De Geso

I think it would be better for him to do what he wants.

Move Marianne north. The monsters can't attack her inside the structure. I prefer Miklan's map when the enemies do move. It's harder, sure, but otherwise it plays just like Chapter 8 of FE6 which is horrible.

Hubert is a bro. I hope he talks to Edelgard. It will be interesting to see a totally blind player make those choices.

Thanks! You might use a silver weapon if your damage is short, or if you want a more reliable hit rate. The main reason for using weaker weapons is if you want them equipped on Enemy Phase and there's no one around to trade.

I would switch Empire and BL. The stat benchmarks are much tougher to hit consistently because the Empire route is so much shorter. But I generally agree based on what I've played.

Where do you get Albinean Moose?

It would have been cool if Fleche was playable as an Est after Randolph and Ladislava were killed. She would have been bad, yeah, but I still think it would have been neat.

If you're talking about optimal play you will probably always be playing female Byleth since the only non-Sylvain difference is class options, and obviously Pegasus and Falcoknight are better than the dark mage and grappler lines. But yeah, I personally prefer to play as male Byleth and it isn't like Wyvern isn't the best class anyway, really.

Use both. They're both good units.

She gets much more confident in her pronunciation and doesn't speak as slowly. I thought it was a nice touch.

There is some good map design in Three Houses. It's not Conquest but I didn't come in expecting CQ after Echoes. I was just pleased to have skills back haha. Outside of combat arts and gambits, most of the map design in 3H takes its cues from earlier games like the SNES and GBA titles rather than opting for something totally different in that department like CQ did. Anyway, you can play Maddening pretty quickly if you make good use of what's given to you.

Walmart likes to push random deals at random times. There doesn't seem to be much rhyme or reason. Perhaps they're anticipating Pokemon to perform poorly given all the negative press about it. If so they are mistaken, but still, lucky get.

The biggest difference between Dorothea and Lorenz is early Thoron, which is a pretty big factor. She also gets Meteor and he does not, which is important later on, especially when she's a gremory who snipes two nerds per map with it. But, yes, Lorenz is far from bad in GD.

Lorenz isn't bad at all. He makes for a good mage. He's not Lysithea or Hubert good but he certainly gets the job done. His personal is also solid once you start using battalions, which is what, chapter 2? Ignatz is a fine unit, pretty standard fare for this game (comparable with Bernadetta and Ashe with Bernadetta having a slight edge thanks to her personal and budding talent). Hit+20 is a great personal on Maddening. You won't be persuaded re: Raphael so I won't bother explaining (again) how he's not as bad as you say in practice. xxx Blue Lions has such a huge early game advantage (the most Tempest Lance users with Ingrid, Dimitri and Sylvain, Rally Strength on Annette, Felix's bases, Dedue) it's folly to say they don't have the best start, especially on Maddening when the stats matter. I'd say if they didn't have one of Felix or Dedue they'd still have the best start - they have enough damage to make up for the former's absence and Sylvain can off-tank a couple hits thanks to his personal (and not getting doubled when using Training Lances). They might be better than the Eagles without either of them but that's hard to quantify (and more importantly only serves to show how bad the Black Eagles' early performance is for optimized play and has nothing to do with the Blue Lions). Then comes Golden Deer, who have the characters Silly mentioned more than covering for Lysithea's weak start and the lower bases of other units. Claude works differently from the other two lords because of his preference for bows but he's still quite good. Hilda's personal is crazy early and you can do some fucked up shit with Fading Blow and Curved Shot early on while taking advantage of it. Leonie is a decent off-tank thanks to her personal on Maddening, like Sylvain but she's slightly better on Hard since she doubles early. Ignatz always hitting can be useful on Maddening early on and Rally Speed can make some riskier strategies work more often. Lysithea has fat chip until she starts sniping horses/everything that doesn't have a the magic immunity barrier. The Black Eagles just do not compare. Edelgard and Petra are great at the beginning, yes, and Hubert is comparable to Lysithea, but otherwise their early units are worse versions of other routes. Bernadetta I like a lot because of her personal early on (+5 damage is just good, man) but she has a hard time hitting unlike Ignatz and being better than Ashe is something most students can say...and at least Ashe saves you a few hundred gold on keys if you don't use a Thief or Assassin. Ferdinand doesn't get Lance of Ruin so early on he's a worse Sylvain. I like his personal late but 15 avoid early is not a lot. Caspar has a decent personal for Maddening but he does not have decent bases for it so his main contribution will be "wait next to this enemy so I can hit them please." Not getting early Fading Blow (which again you can make nasty plays with) also hurts. Dorothea is fine, I guess, but until she gets Thoron she's not any better than, say, Annette or Lorenz, and Hubert's early chip is better. The late game depends too much on how you train your students' ranks and it can go in so many different directions that it's impossible to tell which house has the best students. In terms of map design and difficulty, the only really hard late Azure Moon chapters are the last two and they aren't really that bad, they just have a lot of siege tomes which is annoying if you listen to bad players and don't use Ward. The final boss's 30 range can be a bit tricky to account for but I find she tends to focus the unit with the lowest defense no matter what (except the first attack which always goes for Dimitri if it can, I think) so you can manage it easily. CF's final chapter was also pretty easy, though - turns out Raging Storm + Stride is good. The enemies on the sides would be threatening if you needed to go that way at all, but there is no reason to (oh boy a chest on the final map) unless you want unique dialogues with Catherine/Annette. The flier reinforcements are tricky, though, so I'd put this one above Azure Moon's. I can't speak about late SS/VW yet, but from what I've heard of SS its final map is a wild ride on Maddening. I'll withhold judgment until I've cleared them.

Oh, I didn't even think to find a battalion of maids under my bed. Thanks, I'll try that.

This is pretty universally agreed upon, except for the thing about Peg Kris. I just don't mind gender lock as much as some people. Making dudes Pegasi or girls (or really, anyone) Brawlers doesn't really appeal that much to me.

I don't think about Heroes at all. Intelligent Systems is decent enough.

Death Blow is about as good as it gets for a class mastery skill but it isn't like it's a requirement to clear the game or anything.

Where are the Maid and Butler battalions? They aren't buyable in the guild. Do they only know up after the timeskip, or are they from a quest I haven't gotten yet? I'm about to do the Holy Mausoleum chapter. I might just be retarded and missing something from the notes but I can't find them anywhere.

I agree, this is the worst thing about Maddening (which I otherwise quite like).

Lol I misspoke, and it's fair to point that out. My point was that the top 50% of food producing states are red per 2016 outside of California - ten states. The blue states produce comparatively meager amounts (mainly New York, despite its over-representation given its size and contributions to the nation) I fully understood why he said that, but he is an idiot who said it to avoid rebutting my argument (which he has shown that he is apt to do). He mentioned the right to vote in a social democracy which has no bearing on the argument at hand because we do not live in a socially democratic country. Here is the chain for those who are unable to comprehend (a common trend here!) I asked Ursaring why the number of people is the most important factor. He said it is because a social democracy is a government whose decisions are made on the will of all people, not the utility of its voters. I told him, "We don't live in a social democracy, that wasn't the point of the discussion, and furthermore social democracy leads to Ochlocracy." He then failed to address this and blabbered on about "our problems." I called him out for this, and he continues to fail to address my actual points because he is incapable of doing so. Also - no, of course economic status should not be the sole factor...and it isn't! Here I was expecting a red wave to challenge women's bathrooms in liberal arts colleges one week out of the month! And yet, we see...a healthy mix of blue, red, and swing states (plus DC). That all being said - I never intended this to turn into a dick-measuring contest between red and blue states. My point was that we cannot ignore those who live in "backwater farmer states" simply because there are fewer of them.

Not popular here, in an insulated leftist environment, does not mean unpopular the country over. My point is that you are arguing for a popular vote using the pretense that we live in a social democracy when we do not. Once again, you ignored half my post (the more significant half). I suppose I shouldn't waste my time on you in the future, given your inability to properly understand what someone is saying to you.

"Red states should show respect to the breadwinners," he says...outside of California, half of the country's food is produced in red states. Without the red states the rest of the blue states would have next to nothing (California's contribution is not sufficient to support the rest of the country on its own). Meanwhile, California has the highest number of SNAP recipients in the country (about 10 percent of the state's population). Believe it or not, the case is not so simple: Yes, Americans in red states pay lower taxes per person, but their income is also much lower than that of the average Californian so the impact is greater. I suppose this would be obvious if you thought about it for more than a second, but given that you're a Californian I suppose "thinking ahead" is a challenging prospect. California infrastructure is decidedly average or below average: https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/state-item/california/ But we don't live in a social democracy. We live in a representative republic. One person to one vote leads to Ochlocracy.

Lol what in the world are you talking about with all this nonsense? The middle red states grow corn, potatoes, and other crops which Americans eat and feed their livestock with. The service industry in New York only matters in New York. There are huge service and agriculture industries in Ohio as well, which is one of those swing states that EC abolitionists say "should not matter as much as they do." The taxes from the blue states go back into feeding the welfare-infested cities that make up much of those blue states' populations. I wonder, which party might people on welfare vote for? You didn't answer my question - I asked why the number of bodies should be the sole factor in the vote. Why shouldn't the group of people who contributes more to the welfare of the nation have more say? Why should the only requirement to your vote "mattering" as much as everyone else's be that you really want it to and you have a heartbeat? I know it's a typical tactic of your kind to ignore the point of the discussion and try to "rebut" without actually rebutting anything, but please try to read and comprehend the entire three line post before cherrypicking one sentence that doesn't make much sense out of context. Can you handle that or am I wasting my time with you? Such a small portion of the country's landmass should not hold power over the rest with impunity because the number of people living there is greater. Extremely wealthy and extremely poor people comprising those areas will always vote left because the rich know nothing will change either way and voting left (or claiming to vote left) makes them look 'good' and the poor believe that things will change if they believe hard enough in the liars in blue suits rather than the liars in red ones. On top of that, it's natural that city-dwellers are more apt to vote left than rural individuals and it has been this way for a long time (which is why the Electoral College exists at all - it was made as a reaction to large cities holding too much sway over the country's political landscape thanks to a purely popular vote, not as a preventative measure). They are extremely tightly packed into these metropolitan areas, constantly surrounded by other people who share similar biases and thus feel they've no recourse but to continue voting left. Many other responses to my post were either bunk nonsense like Ursaring's or in a similar vein to Slumber's.

So, people don't live outside of those cities? Are you serious? Tell me - what, besides bankers and wall street, does New York produce? What do they contribute? Should the volume of warm bodies carry more weight than what those people can do for the country? Why should their opinions matter simply because there are many of them? Moreover, why should the opinions of people who don't live where you do NOT matter? Because they are "xyz thing I don't like?" Yes, I am sure an alternative is possible. Do you have a suggestion? I'm not going to respond to Tarrasque's wall of text. If you are incapable of at least pretending to be concise, don't waste my time. More Americans in less total land. For reference, 57 counties had a majority vote for Clinton in 2016. Out of 3,141. Should so small a portion of the country have sway over the entire rest of it? After all, if we went with a popular vote, this is the result.