Printable View
Hello.
I'm curious, who enjoys running a warrior? If you had freedom of choice and chose warrior, I'd like to hear from you as well.
The reason I'm asking is that I like to match players to races and personalities they wish to play.
Thank you for your time.
A player in a kingdom with all attackers. Not to say all the attackers would be warriors just that a warrior needs back fire power. The sole reason for a warrior is to make sure the kingdom can get through any one. That being said a warrior attacker needs to have attackers that can capitalize on the warrior's attacks. Most often though we see warriors in kingdoms heavy on the t/m provinces. The warrior does a great attack but that is short lived when their is no one to back him or her up with attacks that will counter the attacks made on the warrior.
If I had played warrior with this province I would be able to attack someone 100% in net than me--TM. Or quad-tap someone my own size. But I would need back up--back up is the most important part of the warrior strategy. If I built a kingdom I would do all attackers maybe one rogue and one mage.
Just think of it, four warriors doing 4-tap on four different attackers and the other attackers hitting the most well guarded t/ms--all TMs. Then offering a MP, as if to say, just passing through. There is no such thing as an unbreakable--I keep telling people that. Utopia is about team work--always been that way.
I played DE Warrior last age. Just because it seemed a workable but unorthodox attacker.
Personality to player. You are abominable
"Priest Vito Cornelius: You're a monster, Zorg.*Quote:
Originally Posted by Pillz
Zorg: I know.*
" The Fifth Element - 1997
Thank you.
@ Blue Mass: agreed
I agree that you usually choose warrior in order to reach really high offense numbers, but I would disagree with the rest. Imho the high OPA breakers dont need a kingdom back up, they are the back up. They are the pawns that create winning opportunities for their kingdommates, but are not made to last.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Mass
For example: if your kingdom has a halfling rogue gang and the opposite side an elf rogue gang, you can use your breakers to massacre a few elves so that your halflings prop them down. This way your enemies lose potential UB provinces and a small rogue gang is not very effective in itself. Like the pawns in a chess match, your job is not to do the killing stroke but to create a strong position for the more important UB provinces.
Utopia: A game of figuring out various threats and dealing with them.
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmiedema
Now I understand in many kingdoms the player gets a role and thus you can be a warrior. That being said, I'm curious to get a head count on players that choose warrior of their own volition.
There were a few avian players I recall who enjoyed running warrior, and an encounter with FREE many ages ago convinced me that some of their players enjoyed warrior.
I have chosen Elven Warrior out of my own volition before... it was fun to play.
Though this upcoming age, I think Sage is better than warrior.....
Thank you. This is what it's all about.Quote:
Originally Posted by RedPanda
In The Virtual Kingdom I try to distribute race and persona in ways that were player friendly for me, but it helps to know from those who've run them.