Quantcast
So, Fire Emblem Three Houses turned out exactly as I feared...

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - So, Fire Emblem Three Houses turned out exactly as I feared...

Lonely_Dolphin said:
JWeinCom said:



No I definitely meant Ryoma.  His evasion was crazy high so most enemies didn't hit him in the first place, and even when they did, they generally didn't do enough to make more than a slight dent.  Of course that works with Xander too, but not quite as well, since Conquest has tougher enemies in general, and Xander will actually have to take the hits.  

To your Lytheria example, you didn't mention speed which is important.  Or resistance for that matter, since there's more than one way to be attacked.  At any rate I opened a map with a suggested level of 29.  There is a unit with 62 attack and a brave weapon.  There are also 6 enemies with an attack above 50.  For this map in particular those happen to be Wyverns.  So, very hard to actually keep out of their range.  So even on this map, which I think you're a bit overleveled for, enemies are not far off from killing in one hit, and if you're within the range of two enemies, you're done.

But that's your frailest unit.  Lets go with mine.  My frailest physical unit at the recommended level has 37 HP and 13 Def.  So, an enemy will need 50 attack to KO them.  There are on this stage, 6 units that can do that, the only ones that really can't here are the monsters (which obviously I can't KO in one turn) and mounted bow units.  It'd be broken if literally everything can OHKO my units, but most of the physical ones can, and any combination of two enemies should KO if left in range.

My bulkiest unit (who is two levels over the recommendations) has 50 HP with 25 Def a shield for 4, and a batallion that gives her 6.  So... effectively 35 def. There's nothing that's going to OHKO me... but she's slow enough that some of the enemies here should get two shots in.  One of the ones that have 55 attack will leave me with 10 HP if they hit me.  Which means if there's one other enemy nearby, she's done.  Her rsl is only 17 so against mage units she's worse off.  Even with her, I have to be cautious when attacking.  

My example was using the base silver lance, not the +.  That minor point aside, the more important thing is that gauntlets will not give you 50 Atk, it will give you 25 attack two times, which is a big difference because that means the opponents defense is being factored in twice.  Taking the closest unit on this map, and my grappler into account.  My grappler has has 26 str, 23 speed, and closest enemy has 21 prt and 20 speed.  Gauntlets are going to do 18 damage with silver gauntlets, as opposed to 18 with the silver lance.  I swear I didn't look for a particular enemy to make it work out like that, it just happened (although since fist faire activates twice, gauntlets actually have the edge by 5 damage).  If the enemy had one def higher, it would do 16, and the lance would do 17.  And if it went in the other direction, the gauntlets would have a bigger advantage.  Of course, you also have to factor in that gauntlets have lower weight, but their combat arts kind of suck, and they don't have a killer variant to my knowledge.  All in all, they're just not all that, particularly in the late game.  Oh, and of course once you get brave weapons, you'll probably be kicking yourself if you put all your eggs in the gauntlet basket.  They're just good for early game, but then the early game is kind of easy either way.  

Again, if you're just mindlessly attacking the nearest units and having success, either Golden Deer is insanely easy, or you've been blessed with amazing RNG.  Nobody else seems to be having the same experience as you.

Yes Lysithia will die if in range of 2 dudes, but that's where the range meta comes in, making it easy to wipe out a group of enemies all at once, leaving no one left who can kill you. I exaggerate a bit when I say mindless, there is a little method, namely just making sure all relevant enemies are in range of my units so I can kill them all, but not as much thought is required as I'd like. There are people here who have already said the game is easy, and looking on Reddit and Youtube even more agree. If you wanna believe we were all blessed with god luck then fair enough, there's no way to change a person's mind on that, but know that is a poor argument as it goes both ways, I could just as easily say you've been cursed with bad luck.

That goes both ways mate, i.e. I could just say those people are so bad at the game, but I'm better than that lul. When comparing to previous titles though it's not a matter of perspective but of cold hard facts and numbers. A person can say "I found Echoes to be even harder than Fates" and that's fine, but you can't say "In Fates I killed an enemy from 5 titles away," well you can but it'd be a lie.

I'm not exactly sure what you are looking for.  You're complaining HP is too high, but your character's going to die in the range or more than one unit.  Should you just instantly be dead if anyone is in range? It doesn't really feel much different from previous Fire Emblem games where everyone except maybe my white mages could take at least a hit.  I'm actually finding characters dying in one hit more frequent in this game, mostly because of the lack of pairing and weakening of rally.  Although it also could be because I take more risks knowing I can divine pulse if it goes badly.

The rest of what you're saying simply doesn't square up with what I'm playing.  There are tons of mounted units, not to mention that the enemy has access to bows as well.  So I have no idea how you're killing anything that could potentially counter attack your weaker units.  Last level I played had literally over a dozen wyverns.  If you know a way to kill them all without ever getting in their range, I'd love to know.  

I have seen one person in this topic agree that the game is easy, but they're playing on normal casual.  I'm sure if you look on reddit you could find people that agree with any opinion.  As for your "cold hard facts" I have no idea what you're point is.  It's a fact that you have more range in this game... so? That's a completely neutral fact that doesn't necessarily tell us anything about the game's difficulty.  

Anyway... here are some things I could truthfully say.  In Awakening, I never had to worry about my frail units being counter attacked ever, because they could be paired up behind a bulky one.  In either game I could attach fliers to my bulkier units, giving them all the benefits of bulk classes without the drawback.  In Awakening, my characters recovered half their health when they killed enemies.  In Fates I could make a duplicate of my best character allowing them two have two turns.  In Awakening, I had characters that got a bonus turn when they killed an an enemy unit letting them instantly run to safety or kill another one.  In Fates, I could duplicate my best units, then each of those duplicates got a bonus turn for killing an enemy, allowing my most powerful character to attack four times in a turn.  In Awakening, my character could kill an enemy, recover half his hp, move again, and regain the other half.  In Fates I revived a dead character. 

Point is, there are lots of other cold hard facts you have to consider if you're talking about the game's difficulty, but you're just focusing on one, which absolutely screams confirmation bias.  

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 08 August 2019

MTZehvor said:

The point is that if your unit is moved up and kills an enemy, it's going to draw retaliatory attacks in return. Story maps in 3H, especially post timeskip, are designed where even if you one shot enemies, you're going to trigger usually multiple retaliatory attacks from other enemy units (often more). Many of these are going to be units that are themselves in the range of others, so moving to strike them just puts whatever character you use to hit them in even more danger. Chapters 13, 19, and 20 all especially notable examples of this, along with other chapters where ballista/magic garrisons exist that are out of any single unit's move space. If your unit can consistently tank 3, 4, even 5 attacks being initiated by the enemy in a single turn in a Fire Emblem game, you're either significantly overleveled, you've gotten extremely lucky with growth rates, or you're playing Awakening with maxed pair up supports. Obvious exception is if you've got a def/res tank or something and all the enemy units are physical/magic, but that doesn't really seem to be what you're talking about here.

Personally I'd just be curious to see an example of what you're talking about tbh, if you can maybe take a picture from a chapter you play on later. Lysithea and whoever else you have as a mage are certainly capable distance killers, but the sheer number of flying/cavalry enemies that can one shot her means you either can't just place her willy nilly without getting offed, and those characters are usually far enough away to the point where they can't be killed without drawing their own degree of retaliatory fire.

I'm not telling you to not do paralogues; just maybe focus on getting the majority of exp with characters who aren't higher level. I'm also not saying it's "your fault," but a simple aspect of game design with optional battles and a leveling system is that you're never going to be able to perfectly balance maps for all playstyles. Either you balance it assuming people have done paralogues/optional maps consistently and risk making it too difficult for people who haven't, or balance it assuming people haven't and risk making it too easy for those who did use optional maps. Fates leaned more towards the former, 3H leans more towards the latter. But this is something that all strategy games and, dare I say, all RPGs themselves struggle with.

(Formatting broke for some reason) It's like we're playing a completely different game haha. Another reason I can aggro so easily is because enemy groups are generally spaced too far away to support each other. Course again, thanks to increased survivability I can still aggro even if there will be a few enemies still in range. Not all Fire Emblem games are balanced the same way, and the rest of that argument I could say also, that you're underleveled and unluckly. I'd rather use facts to support my opinion, such as overall higher tankiness where even my frailest unit can take a hit when in Awakening/Fates they'd die instantly, aswell as up to 5 range letting me attack further off enemies without them counterattacking. These factors are what makes the game oversimplified.
I'll do ya one better and post a clip from that moment I mentioned earlier where the game clearly didn't expect someone to steamroll that far in already: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvFv0mgTzzg
That's easily solved by difficulty options. I chose hard mode which specifically said is for experienced players.

JWeinCom said:

I'm not exactly sure what you are looking for.  You're complaining HP is too high, but your character's going to die in the range or more than one unit.  Should you just instantly be dead if anyone is in range? It doesn't really feel much different from previous Fire Emblem games where everyone except maybe my white mages could take at least a hit.  I'm actually finding characters dying in one hit more frequent in this game, mostly because of the lack of pairing and weakening of rally.  Although it also could be because I take more risks knowing I can divine pulse if it goes badly.

The rest of what you're saying simply doesn't square up with what I'm playing.  There are tons of mounted units, not to mention that the enemy has access to bows as well.  So I have no idea how you're killing anything that could potentially counter attack your weaker units.  Last level I played had literally over a dozen wyverns.  If you know a way to kill them all without ever getting in their range, I'd love to know.  

I have seen one person in this topic agree that the game is easy, but they're playing on normal casual.  I'm sure if you look on reddit you could find people that agree with any opinion.  As for your "cold hard facts" I have no idea what you're point is.  It's a fact that you have more range in this game... so? That's a completely neutral fact that doesn't necessarily tell us anything about the game's difficulty.  

Anyway... here are some things I could truthfully say.  In Awakening, I never had to worry about my frail units being counter attacked ever, because they could be paired up behind a bulky one.  In either game I could attach fliers to my bulkier units, giving them all the benefits of bulk classes without the drawback.  In Awakening, my characters recovered half their health when they killed enemies.  In Fates I could make a duplicate of my best character allowing them two have two turns.  In Awakening, I had characters that got a bonus turn when they killed an an enemy unit letting them instantly run to safety or kill another one.  In Fates, I could duplicate my best units, then each of those duplicates got a bonus turn for killing an enemy, allowing my most powerful character to attack four times in a turn.  In Awakening, my character could kill an enemy, recover half his hp, move again, and regain the other half.  In Fates I revived a dead character. 

Point is, there are lots of other cold hard facts you have to consider if you're talking about the game's difficulty, but you're just focusing on one, which absolutely screams confirmation bias.  

I'm looking for more reason to care about how I position my units, the order I move them in, just general gameplay depth. Units being more vulnerable naturally means I need to be more thoughtful in my approach. I like having that tension where one small mistake means someone dies. I was just playing Fates not too long ago so the contrast is stark to me. Already mentioned the difference between the game's frailest units, there's also crits and flying weakness to bows, which are instant death in Fates, but in 3 Houses I've survived through those which is just crazy to me.

Of course I'll bait enemies that I can't reach, Calavry and Wyverns love to suicide in. Enemy magic are mostly 1-2 range, bows 2-3 range, so I can either outrange or melee, using gauntlets/brave weps against magic if I need to avoid the counterattack.

So why do you care how many agree when you believe one can always find people who agree? Personally I couldn't careless how many agree or disagree, I only believe facts and evidence. As for range meta, it should go without saying that being able to attack further off enemies without retaliation makes the game much simpler than if you couldn't do that.

Sure you can make Awakening/Fates a cakewalk if you buy dlc and grind and stuff, but in their rawest form they provide more depth and challenge than Three Houses in it's rawest form does. In Awakening/Fates, I can choose to play an easy game or a harder one, but in Three Houses I can only choose to play an easy game.

Last edited by Lonely_Dolphin - on 08 August 2019

Lonely_Dolphin said:
(Formatting broke for some reason) It's like we're playing a completely different game haha. Another reason I can aggro so easily is because enemy groups are generally spaced too far away to support each other. Course again, thanks to increased survivability I can still aggro even if there will be a few enemies still in range. Not all Fire Emblem games are balanced the same way, and the rest of that argument I could say also, that you're underleveled and unluckly. I'd rather use facts to support my opinion, such as overall higher tankiness where even my frailest unit can take a hit when in Awakening/Fates they'd die instantly, aswell as up to 5 range letting me attack further off enemies without them counterattacking. These factors are what makes the game oversimplified.
I'll do ya one better and post a clip from that moment I mentioned earlier where the game clearly didn't expect someone to steamroll that far in already: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvFv0mgTzzg
That's easily solved by difficulty options. I chose hard mode which specifically said is for experienced players.

Fuck's sake I hate this website revamp and the new quoting system. Formatting this shit is impossible.

I'm just gonna take this point by point because trying to split it up is taking me longer than writing my response out.

>Another reason I can aggro so easily is because enemy groups are generally spaced too far away to support each other.

I'll come back to this in a second, but that...really hasn't been my experience. If anything, the sheer number of ballistas, riders, cavs, beasts, etc. result in a bunch of situations where it's very easy to get surrounded if you're not careful. It's not as crazy as Awakening, but I think that's more due to the sheer nature of the map layout and Awakening being far more open. Something like Chapter 13 or 19 though: I'm not sure sure how there's a possible argument for enemy units being too far away. They're all very tightly packed together, and baiting them out consistently is kind of a necessity (or at least was for my units).

>Not all Fire Emblem games are balanced the same way, and the rest of that argument I could say also, that you're underleveled and unluckly.

You could say that, although reading through this thread and going by the experience of other people I know playing on hard, it seems like far more people have had an experience similar to mine than yours. It seems much more likely that your experience is the abnormal one rather than everyone else here being simultaneously unlucky.

I'm not terribly sure how we could be underleveled though, that doesn't make much sense to me. If we're all finding the desired amount of challenge in the game, wouldn't that mean we were leveled properly?

>I'd rather use facts to support my opinion, such as overall higher tankiness where even my frailest unit can take a hit when in Awakening/Fates they'd die instantly, aswell as up to 5 range letting me attack further off enemies without them counterattacking.

...it seems to me like at least one of your "facts" are largely dependent on stats/leveling themselves. In Awakening/Fates, your units with the lowest def/res are probably getting offed if they get attacked by a phys/magic user, and that has definitely (for me and it seems most of the other people in here) been the case in 3H as well. Lysithea, Marianne, Ignatz, all of them get routinely doubled and die in one attack if they're left out to dry. You could attribute this to leveling, but that just makes it dependent on the earlier issue.

Larger range is a thing in this game, but I don't see how that especially breaks it given that it's an ability that requires investment through either skills (bowfaire) or assist magic/rare staffs, so not many units are going to be able to capitalize on it. Admittedly player units can capitalize with an extra space through the use of combat arts, but those remove the chances for doubles and destroy your weapons so it has downsides. And, given that you've already stated you're willing to ignore some of Awakening's more "overpowered" stuff to preserve challenge, it seems like it'd be just as easy to remove range increasing tools/abilities if you truly feel it's that broken.

EDIT: I should note there's a couple of spells like thoron that have a built in extra space of range, but they're limited in both usage and effectiveness so I don't think that's especially problematic.

Broadly speaking, yeah, all I can say is I think you've either gotten very lucky with growth rates or you're horrifically overleveled, going by the video and what you've said up until now. It may not be "facts," but the vast majority of people that I've encountered don't seem to be running into these kinds of issues. 3H is by no means the hardest FE game, but if even your weakest units can take a hit on hard and survive, then something is definitely different with your playthrough than mine.

Last edited by MTZehvor - on 08 August 2019

Thank god for that, because Three Houses is excellent and honestly, the best FE to date



MTZehvor said:

Fuck's sake I hate this website revamp and the new quoting system. Formatting this shit is impossible.

I'm just gonna take this point by point because trying to split it up is taking me longer than writing my response out.

>Another reason I can aggro so easily is because enemy groups are generally spaced too far away to support each other.

I'll come back to this in a second, but that...really hasn't been my experience. If anything, the sheer number of ballistas, riders, cavs, beasts, etc. result in a bunch of situations where it's very easy to get surrounded if you're not careful. It's not as crazy as Awakening, but I think that's more due to the sheer nature of the map layout and Awakening being far more open. Something like Chapter 13 or 19 though: I'm not sure sure how there's a possible argument for enemy units being too far away. They're all very tightly packed together, and baiting them out consistently is kind of a necessity (or at least was for my units).

>Not all Fire Emblem games are balanced the same way, and the rest of that argument I could say also, that you're underleveled and unluckly.

You could say that, although reading through this thread and going by the experience of other people I know playing on hard, it seems like far more people have had an experience similar to mine than yours. It seems much more likely that your experience is the abnormal one rather than everyone else here being simultaneously unlucky.

I'm not terribly sure how we could be underleveled though, that doesn't make much sense to me. If we're all finding the desired amount of challenge in the game, wouldn't that mean we were leveled properly?

>I'd rather use facts to support my opinion, such as overall higher tankiness where even my frailest unit can take a hit when in Awakening/Fates they'd die instantly, aswell as up to 5 range letting me attack further off enemies without them counterattacking.

...it seems to me like at least one of your "facts" are largely dependent on stats/leveling themselves. In Awakening/Fates, your units with the lowest def/res are probably getting offed if they get attacked by a phys/magic user, and that has definitely (for me and it seems most of the other people in here) been the case in 3H as well. Lysithea, Marianne, Ignatz, all of them get routinely doubled and die in one attack if they're left out to dry. You could attribute this to leveling, but that just makes it dependent on the earlier issue.

Larger range is a thing in this game, but I don't see how that especially breaks it given that it's an ability that requires investment through either skills (bowfaire) or assist magic/rare staffs, so not many units are going to be able to capitalize on it. Admittedly player units can capitalize with an extra space through the use of combat arts, but those remove the chances for doubles and destroy your weapons so it has downsides. And, given that you've already stated you're willing to ignore some of Awakening's more "overpowered" stuff to preserve challenge, it seems like it'd be just as easy to remove range increasing tools/abilities if you truly feel it's that broken.

Broadly speaking, yeah, all I can say is I think you've either gotten very lucky with growth rates or you're horrifically overleveled, going by the video and what you've said up until now. It may not be "facts," but the vast majority of people that I've encountered don't seem to be running into these kinds of issues. 3H is by no means the hardest FE game, but if even your weakest units can take a hit on hard and survive, then something is definitely different with your playthrough than mine.

Best way to solve this is with proof! I'll try to provide examples later of the poor enemy placements.

You're not gonna peer pressure me into changing my mind. Everyone in the entire world could say 3 Houses is challenging, but as long as the facts my opinion is based on remain the same then I have no reason to change it. Plus like I said before, I know I'm not the only one, I gots anecdotes too.

Enemy stats are always the same, your unit's stats can vary a bit, but generally they'll end up around the same ballpark every playthrough. I've certainly never had a unit that has frail base stats and growths ever get the level ups to change that, though I guess I can't say it's impossible, but extremely unlikely for sure. If doubled then yes my frailer units will be 1RKO'd. Assassins and Swordmasters who outspeed all my units are quite threatening I'll admit, or atleast they maybe would be if not for range meta lul. Most other units like archers, calvary, mages, wyverns, knights, that all my units double my squishies can take a hit from. Shall I show proof of this?

"Not many units are gonna be able to capitalize on it" - you say after seeing the video I posted where all my units have bow/magic haha. You can't see for sure if Seteth does, but it'd be silly to assume he don't at that point. Ignoring dlc and optional grinding is quite a bit different from ignoring game mechanics, and telling me that I need to make the game hard for myself... is that not admittance that the game isn't hard? It's not my job to make Hard mode live up to it's name, that's on the developers. I want to actually need to play optimally and then still find it challenging, that's a proper hard mode.

Why is it so hard to accept that the game is easy, or at the very least, easier than recent games? Just because a game is easy doesn't mean it can't still be good and fun, both things I've already said this game still is.



Lonely_Dolphin said:

MTZehvor said:

Fuck's sake I hate this website revamp and the new quoting system. Formatting this shit is impossible.

I'm just gonna take this point by point because trying to split it up is taking me longer than writing my response out.

>Another reason I can aggro so easily is because enemy groups are generally spaced too far away to support each other.

I'll come back to this in a second, but that...really hasn't been my experience. If anything, the sheer number of ballistas, riders, cavs, beasts, etc. result in a bunch of situations where it's very easy to get surrounded if you're not careful. It's not as crazy as Awakening, but I think that's more due to the sheer nature of the map layout and Awakening being far more open. Something like Chapter 13 or 19 though: I'm not sure sure how there's a possible argument for enemy units being too far away. They're all very tightly packed together, and baiting them out consistently is kind of a necessity (or at least was for my units).

>Not all Fire Emblem games are balanced the same way, and the rest of that argument I could say also, that you're underleveled and unluckly.

You could say that, although reading through this thread and going by the experience of other people I know playing on hard, it seems like far more people have had an experience similar to mine than yours. It seems much more likely that your experience is the abnormal one rather than everyone else here being simultaneously unlucky.

I'm not terribly sure how we could be underleveled though, that doesn't make much sense to me. If we're all finding the desired amount of challenge in the game, wouldn't that mean we were leveled properly?

>I'd rather use facts to support my opinion, such as overall higher tankiness where even my frailest unit can take a hit when in Awakening/Fates they'd die instantly, aswell as up to 5 range letting me attack further off enemies without them counterattacking.

...it seems to me like at least one of your "facts" are largely dependent on stats/leveling themselves. In Awakening/Fates, your units with the lowest def/res are probably getting offed if they get attacked by a phys/magic user, and that has definitely (for me and it seems most of the other people in here) been the case in 3H as well. Lysithea, Marianne, Ignatz, all of them get routinely doubled and die in one attack if they're left out to dry. You could attribute this to leveling, but that just makes it dependent on the earlier issue.

Larger range is a thing in this game, but I don't see how that especially breaks it given that it's an ability that requires investment through either skills (bowfaire) or assist magic/rare staffs, so not many units are going to be able to capitalize on it. Admittedly player units can capitalize with an extra space through the use of combat arts, but those remove the chances for doubles and destroy your weapons so it has downsides. And, given that you've already stated you're willing to ignore some of Awakening's more "overpowered" stuff to preserve challenge, it seems like it'd be just as easy to remove range increasing tools/abilities if you truly feel it's that broken.

Broadly speaking, yeah, all I can say is I think you've either gotten very lucky with growth rates or you're horrifically overleveled, going by the video and what you've said up until now. It may not be "facts," but the vast majority of people that I've encountered don't seem to be running into these kinds of issues. 3H is by no means the hardest FE game, but if even your weakest units can take a hit on hard and survive, then something is definitely different with your playthrough than mine.

Best way to solve this is with proof! I'll try to provide examples later of the poor enemy placements.

You're not gonna peer pressure me into changing my mind. Everyone in the entire world could say 3 Houses is challenging, but as long as the facts my opinion is based on remain the same then I have no reason to change it. Plus like I said before, I know I'm not the only one, I gots anecdotes too.

Enemy stats are always the same, your unit's stats can vary a bit, but generally they'll end up around the same ballpark every playthrough. I've certainly never had a unit that has frail base stats and growths ever get the level ups to change that, though I guess I can't say it's impossible, but extremely unlikely for sure. If doubled then yes my frailer units will be 1RKO'd. Assassins and Swordmasters who outspeed all my units are quite threatening I'll admit, or atleast they maybe would be if not for range meta lul. Most other units like archers, calvary, mages, wyverns, knights, that all my units double my squishies can take a hit from. Shall I show proof of this?

"Not many units are gonna be able to capitalize on it" - you say after seeing the video I posted where all my units have bow/magic haha. You can't see for sure if Seteth does, but it'd be silly to assume he don't at that point. Ignoring dlc and optional grinding is quite a bit different from ignoring game mechanics, and telling me that I need to make the game hard for myself... is that not admittance that the game isn't hard? It's not my job to make Hard mode live up to it's name, that's on the developers. I want to actually need to play optimally and then still find it challenging, that's a proper hard mode.

Why is it so hard to accept that the game is easy, or at the very least, easier than recent games? Just because a game is easy doesn't mean it can't still be good and fun, both things I've already said this game still is.

First off, I'm...not trying to peer pressure you into changing your mind? I'm not quite sure where that's coming from. More than anything I'm just curious why you've had an experience that differs from mine. As the writer assigned to review the game for this site, I do my best to try and make sure I haven't missed potential issues (and positives) that others may have noticed. If someone feels differently about a game than I did, I try to figure out why and see if there's something else I should be taking into consideration when writing my review.

I'm not accusing you of lying here by any means: I fully believe you when you say that your units will survive a hit. It's, again, something that's just strange to me, because my units are not in that ball park. The three units I mentioned earlier die to just about any physical attack (maybe Ignatz could survive one), and more than that will die to doubles and get doubled by most things. The only reason I bring it up is to say it feels a little silly imo to dismiss the previous argument as differences in leveling/growths and then introduce your own argument which is itself heavily based in unit levels/growths.

When I say that units have difficulty "capitalizing on," I don't mean that they can't just immediately use ranged attacks. It's that you have to invest a substantial amount of time in units for them to hit from more than their standard distance away. Additional archer range only comes from bowfaire, which requires a heavy investment into bows and staying with the archer/sniper class for a while, and additional magic range comes from very specific spells (which generally speaking aren't particularly useful if units don't have good magic stats to begin with) or from staffs, of which there are a limited amount and are optimally placed on your best magic units. More than anything, I'm just confused how you managed to get a consistent wealth of units with high skill stats on magic/bows necessary to have those skills (as well as the skills they need to be able to use their standard weapons) and then all have them seemingly back in their more standard classes by the time of that video.

And, truth be told, I don't really see how just removing skills from the active skill list is any more troublesome then avoiding pair ups/broken skills in Awakening/Fates. That's...legitimately all I'm suggesting here. All you need to do is remove an ability or item and swap it out with something else if you dislike the "range meta." It's no different than just opting to avoid pairing up in Awakening/Fates, or not using some of the more "broken" skills like Galeforce/Ignis in Awakening. I've also never once mentioned optional grinding or DLC in this conversation, so I'm a little uncertain of why you're continuing to bring it up.

I feel like the insinuation in your last paragraph is misplaced. If the vast majority of people on this thread is challenging (and from doing a quick scroll through of Serenes Forest/FE Reddit, at least a slight majority of the FE community in general believes it provides at worst a decent challenge on hard), is it truly so hard to believe that most people actually found it challenging, rather than we're all just in immense denial over it? You could more reasonably argue that we're all less skilled, or that you took advantage of something better than we did, but the implication that we all just can't admit that the game is easy feels rather questionable to me.

Last edited by MTZehvor - on 08 August 2019

My first FE gmae and I loved it so did alot of the Twitch streamers I follow and it was the first FE game for them aswell.



If it isn't turnbased it isn't worth playing   (mostly)

And shepherds we shall be,

For Thee, my Lord, for Thee. Power hath descended forth from Thy hand, That our feet may swiftly carry out Thy command. So we shall flow a river forth to Thee And teeming with souls shall it ever be. In Nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritūs Sancti. -----The Boondock Saints

MTZehvor said:

First off, I'm...not trying to peer pressure you into changing your mind? I'm not quite sure where that's coming from. More than anything I'm just curious why you've had an experience that differs from mine. As the writer assigned to review the game for this site, I do my best to try and make sure I haven't missed potential issues (and positives) that others may have noticed. If someone feels differently about a game than I did, I try to figure out why and see if there's something else I should be taking into consideration when writing my review.

I'm not accusing you of lying here by any means: I fully believe you when you say that your units will survive a hit. It's, again, something that's just strange to me, because my units are not in that ball park. The three units I mentioned earlier die to just about any physical attack (maybe Ignatz could survive one), and more than that will die to doubles and get doubled by most things. The only reason I bring it up is to say it feels a little silly imo to dismiss the previous argument as differences in leveling/growths and then introduce your own argument which is itself heavily based in unit levels/growths.

When I say that units have difficulty "capitalizing on," I don't mean that they can't just immediately use ranged attacks. It's that you have to invest a substantial amount of time in units for them to hit from more than their standard distance away. Additional archer range only comes from bowfaire, which requires a heavy investment into bows and staying with the archer/sniper class for a while, and additional magic range comes from very specific spells (which generally speaking aren't particularly useful if units don't have good magic stats to begin with) or from staffs, of which there are a limited amount and are optimally placed on your best magic units. More than anything, I'm just confused how you managed to get a consistent wealth of units with high skill stats on magic/bows necessary to have those skills (as well as the skills they need to be able to use their standard weapons) and then all have them seemingly back in their more standard classes by the time of that video.

And, truth be told, I don't really see how just removing skills from the active skill list is any more troublesome then avoiding pair ups/broken skills in Awakening/Fates. That's...legitimately all I'm suggesting here. All you need to do is remove an ability or item and swap it out with something else if you dislike the "range meta." It's no different than just opting to avoid pairing up in Awakening/Fates, or not using some of the more "broken" skills like Galeforce/Ignis in Awakening. I've also never once mentioned optional grinding or DLC in this conversation, so I'm a little uncertain of why you're continuing to bring it up.

I feel like the insinuation in your last paragraph is misplaced. If the vast majority of people on this thread is challenging (and from doing a quick scroll through of Serenes Forest/FE Reddit, at least a slight majority of the FE community in general believes it provides at worst a decent challenge on hard), is it truly so hard to believe that most people actually found it challenging, rather than we're all just in immense denial over it? You could more reasonably argue that we're all less skilled, or that you took advantage of something better than we did, but the implication that we all just can't admit that the game is easy feels rather questionable to me.

My bad, you were calling my experience abnormal because of what others have said so I assumed that was your point in saying so. It's great that you're gathering opinions to make the most informed review possible.

Do they die to any unit, even armored? Have you promoted them? Are you using HP+5? Just like you're not sure how my units are surviving, I'm not sure how your units are dying. xD

Bowfaire is a class skill for Sniper and Bow Knight that gives +5 dmg when using Bow. Bowrange +1/+2 is the class skill that Archer Sniper and Bow Knight has that gives more range. For none archer classes, there's Curved Shot unlocked at D-Rank Bow for 3 range aswell as Longbow. You can gain weapon rank for any weapon regardless of what your current class is by using the weapon and through teaching. Also when I said all units can have Magic/Bow, I mean and/or. I only have Ignatz actually using both. I have 3 dedicated Mages, one who already has a 3 range spell, so I gave the other two the wands that increase range. That I had to say all this means you must not be taking full advantage of the range meta, that would certainly explain our different experiences haha.

I don't avoid those things though. Pair-Up, Galeforce, etc. as broken as they are in Awakening are an inherent part of the game, just like the range meta is in Echoes and 3 Houses. Usually people talking about Awakening/Fates being broken factor in the dlc and grinding, as that's how you would get galeforce on every possible unit. That's the non-raw stuff I avoid.

You can't spin that back around to me as I'm not dismissing your claim and evidence by saying you're just underleveled and unlucky. I know some people find the game challenging and that's fine, but that alone doesn't mean it's not easier than the 3DS games. It's the way the game is designed, mechanically and fundamentally, that determines this. If you don't agree with that logic, eh fair enough. Apparently a Lunatic mode is going to come in an update, that could change my mind, here's hoping!



Lonely_Dolphin said:
MTZehvor said:

First off, I'm...not trying to peer pressure you into changing your mind? I'm not quite sure where that's coming from. More than anything I'm just curious why you've had an experience that differs from mine. As the writer assigned to review the game for this site, I do my best to try and make sure I haven't missed potential issues (and positives) that others may have noticed. If someone feels differently about a game than I did, I try to figure out why and see if there's something else I should be taking into consideration when writing my review.

I'm not accusing you of lying here by any means: I fully believe you when you say that your units will survive a hit. It's, again, something that's just strange to me, because my units are not in that ball park. The three units I mentioned earlier die to just about any physical attack (maybe Ignatz could survive one), and more than that will die to doubles and get doubled by most things. The only reason I bring it up is to say it feels a little silly imo to dismiss the previous argument as differences in leveling/growths and then introduce your own argument which is itself heavily based in unit levels/growths.

When I say that units have difficulty "capitalizing on," I don't mean that they can't just immediately use ranged attacks. It's that you have to invest a substantial amount of time in units for them to hit from more than their standard distance away. Additional archer range only comes from bowfaire, which requires a heavy investment into bows and staying with the archer/sniper class for a while, and additional magic range comes from very specific spells (which generally speaking aren't particularly useful if units don't have good magic stats to begin with) or from staffs, of which there are a limited amount and are optimally placed on your best magic units. More than anything, I'm just confused how you managed to get a consistent wealth of units with high skill stats on magic/bows necessary to have those skills (as well as the skills they need to be able to use their standard weapons) and then all have them seemingly back in their more standard classes by the time of that video.

And, truth be told, I don't really see how just removing skills from the active skill list is any more troublesome then avoiding pair ups/broken skills in Awakening/Fates. That's...legitimately all I'm suggesting here. All you need to do is remove an ability or item and swap it out with something else if you dislike the "range meta." It's no different than just opting to avoid pairing up in Awakening/Fates, or not using some of the more "broken" skills like Galeforce/Ignis in Awakening. I've also never once mentioned optional grinding or DLC in this conversation, so I'm a little uncertain of why you're continuing to bring it up.

I feel like the insinuation in your last paragraph is misplaced. If the vast majority of people on this thread is challenging (and from doing a quick scroll through of Serenes Forest/FE Reddit, at least a slight majority of the FE community in general believes it provides at worst a decent challenge on hard), is it truly so hard to believe that most people actually found it challenging, rather than we're all just in immense denial over it? You could more reasonably argue that we're all less skilled, or that you took advantage of something better than we did, but the implication that we all just can't admit that the game is easy feels rather questionable to me.

My bad, you were calling my experience abnormal because of what others have said so I assumed that was your point in saying so. It's great that you're gathering opinions to make the most informed review possible.

Do they die to any unit, even armored? Have you promoted them? Are you using HP+5? Just like you're not sure how my units are surviving, I'm not sure how your units are dying. xD

Bowfaire is a class skill for Sniper and Bow Knight that gives +5 dmg when using Bow. Bowrange +1/+2 is the class skill that Archer Sniper and Bow Knight has that gives more range. For none archer classes, there's Curved Shot unlocked at D-Rank Bow for 3 range aswell as Longbow. You can gain weapon rank for any weapon regardless of what your current class is by using the weapon and through teaching. Also when I said all units can have Magic/Bow, I mean and/or. I only have Ignatz actually using both. I have 3 dedicated Mages, one who already has a 3 range spell, so I gave the other two the wands that increase range. That I had to say all this means you must not be taking full advantage of the range meta, that would certainly explain our different experiences haha.

I don't avoid those things though. Pair-Up, Galeforce, etc. as broken as they are in Awakening are an inherent part of the game, just like the range meta is in Echoes and 3 Houses. Usually people talking about Awakening/Fates being broken factor in the dlc and grinding, as that's how you would get galeforce on every possible unit. That's the non-raw stuff I avoid.

You can't spin that back around to me as I'm not dismissing your claim and evidence by saying you're just underleveled and unlucky. I know some people find the game challenging and that's fine, but that alone doesn't mean it's not easier than the 3DS games. It's the way the game is designed, mechanically and fundamentally, that determines this. If you don't agree with that logic, eh fair enough. Apparently a Lunatic mode is going to come in an update, that could change my mind, here's hoping!

Depends on the unit: I do recall keeping +5 HP on some of them, but others it just seemed like a waste (esp when many long range enemies like fliers have significantly better speed than my squishies), so I used the spots for other things.

I do I think I understand the gist of your strategy, and I've played around with it myself at the start of the game (having every unit wield a ranged weapon of some kind). It's just that it...didn't seem especially effective for me, mostly because of the experience required to get there. It seemed like I was just better off giving people javalins or throwing axes or whatever, as that required far less time investment and it seemed like a smarter use of time developing skills they excelled at. I believe I'm also familiar with what everything you stated (I believe I've referenced everything you mentioned in previous posts, albeit with the name confusion for the bow skills). The problem is that with unit interests/weaknesses, I just simply haven't found time to push for getting everyone into either a magic/bow class at some point, letting them develop skills to move to the next class, and then promoting them to higher classes where they can actually wield weapons that are strong enough to be effective to any degree. Just as a comparison point, I've had Leonie learning armor since basically the start of the timeskip when I realized I wanted to make her into a Great Knight. I assigned her to learning armor (exclusively for most of the time, so a 1.5 multiplier) and had her boosting armor learning skills with group tasks...and 8 chapters later, she's just now finally hitting B rank. B rank is where most of the quality spells/silver bows unlock, which seems to kind of be the bare minimum for doing significant damage in later maps. Maybe combat just boosts it by a crazy degree, I have difficulty imagining it being substantial enough of a boost to overtake group tasks by enough of a margin that it would be a worthwhile investment of time.

I'm also aware of the combat arts, but I've largely done my best to avoid relying on them too heavily since, well, they chew through weapons really quickly. Also being limited to one attack for most of the arts means that they haven't been especially useful to me either most of the time since moving one space closer generally isn't that much more harmful and you can often get a double from it.

That being said, it's good to hear something like this, because it may very well be that the game has balancing issues designed around teams that are very heavily ranged focus. Perhaps it just requires a heavier investment at the beginning that I simply didn't put the time into because it didn't seem like it would pay off well. My team isn't really set up to test something like that now, so I can't vouch for how good or bad it is. But it's helpful to keep in mind, and hopefully something I can go back through and test on a later playthrough.

EDIT: I also want to say, I'm not putting any of this out there to bash Awakening/Fates. I thoroughly enjoyed both games (as my banner probably indicates), and Awakening would probably be in my top 10 all time. I'm also not going to necessarily disagree with you that this game is inherently easier than Awakening w/o grinding, I just haven't found it to be as easy as you've said. But, again, different experiences.

Last edited by MTZehvor - on 08 August 2019

Lonely_Dolphin said:
MTZehvor said:

The point is that if your unit is moved up and kills an enemy, it's going to draw retaliatory attacks in return. Story maps in 3H, especially post timeskip, are designed where even if you one shot enemies, you're going to trigger usually multiple retaliatory attacks from other enemy units (often more). Many of these are going to be units that are themselves in the range of others, so moving to strike them just puts whatever character you use to hit them in even more danger. Chapters 13, 19, and 20 all especially notable examples of this, along with other chapters where ballista/magic garrisons exist that are out of any single unit's move space. If your unit can consistently tank 3, 4, even 5 attacks being initiated by the enemy in a single turn in a Fire Emblem game, you're either significantly overleveled, you've gotten extremely lucky with growth rates, or you're playing Awakening with maxed pair up supports. Obvious exception is if you've got a def/res tank or something and all the enemy units are physical/magic, but that doesn't really seem to be what you're talking about here.

Personally I'd just be curious to see an example of what you're talking about tbh, if you can maybe take a picture from a chapter you play on later. Lysithea and whoever else you have as a mage are certainly capable distance killers, but the sheer number of flying/cavalry enemies that can one shot her means you either can't just place her willy nilly without getting offed, and those characters are usually far enough away to the point where they can't be killed without drawing their own degree of retaliatory fire.

I'm not telling you to not do paralogues; just maybe focus on getting the majority of exp with characters who aren't higher level. I'm also not saying it's "your fault," but a simple aspect of game design with optional battles and a leveling system is that you're never going to be able to perfectly balance maps for all playstyles. Either you balance it assuming people have done paralogues/optional maps consistently and risk making it too difficult for people who haven't, or balance it assuming people haven't and risk making it too easy for those who did use optional maps. Fates leaned more towards the former, 3H leans more towards the latter. But this is something that all strategy games and, dare I say, all RPGs themselves struggle with.

(Formatting broke for some reason) It's like we're playing a completely different game haha. Another reason I can aggro so easily is because enemy groups are generally spaced too far away to support each other. Course again, thanks to increased survivability I can still aggro even if there will be a few enemies still in range. Not all Fire Emblem games are balanced the same way, and the rest of that argument I could say also, that you're underleveled and unluckly. I'd rather use facts to support my opinion, such as overall higher tankiness where even my frailest unit can take a hit when in Awakening/Fates they'd die instantly, aswell as up to 5 range letting me attack further off enemies without them counterattacking. These factors are what makes the game oversimplified.
I'll do ya one better and post a clip from that moment I mentioned earlier where the game clearly didn't expect someone to steamroll that far in already: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvFv0mgTzzg
That's easily solved by difficulty options. I chose hard mode which specifically said is for experienced players.

JWeinCom said:

I'm not exactly sure what you are looking for.  You're complaining HP is too high, but your character's going to die in the range or more than one unit.  Should you just instantly be dead if anyone is in range? It doesn't really feel much different from previous Fire Emblem games where everyone except maybe my white mages could take at least a hit.  I'm actually finding characters dying in one hit more frequent in this game, mostly because of the lack of pairing and weakening of rally.  Although it also could be because I take more risks knowing I can divine pulse if it goes badly.

The rest of what you're saying simply doesn't square up with what I'm playing.  There are tons of mounted units, not to mention that the enemy has access to bows as well.  So I have no idea how you're killing anything that could potentially counter attack your weaker units.  Last level I played had literally over a dozen wyverns.  If you know a way to kill them all without ever getting in their range, I'd love to know.  

I have seen one person in this topic agree that the game is easy, but they're playing on normal casual.  I'm sure if you look on reddit you could find people that agree with any opinion.  As for your "cold hard facts" I have no idea what you're point is.  It's a fact that you have more range in this game... so? That's a completely neutral fact that doesn't necessarily tell us anything about the game's difficulty.  

Anyway... here are some things I could truthfully say.  In Awakening, I never had to worry about my frail units being counter attacked ever, because they could be paired up behind a bulky one.  In either game I could attach fliers to my bulkier units, giving them all the benefits of bulk classes without the drawback.  In Awakening, my characters recovered half their health when they killed enemies.  In Fates I could make a duplicate of my best character allowing them two have two turns.  In Awakening, I had characters that got a bonus turn when they killed an an enemy unit letting them instantly run to safety or kill another one.  In Fates, I could duplicate my best units, then each of those duplicates got a bonus turn for killing an enemy, allowing my most powerful character to attack four times in a turn.  In Awakening, my character could kill an enemy, recover half his hp, move again, and regain the other half.  In Fates I revived a dead character. 

Point is, there are lots of other cold hard facts you have to consider if you're talking about the game's difficulty, but you're just focusing on one, which absolutely screams confirmation bias.  

I'm looking for more reason to care about how I position my units, the order I move them in, just general gameplay depth. Units being more vulnerable naturally means I need to be more thoughtful in my approach. I like having that tension where one small mistake means someone dies. I was just playing Fates not too long ago so the contrast is stark to me. Already mentioned the difference between the game's frailest units, there's also crits and flying weakness to bows, which are instant death in Fates, but in 3 Houses I've survived through those which is just crazy to me.

Of course I'll bait enemies that I can't reach, Calavry and Wyverns love to suicide in. Enemy magic are mostly 1-2 range, bows 2-3 range, so I can either outrange or melee, using gauntlets/brave weps against magic if I need to avoid the counterattack.

So why do you care how many agree when you believe one can always find people who agree? Personally I couldn't careless how many agree or disagree, I only believe facts and evidence. As for range meta, it should go without saying that being able to attack further off enemies without retaliation makes the game much simpler than if you couldn't do that.

Sure you can make Awakening/Fates a cakewalk if you buy dlc and grind and stuff, but in their rawest form they provide more depth and challenge than Three Houses in it's rawest form does. In Awakening/Fates, I can choose to play an easy game or a harder one, but in Three Houses I can only choose to play an easy game.

Only one of the things I mentioned requires a DLC item.  The rest are all options in the normal game, and options you don't really have to grind for.  And there's plenty more you could through out there like vengence/nosferatu, free streetpass skills, debuff weapons, broken weapons the royals have etc, but it seems that you don't want to actually consider any of these factors.  I guess you could choose to never pair your units or anything.  By the same logic you could choose to never use ranged weapons.

So yeah, if you use the best options in three houses and don't take advantage of any of the good options in fates or awakening, then they're much harder than three houses.  You care about facts and evidence... but just ignore any that go against you.  

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 09 August 2019