enemy unit, what are they able to do?
Conclusion (AvM3tldr): The more ranges you have to attack from (melee, 2 spaces, 3 spaces, 3-10 spaces), the better. Mages generally win in this aspect.
Large Fight Situations (AvM4)
We just covered how archers and mages fight on their own; however, how do they fit into a team that's all fighting together?
In a fight, the Archer/Sniper stays behind a meatwall and plinks away at anything not on their team with arrows. Why are arrows bolded? Well, you could have an axe user with a Tomahawk or a lance user with a Spear. Problem is, those are part of the weapon triangle- swordsmen and axe users, respectively, can pretty much ignore their attacks. Since Bows aren't on the triangle, they have the same potential on everyone. But right, archers. They are generally not attacked by enemy ranged units in favor of things that can't fight back. If the archer's team can secure them a ballista, then that is highly recommended, though it will usually take 1-2 units (not including the archer) off the front lines for a few turns. Outside of being on a ballista, having an archer on their own is not advised; they can be range harassed by melee/magic users, and their defense and resistance aren't notably high compared to other classes.
A Ranger, on the other hand, is more versatile. For one thing, they have passable defense, letting them fight head to hear more. They can be a sword calvary for the purpose of direct fighting, or a ranged supporting attacker for an ally. Being mounted units, they can also be used to rescue allies and bring them to where they need to be faster, or out of dangerous situations. Compared to a Sniper, however, the Ranger is weak to anti-calvary weapons, and to lances when using a sword. Despite that, a Ranger should be able to outrun their foes when endangered and switch to a bow to fight a lance-user if needed.
A magic user shares pretty much the same role as an Archer/Sniper in a big fight. The key difference is that they deal magic damage and are resistant to it, while weaker to physical damage. They will, on average, do more damage but take more in return. They are good at wandering off by themselves to take down physical enemies, due to their move stat and their range. This is even more true if they're a mounted class, though care should be taken to avoid enemies with horse-effective weapons. The major, major, major perk that a promoted magic user has over a promoted archer is that they can use staves, allowing them to fill two roles in a team. The inverse of this is also true; promoted healers can defend themselves somewhat, allowing someone else to finish off the attacker (or occasionally doing it themselves).
Conclusion (AvM4tldr): Magic users, while notably more susceptible to physical attacks, can do more damage in general and can fill a defensive spot when needed. Archers/Snipers are team reliant, but able to provide nice damage and not die as easily. Rangers are utility attackers and can fill a front-lines or ranged role as needed.
Wrap-Up (AvMtldr): Archers and mages are of equal worth on a team. Archers have more survivability and mages have more damage. A balance of both ensures a nice mixture of classes, some with useful abilities and others with useful weapons. Also, rangers are cool.
Images - 11/22 Writing - 5/17 FE: Immortal Shrine
Need help with hacking? Post in the subforum, or Skype me (smashedfish76).
#35
Posted 20 February 2013 - 07:42 PM

#36
Posted 20 February 2013 - 07:58 PM
#37
Posted 20 February 2013 - 08:27 PM
Added a bit to that behemoth about archer triangle neutrality.
Images - 11/22 Writing - 5/17 FE: Immortal Shrine
Need help with hacking? Post in the subforum, or Skype me (smashedfish76).
#38
Posted 20 February 2013 - 09:38 PM
- Base only applies to enemies, no? I mean, I can't remember any Monk having 1 magic on any team. Wouldn't it be more fair to have a comparison of units you can use along their levels (ex - Rebecca vs Erk at Level 15, 16...)? A comparison of the type you used would indicate that Archers are a more durable enemy threat while mages are a deeper DPS threat because of their ability to attack 1-2, reducing your ability to counter attack, and ability to deal more per hit. Most enemies cannot double strike, so the increased speed is more likely than not going to be a threat to your damage output than theirs, though again this could be tested quantitatively. I don't have the expected level mechanics on me though.
- Isn't weapon variety a bit subjective and game dependant? I mean, I really think in FE7, Swords > Lances > Dark > Axes > Anima > Light > Bows in terms of flexibility, but someone else could easily disagree. Then we could flip Light and Anima in FE8 because Light's low raw power is masked by the fact that you don't face many non-monster enemies for much of the game. Additionally, I don't think anybody disagreed that a Sword/Bow combination isn't powerful, but that a bow-only (2 only range) user is a niche unit which is used to plug holes and not much more.
- Again, I can't emphasize how much a flexible unit like a Ranger/Nomadic Trooper isn't on trial here. I think we agree that a unit of that type is ready made with high mobility, 1 or 2 range (or 1-2 with rare weapons), and general suitability. But the limitation of a bow-only attack is a killer and what I think could be questioned. Unlike in reality where we can shoot and run without risk of being diced in melee combat (heck, I LOVE this strategy in the Total War series. Even in Rome TW where the best units are generally melee units with javelin sub-weapons, I deploy many cheap archers and a few Hoplites to guard them, a bow unit in Fire Emblem is limited to shoot, get under attack, and back up to fire again.
The problem I find is that we don't have conclusive evidence on stats. There's nothing there that says that my archers are going to be statistically equivalent to my mages. This is especially true in FE7, where Archers are stuck on the Sniper route and definitely need the bonus to stats in comparison if they want to stand out against Erk and Pent. It doesn't help their cause if I'm comparing a unit with slight bonus to attack against a unit with very some durability differences, but can make my entire team more sustainable.
If I get a lot of time on my hands, I might try to excel out a mean and standard deviation of archers/snipers against mages across levels to see if there is a much more discernible trend for player usable characters. I agree with much of the later analysis, that mages are flexible while archers are formation dependant, while the 1-3 range helps a lot (though the 3 spot is covered by a fairly niche weapon in the Longbow). The big question is if archers can answer with better raw stats, which means they perform all their tasks better.
Another area to consider I think is that Archers and Snipers just don't get another weapon. Mages generally get utility in a healing sub weapon unless they were a healer to start. This distinguishes them as they can perform offensive (attack) and defensive (medic) tasks (though nobody has the holy trinity of offence, defence, and self sustenance most of the time if memory serves) whereas an archer can only perform on the attack since the AI does not consider their own safety or security when smashing 30 units into your army. A Mage Knight or a Valkyrie also have extreme versatility as they are mobile and perform on both sides of the equation.
In FE8 this gets a bit more complicated as Ranger is undoubtedly the class to take your archers down. By comparison, Mages generally have options, though some less ideal than others. We would almost need to go case by case scenario to decide what to do and the versatility that comes with the territory. For example, Lute is certainly fit for being a Sage because of that crazy magic stat and the fact that Mage Knights have poor caps for her. With the other case of a Mage Knight being a difficult to use L'Arachel, we may need to consider Mage Knights a non-existent class unless you want to go through major late game work to play catch up. On the flip side, we have to consider an offence/defence trade off if one works with Natasha. Valkyrie have poor stat caps for their stats and the power output of a Bishop is hard to ignore. At the same time, her low constitution and mobility provides rescue mechanics and basically means that she could do just about anything she's asked to do, flying over walls aside. But with Artur as a common source of attack power, the force needed to blast everything out of the way might not be needed.
It's a very interesting mind game to play.
Shameless Self-Plug - Updated May 30 - A Letter to a Younger Me – Anime Edition
#39
Posted 21 February 2013 - 03:32 AM
QUOTE (kirant @ Feb 20 2013, 04:38 PM) |
Just some questions: - Base only applies to enemies, no? I mean, I can't remember any Monk having 1 magic on any team. Wouldn't it be more fair to have a comparison of units you can use along their levels (ex - Rebecca vs Erk at Level 15, 16...)? A comparison of the type you used would indicate that Archers are a more durable enemy threat while mages are a deeper DPS threat because of their ability to attack 1-2, reducing your ability to counter attack, and ability to deal more per hit. Most enemies cannot double strike, so the increased speed is more likely than not going to be a threat to your damage output than theirs, though again this could be tested quantitatively. I don't have the expected level mechanics on me though. |
Yeah, that'd be enemy only. For player units, they have their own stats that are added to the bases. A comparison sounds pretty fair; I'll play with that. I just figured that enemy units were close enough to a typical representation of their classes that they would better represent their classes than an playable example of each class, as some of those examples (Knoll) are just bad. Perhaps I'll average the stats of some units of each class. It should be a good enough comparison if I keep it to GBA units.
QUOTE |
- Isn't weapon variety a bit subjective and game dependant? I mean, I really think in FE7, Swords > Lances > Dark > Axes > Anima > Light > Bows in terms of flexibility, but someone else could easily disagree. Then we could flip Light and Anima in FE8 because Light's low raw power is masked by the fact that you don't face many non-monster enemies for much of the game. Additionally, I don't think anybody disagreed that a Sword/Bow combination isn't powerful, but that a bow-only (2 only range) user is a niche unit which is used to plug holes and not much more. |
True on both counts. I'm speaking specifically of FE8's weapons with that bit, and it wasn't exactly a fair comparison to begin with. Swords are one of the main three weapon types, the magic lines don't possess anything superfluous outside of Dark, and Bows only rank above magic because of Brave/Short/Longbows. As to Rangers, I list them as an example of an Archer's strength as opposed to Snipers. Sure, they're not Archer exclusive, but I dare you to promote Gerik to a Ranger with a straight face.
QUOTE |
- Again, I can't emphasize how much a flexible unit like a Ranger/Nomadic Trooper isn't on trial here. I think we agree that a unit of that type is ready made with high mobility, 1 or 2 range (or 1-2 with rare weapons), and general suitability. But the limitation of a bow-only attack is a killer and what I think could be questioned. Unlike in reality where we can shoot and run without risk of being diced in melee combat (heck, I LOVE this strategy in the Total War series. Even in Rome TW where the best units are generally melee units with javelin sub-weapons, I deploy many cheap archers and a few Hoplites to guard them, a bow unit in Fire Emblem is limited to shoot, get under attack, and back up to fire again. The problem I find is that we don't have conclusive evidence on stats. There's nothing there that says that my archers are going to be statistically equivalent to my mages. This is especially true in FE7, where Archers are stuck on the Sniper route and definitely need the bonus to stats in comparison if they want to stand out against Erk and Pent. It doesn't help their cause if I'm comparing a unit with slight bonus to attack against a unit with very some durability differences, but can make my entire team more sustainable. |
I maaaay have overhyped Rangers a bit, but hey, Rangers.

QUOTE |
If I get a lot of time on my hands, I might try to excel out a mean and standard deviation of archers/snipers against mages across levels to see if there is a much more discernible trend for player usable characters. I agree with much of the later analysis, that mages are flexible while archers are formation dependant, while the 1-3 range helps a lot (though the 3 spot is covered by a fairly niche weapon in the Longbow). The big question is if archers can answer with better raw stats, which means they perform all their tasks better. |
A mean and standard deviation of what? The individual stats of each character at various levels? Sounds like masochistic fun, if so. I'd be willing to help with data collection.
QUOTE |
Another area to consider I think is that Archers and Snipers just don't get another weapon. Mages generally get utility in a healing sub weapon unless they were a healer to start. This distinguishes them as they can perform offensive (attack) and defensive (medic) tasks (though nobody has the holy trinity of offence, defence, and self sustenance most of the time if memory serves) whereas an archer can only perform on the attack since the AI does not consider their own safety or security when smashing 30 units into your army. A Mage Knight or a Valkyrie also have extreme versatility as they are mobile and perform on both sides of the equation. |
That's why, in my opinion, nothing will eliminate the need for at least one promoted mage on a party, if not more. I'm merely suggesting that the use of archers- well, Rangers in tandem with mages is a strong idea, for what they bring to the table. Archers would be better if they had the stats to outclass the utility of Rangers, but hey, they can work.
QUOTE |
In FE8 this gets a bit more complicated as Ranger is undoubtedly the class to take your archers down. By comparison, Mages generally have options, though some less ideal than others. We would almost need to go case by case scenario to decide what to do and the versatility that comes with the territory. For example, Lute is certainly fit for being a Sage because of that crazy magic stat and the fact that Mage Knights have poor caps for her. With the other case of a Mage Knight being a difficult to use L'Arachel, we may need to consider Mage Knights a non-existent class unless you want to go through major late game work to play catch up. On the flip side, we have to consider an offence/defence trade off if one works with Natasha. Valkyrie have poor stat caps for their stats and the power output of a Bishop is hard to ignore. At the same time, her low constitution and mobility provides rescue mechanics and basically means that she could do just about anything she's asked to do, flying over walls aside. But with Artur as a common source of attack power, the force needed to blast everything out of the way might not be needed. It's a very interesting mind game to play. |
Indeed it is, this business of finding the best possible team, and the prospects of doing so almost seem ...exciting. Anyway, thanks for the response; I was hoping for something detailed and I got it.
Images - 11/22 Writing - 5/17 FE: Immortal Shrine
Need help with hacking? Post in the subforum, or Skype me (smashedfish76).
#40
Posted 23 February 2013 - 09:50 AM
QUOTE |
(In general, magic can be somewhat likened to the weapon triangle in that Light has good hit chance but low damage, like Swords, Dark is slow but powerful, like Axes, and Anima is in the middle, like Lances.) |
one difference I want to point out is that Light is generally heavier than Anima
QUOTE |
Well, you could have an axe user with a Tomahawk or a lance user with a Spear. Problem is, those are part of the weapon triangle- swordsmen and axe users, respectively, can pretty much ignore their attacks. |
why does everybody overestimate the weapon triangle
particularly for lategame where you'd actually have things like Tomahawks or Spears
by the time you get there the weapon triangle advantage or disadvantage is something that might as well be ignored for the most part (kind of like how forest tiles become more of a nuisance than something to enjoy avoid bonuses from the later they appear)
QUOTE |
I dare you to promote Gerik to a Ranger with a straight face. |
I did that in every FE8 run i've done
and S ranked his bows
QUOTE |
Nomads beat Archers for that, as they have more move, Canto, higher unpromoted stat caps (25 vs 20) |
wait what
you mean the Constitution that no one maxes? (as far as I know even +99 from hypothetical infinite body rings won't be stopped by the constitution limitation)
(and i'm not even sure if unpromoted mounted people had 25 con caps instead of 20)
QUOTE |
I'm not positive, but the reason Nomads were taken out in FE8 may have been to make Archers good. |
I believe in judgment of humans through their judgment of fiction, for nothing else tells better of their disposition freed from apprehension.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users