Page 2 of 3
PostPosted: 06 Oct 2008, 01:25
by Lewin
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.
PostPosted: 01 Nov 2008, 18:32
by TonyDXIII
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.
PostPosted: 19 Jan 2009, 00:50
by Ben
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!
PostPosted: 19 Jan 2009, 01:58
by Nick
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.
PostPosted: 19 Jan 2009, 11:48
by The Dark Lord
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.
PostPosted: 20 Jan 2009, 18:45
by Sir Peter
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?
PostPosted: 21 Jan 2009, 09:46
by Quest
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!
PostPosted: 21 Jan 2009, 09:49
by MrVV
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.
PostPosted: 21 Jan 2009, 09:55
by Nick
2attack, 3 defense isnt realistic.
The sword fighter has a shield and has less defense then a warrior. I don't think so... :S
PostPosted: 28 Jan 2009, 02:10
by Ben
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...
PostPosted: 06 May 2009, 17:59
by JBSnorro
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...
PostPosted: 25 Jul 2009, 11:38
by Siegfried
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.
PostPosted: 26 Jul 2009, 01:59
by Lewin
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.
PostPosted: 26 Jun 2010, 18:10
by Nuutburz
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.
Re: The Warrior: A barbarian clone or something more?
PostPosted: 24 Apr 2013, 02:27
by Debaron
I would be interested to see how 2/3 will play out in-game.