Map Database  •  FAQ  •  RSS  •  Login

The Warrior: A barbarian clone or something more?

<<

Lewin

User avatar

KaM Remake Developer

Posts: 3822

Joined: 16 Sep 2007, 22:00

KaM Skill Level: Skilled

ICQ: 269127056

Website: http://lewin.hodgman.id.au

Yahoo Messenger: lewinlewinhodgman

Location: Australia

Post 06 Oct 2008, 01:25

I do think it would make a good mod, as would many other ideas floating around. Maybe that's something we should actually start seriously thinking about...
Yeah maybe. I think SR3 is higher priority ATM.
The warrior is only for making game varied. So the warrior have the same values. But optical i would say he has the same like sword fighter without shield. So I would say 4/2, but do you must change the values because an optical charm?
We (I) have decided that changing the warrior is a bad idea after all. 4/2 is not good because that makes him better than the barbarian. They should be equally as powerful, (but not necessarily identical) because they cost the same.
Lewin.
<<

TonyDXIII

Lance Carrier

Posts: 67

Joined: 09 Jun 2006, 22:00

Location: New Jersey, USA

Post 01 Nov 2008, 18:32

I think it would be an excellent idea to somehow separate them, unfortunately I understand that it has to be difficult due to the coding of the game.

I was pondering a bit though, is there any way to say use the older unused pictures of the barbarian/warrior double-headed axe and use it in game? Like have it made at the Blacksmith for the cost of 2 iron/2 coal and then use the regular armor. It sounds out there I know, defiantly only a thought but it seems not quite possible. Also i would agree that 4-2 is a bit overpowered but it is a an overpowered unit, its a barbarian with iron armament so it should be the best unit in the game.
<<

Ben

User avatar

Former Site Admin

Posts: 3814

Joined: 08 Jan 2009, 23:00

Location: California - Pacific Time (UTC -8/-7 Summer Time)

Post 19 Jan 2009, 00:50

oh my goodness! Why in the world do people say we should not do this?!? I thought it would be a landslide towords the fact that it should be changed!!! I mean, kaM is suppoed to be real, right? Then why in the world should both of these guys look the same.
I agree with Tony D about him being the stongest soldier in the game. And as for for making him trainable in the barracks? Go for it! I think it should cost 3 iron/ 3 (or 2?) coal.
I voted 2 attack/ 3 defence if we keep it in the town hall, but if it becoms trainable in the barraks at 3 iron 3 coal; then I think it should be at 4/3. Oh and DON"T SAY THIS WOULD BE TOO POWERFULL! It would be more expencive then a sige weapon and those would be even better then this (if you protected them.) They also would be inventry (however you spell that:P) so achers and crossbowmen should still be able to kill them easy enough.
On the subject, I think that all soldiers in the townhall should have the reaction bug fixed. Dies this only happen to me? I dono. But for me, if I train about 10 people form the townhall my WHOLE army moves and attacks like 3 seconds after I tell them to. It is really annoying. It should be fixxed too.
As for my vote? CHANGE IT! :)
I used to spam this forum so much...
<<

Nick

Crossbowman

Posts: 240

Joined: 09 Jan 2007, 23:00

Post 19 Jan 2009, 01:58

since i totally changed my mind about these things. A patch is a bugfix.
Changing the values of the warior doesnt meet that requirement at all. So i guess leave it.
<<

The Dark Lord

User avatar

King Karolus Servant

Posts: 2154

Joined: 29 Aug 2007, 22:00

KaM Skill Level: Veteran

Location: In his dark thunderstormy castle

Post 19 Jan 2009, 11:48

but if it becoms trainable in the barraks at 3 iron 3 coal; then I think it should be at 4/3. Oh and DON"T SAY THIS WOULD BE TOO POWERFULL! It would be more expencive then a sige weapon and those would be even better then this (if you protected them.)
In fact, you're wrong here. 3 iron and 3 coal is not more than 5 iron and 5 timber, right? It's just as expensive as a sword fighter:
1 iron + 1 coal = sword
1 iron + 1 coal = iron armor
1 iron + 1 coal = iron shield
So 4/3 would be way too powerful if you compare it with the sword fighter.
But for me, if I train about 10 people form the townhall my WHOLE army moves and attacks like 3 seconds after I tell them to.
I have that too, sometimes. If you train a lot of 'em, they sometimes think they are in an extremely large group (with like 100 soldiers), and they're gonna stand in one line while that thing showing how many soldiers there are in how many lines (with those shields) is a complete mess.
<<

Sir Peter

Rogue

Posts: 53

Joined: 07 Dec 2008, 23:00

Location: Croatia

Post 20 Jan 2009, 18:45

2 attack, 3 defence, definately! I also wanted to ask, something about that... is it possible to change that into 2 attack, 3 defence, without the source code?
<<

Quest

Post 21 Jan 2009, 09:46

2 attack, 3 defence, definately! I also wanted to ask, something about that... is it possible to change that into 2 attack, 3 defence, without the source code?
Yes it is!
<<

MrVV

Axe Fighter

Posts: 72

Joined: 29 Feb 2008, 23:00

Location: Zealand, Denmark

Post 21 Jan 2009, 09:49

2 attack, 3 defence, definately! I also wanted to ask, something about that... is it possible to change that into 2 attack, 3 defence, without the source code?
Yes it is!
Agree, 2 attack 3 defence - that's realistic i think.
<<

Nick

Crossbowman

Posts: 240

Joined: 09 Jan 2007, 23:00

Post 21 Jan 2009, 09:55

2attack, 3 defense isnt realistic.
The sword fighter has a shield and has less defense then a warrior. I don't think so... :S
<<

Ben

User avatar

Former Site Admin

Posts: 3814

Joined: 08 Jan 2009, 23:00

Location: California - Pacific Time (UTC -8/-7 Summer Time)

Post 28 Jan 2009, 02:10

but if it becoms trainable in the barraks at 3 iron 3 coal; then I think it should be at 4/3. Oh and DON"T SAY THIS WOULD BE TOO POWERFULL! It would be more expencive then a sige weapon and those would be even better then this (if you protected them.)


In fact, you're wrong here. 3 iron and 3 coal is not more than 5 iron and 5 timber, right? It's just as expensive as a sword fighter:
1 iron + 1 coal = sword
1 iron + 1 coal = iron armor
1 iron + 1 coal = iron shield
So 4/3 would be way too powerful if you compare it with the sword fighter.
I ment for making the battle axe only. You still have to make the aromor, which would make you have to spend 1 more iron and 1 more coal.
Also you would have to build another building so thats evens it out more...
I used to spam this forum so much...
<<

JBSnorro

Barbarian

Posts: 106

Joined: 20 Nov 2007, 23:00

Post 06 May 2009, 17:59

I voted against change, mainly because you cannot pick the barbarian or pick the Warrior, it is randomly chosen. If it were otherwise, I would have liked the version of the warrior with extra armor(2A-3D).
Sadly this poll will likely end in something around 50-50...
<<

Siegfried

User avatar

Knight

Posts: 494

Joined: 24 Jul 2009, 22:00

Post 25 Jul 2009, 11:38

Well, first of all, Merchator's unit editor shows me a defence of 2 and an attack of 4.
The original values are said to be 1 D and 4 A. Up to now I was not able to read this values out of the TSK dats.
Let's assume they were 1D4A original for now.

The nominal strength of an unit comes from its "HAD"-value which is hitpoints*attack*defence.

The original barbarian has a HAD=60 (for reference: militia has HAD=21).
If you go to 3D2A you end up with a value of HAD=84.

The nominal value of the barbarian would then increase by nearly 25% and result in a very strong unit.

Later I will run some battle simulations to get the results from the real battles, but even now it can be said that you MUST NOT edit the settings if you want to keep the original strength.
<<

Lewin

User avatar

KaM Remake Developer

Posts: 3822

Joined: 16 Sep 2007, 22:00

KaM Skill Level: Skilled

ICQ: 269127056

Website: http://lewin.hodgman.id.au

Yahoo Messenger: lewinlewinhodgman

Location: Australia

Post 26 Jul 2009, 01:59

I just wanted to let you know that we decided not to do this change. It was just a crazy idea that some of us was toying around with for a while.

However, we decided that this would not be appropriate for the patch, but could have something similar done for a mod later on.

Interesting... I didn't know that you had to multiply the values to get the nominal strength.
Lewin.
<<

Nuutburz

Farmer

Posts: 22

Joined: 14 Jun 2010, 22:00

Website: http://www.elvenbow.ru

Location: Russia, Moscow.

Post 26 Jun 2010, 18:10

Hmm. It's Interesting. i think 2attack, 3 defense isnt realistic. But it looks like balanced. But i'am thinking it must be 4 attack and 2 defense, and must costs 6 gold.
<<

Debaron

User avatar

The Dukes of Burgundy Clan

Posts: 31

Joined: 17 Jan 2013, 01:04

KaM Skill Level: Average

Post 24 Apr 2013, 02:27

Re: The Warrior: A barbarian clone or something more?

I would be interested to see how 2/3 will play out in-game.

Return to “1.60 Patch (Service Release 3)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests