The Warrior: A barbarian clone or something more?

[Lewin]

Hi guys,
It has always bothered me that TPR contains two troops that, while they look quite different, have exactly the same statistics. That's right, I'm talking about the barbarian and his cousin the warrior.

The warrior looks REALLY well armoured. So why does he only have 1 defence?
I believe the game would be far better off if his statistics were different to the barbarians. However, we must keep the game balanced. He should be as good as the barbarian, but different.
Think of it like this: Currently the warrior has 4 attack + 1 defence = 5 points to be spent.
So here are a few ways we could divide them:

- 3 attack, 2 defence. This fits his character quite well, but it is exactly the same as the sword fighter and that somewhat defeats the purpose of changing it.

- 2 attack, 3 defence. This is completely unique, and would give the warrior the highest defence value in the game, (just like the barbarian has the highest melee attack) and make him the only unit with more defence than attack. This is what I believe would be best.

- 1 attack, 4 defence. This is the exact oppisote to the barbarian, but I don't think it would work. 4 defence would make him impossible to kill, and with only 1 attack he wouldn't kill very much himself. So battles would take ages and be boring.

Here are some other good reasons why to change it to 2A, 3D:
- It would give the warrior a unique purpose. You could use him as a front line troop to take all the hits whilest bowmen do the killing.
- 2 attack is the same as the axefigher and militia. Quite fitting then considering that both they and the warrior use axes. (although the warriors is somewhat bigger )
- Currently warriors are pointless. They are just barbarians in sword fighters clothing, with stats that do not fit with their apperance. I believe the game would be much more interesting with this change, because it's just like adding a new unit.

Of course, if we decide to change it then we must test the game thourorly. The one I am recomending (2A, 3D) could be unbalanced, and only testing will tell.

Once we have decided we can edit his scroll image so you can see his new values, and I think that there is enough decoding information around to make the changes to units.dat.

So do you think it should be changed? Please discuss it...
Lewin.
P.S. BTW: Would this change have any bad effects on the TPR campaign? Do any of the missions use warriors? Would it unbalance it at all? (I've never played the TPR campaign, so you'll have to tell me!)

[Thunderwolf]

P.S. BTW: Would this change have any bad effects on the TPR campaign? Do any of the missions use warriors? Would it unbalance it at all? (I've never played the TPR campaign, so you'll have to tell me!)

I can't remember any... There were warriors in the 'changed' version of mission3TSK before sr2...

I guess 2A,3D is a thing which should be tested well though...

[Litude]

Bit undecided whether it should be changed or not, but anyway the warriors are used in mission 7 and 11, maybe 13 of The Peasants Rebellion campaign

[Nick]

leave them unchanged, its a patch....
people told me the same

[kuba11100]

The problem is that when a warrior is trained in the town hall, you don't know who you will get. If I have to choose from the options above, then 2A 3D

If they could be somehow separated, I would set it to (maybe a bit unbalanced, but...):
-4 attack, 2 defense
-3 attack, 3 defense

[Danjb]

this should not be changed!

[The Dark Lord]

Nope, leave it the same.

[Lewin]

Ok, looks like a few people are against this. Still, not everyone has voted yet.
Maybe just leave it as is, I guess it isn't a big deal. I was just throwing an idea around to see how people would react.

I suppose it could change missions a bit, but I still say it's silly having two identical units. And the warrior looks like he has chain mail on, which should be more than 1 defence. Compare his armour to the barbarian. He is way more armoured!
Would this change really effect gameplay that much? I think it would improve the game greatly, because currently the warrior is a wasted unit. He has no purpose in life, just a barbarian clone who no one cares about.

The problem is that when a warrior is trained in the town hall, you don't know who you will get. If I have to choose from the options above, then 2A 3D

Yeah, I thought of that. To me it isn't a big deal. Sure, it would be better if they could be trained separately (this might actually be possible to change with a bit of EXE hacking) but it would hardly matter if you can't choose. In some ways it would make it more interesting, because you never know which unit will come out. And you can always sort them into separate groups after they are trained.

If they could be somehow separated, I would set it to (maybe a bit unbalanced, but...):
-4 attack, 2 defense
-3 attack, 3 defense

Hmmm... Barbarians are good enough. If you gave them 2 defence they would be unstoppable! (that is as good as a sword fighter) Currently their only weakness is their lack of armour. That's why I chose 2A, 3D because then they wouldn't be too unbalanced.

As for it not classifying as a patch, well neither do half the things in SR3! I believe this is about making the game better for all, and not about classifying changes or arguing about whether it's a patch or mod.
After all, if it makes the game better who cares if it's more of a mod? Joymainia certainly don't!
If we are going to change the scout LOS then I see little difference in changing the warriors statistics.

If you were a newcomer to TPR then my change would seem logical, because from appearance that's what the warrior looks like.
Do people disagree with this simply because it has been this way for so long?

leave them unchanged, its a patch....
people told me the same

Well your list was somewhat more drastic than mine. I am talking about changing 2 values, you wanted to change just about everything. Some of the stuff on your list I agreed with BTW.

I guess 2A,3D is a thing which should be tested well though...

Of course! This change would need lots and lots of testing to make sure that game play is still ok. If we test it out then we might find it doesn't work, or we might find it is brilliant.

@Danjb: Why isn't one of the items on your "why I hate TPR list": "Because warriors are pointless barbarian clones"? I expected you to back me on this one, because warriors are the kind of TPR thing I thought you were against.

@Litude: Please feel free to say no if you like. It was just an idea my brother and I thought up one day, and I won't be offended if you disagree with us.
Oh, and if you count my brothers vote (it was partly his idea) then it is equal at the moment.

Lewin.

[Thunderwolf]

IF we'd be able to fully split them, then perhaps this could be done.

My "why I hate TPR list" contains this one though, but one thing that has bothered me since I started scripting was that there is no way to let the enemy actually produce the troops from the town hall. That, I think, is even worse.

[Krom]

You keep on modding KaM and calling it a patch ...
Better make a proper mod instead!

EDIT: Forgot to add a smilie

[Danjb]

Yeah, sorry, maybe I should explain. You say SR2 should exist as a patch / mod to make the game better for all, but I think that's still debatable, as a lot of people are still going to want the fixes without all the extra features. When it comes to making changes, "better" is just a matter of opinion. And as for this change making sense to new players of the game, realistically, I doubt many people are going to take up playing KaM these days, as it seems most people have forgotten all the old classics, and the game's so hard to get hold of nowadays as it is, so really we need to be thinking about pleasing current fans.

Personally, I'm against this change as, in the case of KaM, I value keeping the game as close to its original state as possible over realism. You're right, it seems a bit silly to have two identical units with different names / appearances. But I guess this way people can have all the fun of barbarians, but with it still making sense. I mean, aren't the barbarians strangers from the frozen north or something? Doesn't barbarian literally mean "foreigner"? So to be able to train "foreigners" at the town hall doesn't make much sense.

[Lewin]

Ok, I'm thinking we shouldn't do this.
Just forget the whole idea, maybe I can release a mod once SR3 is out with this change plus a few others.

Nah, barbarian doesn't mean foreigner, you can have native barbarians. It basically means an uncooth savage, a wild man. It's kind of an odd use of the word, but I like it just the same.

Everyone happy?
Lewin.

[Thunderwolf]

I mean, aren't the barbarians strangers from the frozen north or something? Doesn't barbarian literally mean "foreigner"? So to be able to train "foreigners" at the town hall doesn't make much sense.

the townhall's description says this by the way (from the website):

"The townhall has always been a central place in towns where people from all around the world who were on adventure would gather. This was also a good place to meet mercanaries who were eager to gain money."

guess that explains it.

[Danjb]

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...

[The Knight]

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?