korsriddare: (Default)
[personal profile] korsriddare
The peculiar thing about Fire Emblem I first noticed was the differentiation between knights and cavaliers when I thought both should be considered knights (or, dismounted/mounted knights). Of course, after playing through, the conversations indicate both are 'knights' setting wise, and just different game-mechanics wise.

The cavalier looks like light cavalry, while the paladin looks like heavy cavalry (what with the armor coverage). This is not entirely accurate mechanics-wise as the paladin can definitely catch up with the cavalier, and the cavalier is not better at skirmishing than the paladin. Paladin is just straight up superior.

The knight (and by extension the general), on the other hand, I would not even consider that heavy infantry. In my head, I count the FE knight as super heavy infantry. There is no historical precendent for this, but then again, just look at the armor they wear in the game.

I think most know I am biased for cavalier -> paladin. It is not just due to the name, but also that I prefer mobility to position my units (thus using two, if not all the pegasus knights). Actual setting wise, they are likely used in similar a roles to that of our own history - shock troops.

Infantry in formation can stop that, but in FE, magic might be an equaliser. A mass formation of infantry in a spear wall might not fare very well when mages on the other side toss a fireball into the midst.

Despite what the RES stat might imply, I would think for certain kind of spells, a heavy suit of armor might actually be better. Say, compare the amount of cloth present on a pegasus knight to that of a knight, and consider which one would likely catch fire if a fireball is tossed both ways.

This may be the motivation in creating super heavy infantry. Able to withstand conventional long-range magics, and still stay in formation to stand against massed cavalry charge. Not to mention they are likely quite murderous indoors against lesser armored foes.

Date: 2011-09-05 04:50 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mark-asphodel.livejournal.com
and consider which one would likely catch fire if a fireball is tossed both ways.

Not true, depending on the universe. FE11 specifically mentions knights succumbing to fires that started inside of their armor, so physical protection may not equate to magical protection at all. Something to consider, anyway.

Date: 2011-09-05 05:01 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] korsriddare.livejournal.com
True, though such a spell is probably not a fireball?

Date: 2011-09-05 05:03 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mark-asphodel.livejournal.com
It doesn't specify. I'd assume it was one of the higher-level fire spells, but all we can genuinely get from that is that plate armor doesn't necessarily serve as a protection against fire magic.

Also, I'd think metal armor would be terrible if any lightning-based magic is involved.
Edited Date: 2011-09-05 05:04 pm (UTC)

Date: 2011-09-06 12:52 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] korsriddare.livejournal.com
Definitely not necessary.

And yes, against lightning based magic it would likely be quite terrible.

Date: 2011-09-05 08:39 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] samuraiter.livejournal.com
*thinks*

I interpret magic as being the FE equivalent of artillery, necessitating changes in tactics the same way field guns did in our world.

Then again, in FE, you can mow through blocks of infantry if you have a dude with an axe. :-)

Date: 2011-09-06 12:50 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] korsriddare.livejournal.com
I have actually thought of it, but I did not put it as a straight up equivalent. Field guns is absolutely penetrative, even against plate armor. Magic, I would imagine, might be dependant on the spell used. Perhaps more accurate than the field guns of its age.

Date: 2011-09-06 10:43 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] wolfraven80.livejournal.com
A mass formation of infantry in a spear wall might not fare very well when mages on the other side toss a fireball into the midst.

I guess there's also the question of how common mages are. Since being a mage would require years of study I would assume they're more likely than not be in the service for the rulers. In Magvel anyway there was supposed to be have been 800 years of peace. If they were fighting bandits, mercenaries, and putting down rebellions then they might not have expected to face mages often.

Profile

korsriddare: (Default)
korsriddare

January 2016

S M T W T F S
     12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
2425 2627282930
31      

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 22nd, 2017 08:01 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios