korsriddare: (Default)
FE7 brings up an interesting concept - the player as a tactician.

The one responsible for passing around orders, and win the battle thanks to his tactical acumen. Or something. The issue is that it works best for smaller battlefields (inside a castle, for example), where we can intepretate it as him/her shouting orders as the situation develops. In larger one, it comes down to perhaps a messenger of sorts (I am in favor of the pegasus knight).

For the most part, I would think the tactician as a strategist. Coming up with a plan for the battle prior to the engagement itself, and trusting the individual commanders/units to adapt to the tactical situation. A/a group of pegasus or wyvern knights could be doing battlefield recon, reporting back to the tactician and he will give orders if need be.

For other FEs though (like Magvel), I imagine it to be the high ranking people coming up with a plan during a strategic meeting, with messengers running between the different units if necessary, and the sergeants and commanders of each units to adapt to the conditions on the battlefield.
korsriddare: (Default)
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.


korsriddare: (Default)

January 2016

2425 2627282930


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Sep. 22nd, 2017 08:02 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios