The way to change is conquering 20 systems and paying 2.5 millions
Who left this message?--Liquid Ink 07:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Government[]
The Warriors are probably a Military Junta, or maybe a Meritocracy.--Liquid Ink 07:33, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm leaning more towards junta myself. ChrisGJ777 22:51, October 12, 2009 (UTC)
They actually remind me of fascists, if you look at their written philosophy. They are strongly nationalist, with an attitude that the state is the most important thing there is and citizens should strive to serve it in every way possible. Their militaristic nature fits with fascist ideology as well. I suppose they could simultaneously be meritocratic in a way, if they viewed merit in terms of service to the state. Of course it also seems likely that they're not all exactly the same: they probably tend towards authoritarianism, but maybe not a specific form of it. ComradeJim270 23:33, October 23, 2009 (UTC)
I suppose another angle on Warriors is that their societies are actually quite anarchic to a certain extent, in that they're quite violent and as they put a focus on strength and force. This would have the effect of rendering whatever remaining form of government they have to hold alien empires in a distrusting light, making extortion threats and starting wars with others, just to prove the empire's might to its people (and the rest of the galaxy). ChrisGJ777 20:41, February 15, 2010 (UTC)
Mayby it Hiearchal?(hope I spelt it right)DaLucaray Rox ur Sox 17:19, February 20, 2010 (UTC)DaLucaray
According to my dictionary there's no such word. But anyway, there would indeed most likely be a hierarchy of sorts, albeit most likely with promotion being a game of "Dead man's boots". ChrisGJ777 13:44, March 17, 2010 (UTC)
It is also possible that it vairies fromempire to empire DaLucaray Rox ur Sox 17:47, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
Harder to play with the Warrior philosophy?[]
It feels like its harder to play as a warrior than it was with shaman.. who else thinks its like this? ~~Sporesauce 95~~ 16:11 february 19, 2010.
I think it's quite possibly the fighting/combat aspects of that particular archetype, at least whilst you're trying to get the archetype, when you're aiming for say either the Predator or Aggressive trait cards, your creature(s) is/are going to take damage, and thus risk getting killed in combat. With Tribal stage at least to get the Aggressive trait you need to manage your tribesmen well, which can be a tricky task as you'll need to see how much food you've got (so you can replace fallen men) and watch that you and your village don't get wiped out. In short, it's essentially the risk of death that can make attaining it a challenge. In space stage however, even if you're a Warrior, you can still play as if you were a Diplomat. The difficulty lies simply in getting the Warrior archetype. But as I said, should you decided to play your archetype to the letter, risk of death is always present and the main factor in difficulty. ChrisGJ777 18:35, February 19, 2010 (UTC)
I've noticed certain archetypes behave differently towards each other. Bards are often at war with zealots etc. I am playing as a wanderer in a new game, and all the Shaman empires demand tribute instead of giving gifts. Will Wright mentions this as well (GDCe) and if you have the same friendly philosophy as another empire, you get an extra relation bonus. 
Wormulon Talk to me 18:46, February 19, 2010 (UTC)
Bards are often at war with zealots? They were at war with a diplomat in my game and never a zealot. I think it is random, although the same philosophy makes them like you. Shamans and Ecologists will also demand tribute when at the orange face as well, but rarely. —Preceding signed comment added by TimeMaster (talk • contribs) 23:13, February 19, 2010 (UTC)
I know that with one of my Warrior empires, early on I'd receive tribute demands from an nearby Ecologist empire, and I hadn't even had a chance to make contact at the time. Also, I've noticed that when playing as a Warrior if you meet up with another Warrior empire, instead of getting a relation bonus like Diplomats meeting Diplomats, or Traders and other Traders, you'd get the "Your Presence Disturbs Us" penalty- same goes for if you have your Warriors meet Knight save-games (but not when you have your Knights meet NPC or save-game Warriors though). Finally, in my experience I've noticed that in my galaxies the Bards tend to fight with Warriors more than anything. ChrisGJ777 00:49, February 22, 2010 (UTC)
When i played as a warrior it seemed like whenever i discover a new empire, this new empire will be a warrior empire, well mostly atleast... i changed to diplomat to see if it changed. And it did! I started to discover more and more Zealot and Shaman empires... >.< oohhh annoying. The other Warrior Empires i met before though where easier to reason with... was it because of my diplomat philosophy? Sporesauce Talk page[[Special:Editcount/Sporesauce 95|Special:Editcount/Sporesauce 95 Edits]] 22:15 February 15, 2010.
Warriors are always demanding tribute if I'm not in the 'friendly' relation with them, and if your empire is within their 'territory.' Warriors never like other Warriors, and also don't like Bards. In my galaxy, the Warriors are either at war with another Warrior, a Bard, or me. :D It's sometimes humorous when someone tries to get you to pay them. There was this two-system Warrior that demanded tribute of 750,000 Sporebucks from my 50-system Shaman Empire. They died. CaptainTybusen 23:10, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
Krogan[]
The warrior attitude reminds me of the Krogan from Mass Effect 1/2--Alison128 10:42, January 29, 2011 (UTC)