Low-manning: FE games encouraging small teams, and what could/should be done?

[Anouleth]

True, its not the main issue, I was mainly talking about an interesting trend. Note that your examples are all cases of deflating player stats (less exp, less resources, looking at Thany/Ward vs. FE13 characters).

I don't think it's necessarily a case of deflating player stats as it is deflating player growths specifically, because that is after all, rather the point of overlevelling, that you get stat growth. And it's not even about deflating player growths overall as much as it is deflating player growths in certain areas to give them weak points. That is to say, Sumia needs nerfs to her strength and defense, not her speed. I could just as easily have taken an example from FE10 rather than FE6; Micaiah has some of the most polarised growths in the game.

Also, FE12 Lunatic has very inflated stats, which ironically ends up making low-man teams very weak because you need a larger team of capped units in order to deal with lategame chapters (or at least that's the impression I get). So there is one example of stat inflation working in the favour of larger teams.

Deflating stats makes exp/growths less valuable and allows units at base to fight competently. You could imagine a well-balanced game with inflated stats, but because of the FE growth unit syndrome and typical abundance of resources, its inherently more unlikely.

It's not even a "growth unit" problem, though. Many of the classic low-man teams do not use growth units by any rigorous definition of the term. Jill is no more a growth unit than Edward is. Seth is much less of a growth unit than Lute. Marcus is the complete antithesis of a growth unit.

Also, "growth unit syndrome" is usually used to describe the underpowered nature of growth units, like Nino, Lute, Edward, Nephenee, or (hahaha) Wolf and Sedgar.

[Constable Reggie]

Also, FE12 Lunatic has very inflated stats, which ironically ends up making low-man teams very weak because you need a larger team of capped units in order to deal with lategame chapters (or at least that's the impression I get). So there is one example of stat inflation working in the favour of larger teams.

I think this is more stat caps affecting this, rather than enemy strength. Enemy units always be as strong or stronger (due to forges) because Palla/MU/Catria already hit their caps in crucial stats so early.

The high enemy stats in Fe13 didn't really matter because a single unit wasn't restricted to what the enemy's stats were, and even further thanks to pairup bonuses.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Anouleth]

You're probably right about ch15, I dunno, but I was taking in mind that in future chapters you wouldn't be able ot just camp on the throne. So putting one overleveled unit near the throne would be pointless, since they would just walk past you and beat the chapter.

Depending on how it's laid out, you could just enemy phase slaughter them before they're in range to seize. Unless the enemies come from enough directions that you're forced to either block their path or kill them on player phase, killing them on enemy phase is the best solution.

I wouldn't say most fe13 maps, more like a few. Just a few chapters off the top of my head that make it extremely difficult to just move units out of the way: 9, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 24

I'll give you 9 and 14. Chapter 15 has water, sand, and absolutely no flying enemies, so you can hide in the lower right corner. Chapter 16 has water and only a few flying enemies. In 18, you can still hide at the back with a vulnerary.

This goes back to the Fe13 problem of using too many units is just too difficult due to power creep. Players shouldn't be punished for using a number of units, but should also be encouraged to do so, A minimum limit is just one possibility for doing so.

Players will just look for loopholes. Trying to push the player into playing badly doesn't work.

[shadykid]

I think this is more stat caps affecting this, rather than enemy strength. Enemy units always be as strong or stronger (due to forges) because Palla/MU/Catria already hit their caps in crucial stats so early.

The high enemy stats in Fe13 didn't really matter because a single unit wasn't restricted to what the enemy's stats were, and even further thanks to pairup bonuses.

so basically, when stat caps actually matter, larger teams are viable (and actually somewhat preferred)

which is actually pretty hilarious, given FE12 is seize seize seize without any other victory condition (except the last chapter and prologue obviously)

Edited June 28, 2013 by shadykid

[dondon151]

Also, FE12 Lunatic has very inflated stats, which ironically ends up making low-man teams very weak because you need a larger team of capped units in order to deal with lategame chapters (or at least that's the impression I get). So there is one example of stat inflation working in the favour of larger teams.

it also results in the opposite problem of very few viable units

part of the reason why your FE12 observation is true is explained by arvilino's post about how defensive stats rule. it's very difficult to avo stack in FE12 unless you turtle a little, and the most durable unit in the game is MU, who isn't that durable.

[Refa]

this, and just because you can deploy everyone doesn't man it's optimal (as i'm sure people have brought up regarding FE4 before)

What negative effect on your performance does deploying everyone have? Especially considering its vital for one of the categories the game rates you for.

[Constable Reggie]

Depending on how it's laid out, you could just enemy phase slaughter them before they're in range to seize. Unless the enemies come from enough directions that you're forced to either block their path or kill them on player phase, killing them on enemy phase is the best solution.

I was thinking of something like the fe7 ch15 layout, where there's three separate entry points that can't be all guarded by one person. So if the throne is unblockable, you'll need around 3 units per throne for adequate defense.

I'll give you 9 and 14. Chapter 15 has water, sand, and absolutely no flying enemies, so you can hide in the lower right corner. Chapter 16 has water and only a few flying enemies. In 18, you can still hide at the back with a vulnerary.

Mixed up ch15, my bad, but ch16 is impossible due to the absurd number of enemy units that come from behind, alongside the numerous fliers on the side.

Players will just look for loopholes. Trying to push the player into playing badly doesn't work.

If the game isn't set up to punish you for using multiple units, like 13, how is using multiple units "playing badly"? see: refas post

[shadykid]

What negative effect on your performance does deploying everyone have? Especially considering its vital for one of the categories the game rates you for.

it doesn't necessarily, but chances are a significant amount of units will just stand there doing nothing if you deploy them all also it does make speedruns take slightly longer

also who cares about rankings

[Florete]

Bexp encourages lowmanning, so I wasn't taking that into account. I assume that neither was IS since they haven't used it since Fe10.

BEXP could be used to encourage larger teams with some tweaking, though, such as only allowing it on units at or below a specific level that raises with the chapter. That combined with steeper exp rate reductions at higher levels would probably go a long way.

[LunaSaint]

Done right, FE4 Canto allows units to take out/damage important threats while not lingering in areas they can't survive.

[shadykid]

Done right, FE4 Canto allows units to take out/damage important threats while not lingering in areas they can't survive.

FE4 canto makes mounted units absurd, i'll pass

[Vapo]

Uhh, no, minimum units deployed would just be a crap idea, since having the game FORCE you to play using an inferior style (more units = less overall exp for them = weaker units) is just stupid. While you can hide the units in the corner, it wastes time and turns, and is plain useless.

[shadykid]

Uhh, no, minimum units deployed would just be a crap idea, since having the game FORCE you to play using an inferior style (more units = less overall exp for them = weaker units) is just stupid. While you can hide the units in the corner, it wastes time and turns, and is plain useless.

when you can't hide units in the corner in a map with minimum deployment (ideally a long defense map with no alternate conditions and a large area/multiple points to defend) it makes things more interesting

BEXP could be used to encourage larger teams with some tweaking, though, such as only allowing it on units at or below a specific level that raises with the chapter. That combined with steeper exp rate reductions at higher levels would probably go a long way.

this seems like a pretty interesting idea actually.....

how do second seals work with this

Edited June 28, 2013 by shadykid

[Siruppercut]

BEXP could be used to encourage larger teams with some tweaking, though, such as only allowing it on units at or below a specific level that raises with the chapter. That combined with steeper exp rate reductions at higher levels would probably go a long way.

Steeper exp rate reductions definately. Shining Force III on insane difficulty, when your 4 levels above your enemy your gaining 1 exp per kill. This is going to encourage using more characters than just leveling a few. One major problem with Fire Emblem games is the infinite counter. Why would anyone want to use multiple weak characters when you can have a few overpowered characters counter kill everything and clear the map. Could at least use a formula speed and luck to determine your chance to counter.

[The Void]

Could at least use a formula speed and luck to determine your chance to counter.

You could also try decreasing part of a unit's stats every time they fight within a phase. Like if say, Ike were to block a way into a throne room and fought several enemies on the Enemy Phase, then Ike's dodge, etc, would decrease to a point as he kept fighting enemies.

Edited June 28, 2013 by The Void

[Vapo]

No, but FORCING people to use an overneeded number of units is just wrong. Why should I have to bring 8 units into a battle in which I only need 2? And it's a time waste whether you hide them in the corner or sacrifice them, which is annoying.

[Constable Reggie]

Because the whole point of this thread and the suggestions from it is to discourage you from using 2 units.

[Chiki]

Fatigue.

[Anouleth]

when you can't hide units in the corner in a map with minimum deployment (ideally a long defense map with no alternate conditions and a large area/multiple points to defend) it makes things more interesting

I don't really think that figuring out how best to hide units in a corner is particularly interesting.

I'm not sure why it has to be a defense map either. What makes it harder to hide units in the corner in a defense map than in a rout map? If anything, it would be harder in a rout map because rout maps actually have win conditions.

And you can always just... let them die. Like FE11, where letting your units die is actually pretty efficient because it gets you another Warp staff.

Because the whole point of this thread and the suggestions from it is to discourage you from using 2 units.

No. There's already plenty of stuff in the game to discourage efficient play. The problem is that low-manning is the most efficient way to play the game. That's what needs to be changed.

In a similar vein, turning Sumia and Cordelia into ugly hambeasts would probably discourage players from using them, but that doesn't stop them from being game-breaking, which is the real problem.

I was thinking of something like the fe7 ch15 layout, where there's three separate entry points that can't be all guarded by one person. So if the throne is unblockable, you'll need around 3 units per throne for adequate defense.

So basically, a defense chapter with no chokepoints and multiple places to defend?

Mixed up ch15, my bad, but ch16 is impossible due to the absurd number of enemy units that come from behind, alongside the numerous fliers on the side.

I admit, I didn't actually know that enemies came from behind in Chapter 16. What turn does that happen on?

If the game isn't set up to punish you for using multiple units, like 13, how is using multiple units "playing badly"? see: refas post

But the game is set up to punish you for using multiple units. That's the problem. Using lots of units is bad play. It is worse for almost everything. That's what needs to be changed.

[Constable Reggie]

No. There's already plenty of stuff in the game to discourage efficient play. The problem is that low-manning is the most efficient way to play the game. That's what needs to be changed.

That is what I meant by discourage.

So basically, a defense chapter with no chokepoints and multiple places to defend?

A bunch of throne rooms with a few chokepoints for each is what I'm thinking of. Something to that vein.

I admit, I didn't actually know that enemies came from behind in Chapter 16. What turn does that happen on?

Don't remember the exact turn, but several snipers/warriors/barbarians spawn after a few turns, then several bow knights afterward.

But the game is set up to punish you for using multiple units. That's the problem. Using lots of units is bad play. It is worse for almost everything. That's what needs to be changed.

Not every game in the series punishes you though, for various reasons. Fe4, 5 and 12 come to mind.

Edited June 28, 2013 by Constable Reggie

[Usana]

Depending on how it's laid out, you could just enemy phase slaughter them before they're in range to seize. Unless the enemies come from enough directions that you're forced to either block their path or kill them on player phase, killing them on enemy phase is the best solution.

If it was like Tiki's Paralogue in Awakening then you couldn't rely on enemy phase since the enemies ignore you and only target Tiki. You either need the offense to kill multiple units from multiple directions each and every turn or you need to be able to form a wall at least 2 range thick to keep them from being able to target her. At which point they will target you.

So basically program the AI to recognize what its win condition is and have it make that a priority. So if the goal is flee the AI will basically ignore you and just run to its flee location. Perhaps if it can reliably finish off one of your units it would take time to attack, but otherwise it is all run. The Awakening DLC maps with the fleeing Risen would be an example of the basic idea(just imagine that you lose if even one gets away instead of not being penalized for the enemies getting away).

[Refa]

it doesn't necessarily, but chances are a significant amount of units will just stand there doing nothing if you deploy them all

Yes, pressing the wait command without moving repeatedly does tend to have that effect.

Edited June 28, 2013 by Refa

[XeKr]

I don't think it's necessarily a case of deflating player stats as it is deflating player growths specifically, because that is after all, rather the point of overlevelling, that you get stat growth. And it's not even about deflating player growths overall as much as it is deflating player growths in certain areas to give them weak points. That is to say, Sumia needs nerfs to her strength and defense, not her speed. I could just as easily have taken an example from FE10 rather than FE6; Micaiah has some of the most polarised growths in the game.

Also, FE12 Lunatic has very inflated stats, which ironically ends up making low-man teams very weak because you need a larger team of capped units in order to deal with lategame chapters (or at least that's the impression I get). So there is one example of stat inflation working in the favour of larger teams.

Even in your polarized growth examples, those games are still dominated by focusing resources (such as bosskills, bexp, statboosters) into a few amazing units like Miledy or Jill and not using a balanced team with characters like Ward or Micaiah. More specialized units help, but I don’t think it’s the answer (and is hard to balance). If the whole team was Wards and Micaiahs, I'd consider that player stat deflation, and who's to say the best strategy still isn't giving one of those units (probably the most mobile or durable one) all the resources?.

FE12 is a good point, because the stat inflation there is very calculated. FE12 requires (relatively) large teams because of high offensive stats coupled with low defensive stats (alongside low caps, sometimes multiple objectives in villages/seize/chests and such). Which, as I believe I mentioned earlier, emphasizes player phase. Good for tactics and good for a larger team. FE12 just runs into the “issue” of having way too many scrubs.

It's not even a "growth unit" problem, though. Many of the classic low-man teams do not use growth units by any rigorous definition of the term. Jill is no more a growth unit than Edward is. Seth is much less of a growth unit than Lute. Marcus is the complete antithesis of a growth unit.

Also, "growth unit syndrome" is usually used to describe the underpowered nature of growth units, like Nino, Lute, Edward, Nephenee, or (hahaha) Wolf and Sedgar.

I didn’t intend to use “growth unit syndrome” as a whole technical term. I was just using “growth unit” to refer to those common FE units typically with low bases and that require levels/growth procs to become competent. Additionally, I was talking in the context of inflated stats (FE7/FE8 don’t really qualify as quite low stats are still sufficient to easily one-round stuff).

What I was trying to say is: In a game with many growth units and inflated stats (alongside fast exp gain, high growths), such as FE13, you only need 1 of these units to be strong (ideally the best one). Because that single unit can get super-strong and just kill everything. There’s no pressure or need to train other units.

My point is that if there’s the potential for units to be super-powered (via growth/base inflation, stacking statboosters, etc), then FE mechanics (namely enemy phase) inherently result in low-manning being dominant.

Alternatively, if there’s little potential to be super-powered relative to the enemy, it seems that more characters would be usable. And if they’re usable, it’s somewhat encouraging of a larger team over a smaller one.

I agree with arvillino in that the issue boils down to durability. I think lowering it while emphasizing offense (on both sides, so discouraging turtling, having few passive enemies, etc) is something that will emphasize player phase and larger teams.

EDIT: Note, however, that many players probably like having super-units that can steamroll stuff rather than weak units. So it's something that appeals differently to different player populations.

Edited June 28, 2013 by XeKr

[Jotari]

If it was like Tiki's Paralogue in Awakening then you couldn't rely on enemy phase since the enemies ignore you and only target Tiki. You either need the offense to kill multiple units from multiple directions each and every turn or you need to be able to form a wall at least 2 range thick to keep them from being able to target her. At which point they will target you.

So basically program the AI to recognize what its win condition is and have it make that a priority. So if the goal is flee the AI will basically ignore you and just run to its flee location. Perhaps if it can reliably finish off one of your units it would take time to attack, but otherwise it is all run. The Awakening DLC maps with the fleeing Risen would be an example of the basic idea(just imagine that you lose if even one gets away instead of not being penalized for the enemies getting away).

I'm interested to see what kind of plot IS would make to involve a chapter that involves running down fleeing opponents and making sure not a single one lives. (I'm not joking I would honestly like to see why our heroic characters would have to go to such lengths, or a lord who is obviously less heroic than the rest).

[JSND Alter Dragon Boner]

Thracia 776 style of plot can allow a simmilar scenario, if you ask me