The Warrior: A barbarian clone or something more?

[Ben]

Necropost!

[T*AnTi-V!RuZz]

Duuuuuuuuuude 3-year-old topic!

[Islar]

hi,

Maybe. I just thought it while reading this. But maybe the warrior is not the one that should change, but the barbarian?
what should that bring?

[Ben]

Well there is no point in denying it...



But anyway, I think that the barbarian is good right now (unless he gets implemented, than he may need some changes). The warrior deserves a little more health if you ask me because of all his armor

[Bence791]

Ben, the warrior having 5 health points... erm... too good

[Ben]

Pardon me: more armor. I thought that "health" sounded weird but I couldn't figure out why

[WhiteWolf]

2A 3D

Seems fair to me

[tonc5]

I don't really know why the stats for the the warrior and barbarian are basically identical. I'm actually wondering why the stats for barbarian ever changed in the first place. When first playing the original Knights and Merchants TSK there were two types of troops, leather and metal. Then there was the militia. It didn't really fit in either category. Leather troops were pretty much your basic unit. Metal troops were basically upgraded leather troops. The ax fighter and the sword fighter, the lance carrier and pike man, the scout and the night, the bowman and the crossbowman, but what did the little militia have? The militia had the barbarian. Think about it. The militia had no armor and 2 attack points so the only thing to upgrade was its attack... plus the barbarian itself is half naked. The barbarian was basically the upgraded militia, strong enough to kill pike men and any leather troop but still weak enough for sword fighters to kill. The militia could never beat the ax fighter, so why should the barbarian be able to kill the sword fighter. The barbarian originally had four attack points and no armor. What i'm trying to say is that the barbarians stats never changed it would fit in more, it would just make more sense and it would fit its overall look better. The barbarian is half naked so it should not have any armor. Plus if the barbarian stayed the same you probably would not be asking this question.

[Ben]

I'm not following your logic, but I believe I understand what you're trying to say. You may be comforted to know that the barbarians stats never actually changed. The graphic on the barbarian icon were previously incorrect. The barbarian always had the armor.

Now, I still wish warriors had extra armor. I wouldn't mind if he was crazy unbalanced either: He would make a nice addition for single player maps/scripted missions (The latter applying to the Remake only)

And finally, I think it's amazing that this topic wakes up every three years. It is October though, the month of the undead