I have seen several times that the mechanics of mounting and dismounting (I think it comes from FE5) are not very popular with the public, and I would like to know why this is so.
?
Dismounting cripples your unit’s movement for a turn, while providing close to no benefits (and sometimes being a con!)
I haven’t played Thracia, but in Mistery of The Emblem it felt pretty bad since it made all your cavs sword-wielders. It makes each unit feel samey specially in book 2 with its lack of Axe units: In the endgame, most of your physical units are either capped sword infantry or archers.
In Three houses, it’s pretty useless. It’s a player-phase oriented game. Why would you want to make your units get less movement and lose canto? (also, you lose 2 strength and speed if you dismount from a Wyven Lord)
The only good dismount is Seliph’s, but only because of the reason it was implemented: aesthetic purposes
In FE3, dismounting was a way to balance out cavalry and flying units. By forcing mounted units to go on foot in indoor maps, this would allow foot-locked units to have a chance to play a larger part in those particular maps. Dismounted units didn’t just have nerfed movement but also nerfed stats, which presumably came from the mount. The problem was that dismounted units sometimes couldn’t even use the weapons they had while mounted. Pegasus Knights, Cavaliers, Wyvern Knights, and Paladins had to use swords, which is jarring and uncomfortable for units that mainly use lances, if not all the time. Another issue is that sometimes outdoor maps have indoor structures, so mounted units would need to spend a turn dismounting just to get inside. Then there was BS Fire Emblem: Archanea Saga, which removed the indoor dismounting requirement altogether.
FE4 had promoted Seliph be the only unit in the whole game who could dismount. But there was practically no reason to do so, as dismounted Seliph is just the same as his Tier 1 class. Apparently, dismounting was intended to be a universal feature for mounted units, but it was removed to save space. It really says something when a mechanic was made just because Kaga thought players wouldn’t want to promote Leif because of how cute he looked. Not Seliph. Leif.
Now for the actual Leif game. Thracia 776 borrowed from FE3’s dismounting system, but it didn’t learn the lessons it should have. While dismounted classes were now distinct from each other, as opposed to the single Dismounted Knight of FE3, most of them still could only use swords. For example, Paladins could only use swords even though they could also use lances while mounted, and Great Knights had to completely swap from axes to swords. Sure, swords are pretty good in FE5 (some say even the best weapon in the game), but that only meant that mounted units with natural access to swords and thus higher weapon ranks had it better than lance-users and axe-users. Not only that, many maps were a mix of indoor and outdoor elements, so the pacing can get slowed by units just trying to mount or dismount. Thracia 776 at least tried to add some benefits to make sure dismounted units didn’t feel shafted: for one, dismounted units had less class relative power (a concept GBA fans might be familiar with), which meant that they would gain more experience. Second, Thracia’s rescue system prevented mounted units from being rescued, so dismounting allowed mounted units to access this important mechanic. Third, dismounting, being wonky and frustrating for the player, can also be a hindrance for foes; the Sleep staff is so powerful in Thracia 776 because it forces mounted units to dismount, which is key for capturing. All in all, FE5 made some improvements, but those improvements felt too marginal. At least it was a small step that would be the basis for…
Three Houses, the FE4 spiritual remake that no one asked for but got excited for anyway. Shadow Dragon’s internal data suggests that dismounting was considered but ultimately got scrapped. Over a generation has passed, and most people were fine with dismounting getting the boot due to the cons overweighing the pros. So when Three Houses, a game with lots of FE4 elements gameplay- and story-wise, hit the scene, dismounting was bound to return, much to the surprise of admittedly half of the fanbase. There were some conveniences that updated dismounting; for one, if a unit hasn’t moved yet, they can choose to mount/dismount and then utilize their movement from there without wasting a turn. Also, dismounting was no longer based on where units were located, so units could mount or dismount anytime. Not only that, dismounted units could use the same weapons they already have access to, with the exception of mounted units not being able to use gauntlets, which makes sense. (How are you going to punch someone while on a pegasus? Just stick out your arm and then fly forward?) But 3H took the time to examine how dismounted units could compete with their mounted forms beyond just different weapons. What’s one stat so important that it could go toe to toe with movement? Speed, of course. Mounted classes often had to make a choice between Speed or Movement. For example, Cavaliers must choose between 3 Movement or 2 Speed. Case closed, right? Okay, I lied. Some mounted classes are still better than their dismounted forms in every way. One of the reasons why Wyvern Lords are probably the best class to soar over the skies of Fódlan is that it didn’t just have +2 Movement but also +2 Speed and +2 Strength. Even if you ignore “superior” classes like Wyvern Lords or Falcon Knights, some classes have more benefits beyond Movement; Great Knights also got +2 Def, and Valkyrie was the only class that got a Res boost. So on and so forth, yadda, yadda. “Oh, but it’s not a complete upgrade because you gain a cavalry/flier weakness!” Remind me, how many anti-cavalry units foes were present in 3H? I thought so. “Oh, but it’s not a complete upgrade because you can’t use gauntlets!” Except the weapon triangle is a soft mechanic rather than a hard one in 3H, meaning that there’s nothing you miss out on by just slapping on a Brave Axe or even a Brave Sword and calling it a day. Unused content in 3H suggests that horseraising was considered, which meant that breeding mounts could have been a thing. Thank Seiros it didn’t happen, or else there would have been even less of a reason to dismount.
With that history behind us, what do I think about mounting and dismounting? I think FE3, while the wonkiest, probably had the best intentions behind dismounting: creating restrictions for mounted units to allow foot-locked units to shine. It’s an interesting concept that I feel like fangame makers should try their hand at: making maps based on indoors/outdoors and balancing how units of different movement types function there. I also feel like this restriction feels more organic at restricting mounted units compared to more obvious attempts such as adding a ton of trenches or slapping anti-cavalry weapons and bows on foes and calling it a day. FE5 had some extra polish, but it still retained a lot of what made it cumbersome in that you had to waste turns getting off and on, not to mention the wonky weapon swapping. 3H felt like it almost got the right idea by granting stat differences between forms, such as better Speed when dismounted…and then it made mounted forms that were better than dismounted forms in every practical way. (3H and not committing to things, name a better duo.) Still, it forms a nice basis for stat tradeoffs. I feel like adjusting Def/Res and even Skl could be an interesting way to balance things since it can be harder to move when saddled to a horse. Radiant Dawn had a more subtle way of balancing, but it felt somewhat more inorganic; indoor maps restricted the movement stat of mounted classes. Well, most mounted classes except guess who? Fliers like Wyvern Lords! Because of course. RD didn’t really try to hide it (and hey, being upfront sometimes works), but it didn’t even commit to that, either.
So is dismounting irredeemable? Well, for the time being, a lot of fans say yes due to the clumsiness of weapon-swapping and how most mounted forms are just better. While I had just talked about how dismounting can be a nice, organic way of balancing classes, there are other ways of balancing mounts beyond just slapping on a zanbato or FEH’s movement type-based restriction on what skills units can use. Why not just have different terrain effects? Why not make forests more difficult for cavalry to travel through? Why not make better desert maps? Why not bring back weather effects that greatly affect fliers and not as much affect infantry units? This can definitely make more interesting maps, and it certainly takes away the tedium of having to go through the action menu and clicking “Mount/Dismount” every time you change terrain. But if anyone has more suggestions, I’m all ears.
Dismounting would be more effective if you couldn’t just reverse at any given time. It’s honestly more of a buff on outdoor maps since mounts now have a get out of weaknesses free card, and in FE3 they switch to a better weapon type on foot. FE5 swords are also quite good and some mounted units pack a decent sword rank anyway. It also makes indoor maps more of a slog since the maps are often similarly sized but now the movement ceiling is lower. Modern games also have reclassing, which is probably the main reason for this:
Shadow Dragon’s internal data suggests that dismounting was considered but ultimately got scrapped.
I think you’d get more mileage out of making indoor terrain disfavor mounted units than relying on dismounting. 3H taxed horses on stairs; you could probably hit some other terrains, like making pillars infantry-only. Another idea is making one-tile doorways into their own terrain type to create infantry-only areas like SNES indoor maps. And if you really want to be mean, just make indoors the equivalent of desert terrain for fliers. You can feature this alongside dismounting so that no one is getting TOO screwed and it’ll still hold water!
But if you do this please consider making indoor maps slightly smaller, or giving the flagship infantry classes a movement buff indoors. Oh, and restricting re-mounting on outdoor maps.
I did mention how RD’s indoor maps restricted mounted units, and while it might be the simplest option, it’s not always the best option. You mention how indoor maps should be a bit smaller, but it just brings bad flashbacks of maps with very thin corridors, forcing the player to spend a few turns in a conga line. Some examples that stand out immediately are Fort Renvall and Jehanna Hall in FE8. I do consider ideas like trenches and cavalry-hindering forests, as well as the stairs you mentioned in 3H, but while they feel somewhat more organic compared to slapping on anti-mounted weapons, sprinkling them around too much can definitely lead some people to realize, “Yeah, this designer has a bone to pick with against mounted units.” It’s hard for developers to give players an option, only to severely nerf it on multiple occasions. This gets harder in a game like Fire Emblem, which often utilizes limited resources. Thus, a player may feel unfairly punished for investing in, I don’t know, half of the entirety of classes.