At the beginning of a game I start out with either a scout or a warrior. How is this determined? Is it random, or does it depend upon the civ?

I suspect it is a civ trait function. Expansion as Bismark got one.

It has nothing to do with trait function.
If a civ starts with the Hunting tech you'll
get a scout instead of a warrior.

actually it is a civ trait since the leaders with the expansive trait start with hunting ;-)

actually it is a civ trait since the leaders with the expansive trait start with hunting ;-)
not victoria. as tatran said, hunting is the only factor.

Or cathy .

Or Caesar.

Or Caesar.
:confused: The Romans don't start with a scout.

Why no, they don't. I misunderstood the structure of this particular "or" game. Feel free to disregard. :)

Now that we have that covered, which do you prefer to START with? I sometimes go in the world editor and swap my warrior with a scout, warriors are pitiful and obsolete in 10 turns anyways, i'd rather have a scout that is 100% better at covering land to grab all the goodie huts. Plus I've never seen an AI attack any earlier than oh...about 2000bc (prince/agressive ai)

Starting with a scout is hands down superior. I can't think of any reason to have a warrior until barbarians begin appearing.

Now that we have that covered, which do you prefer to START with? I sometimes go in the world editor and swap my warrior with a scout, warriors are pitiful and obsolete in 10 turns anyways, i'd rather have a scout that is 100% better at covering land to grab all the goodie huts. ai)

What's the point in swapping a warrior for scout in WB? Just start with a different leader. The starting techs and traits should be taken in account a not changed the way you like. If you like scouts, just start with a 'scout' leader. Offcourse you can do as you like, i just don't get it.

If you really want scouts then research hunting as 1st tech and you will get it:)

The advantage of having Warriors early on is that they make very good initial city defenders. Plus they can be upgraded to Axemen--very handy if there are barbarians at the gates.

I usually have a Warrior do some exploring, then circle back to where I'll build my next city so he can defend it.

If I start with or pop Hunting from a hut, then yes, I'll build a Scout or two since they move faster. But I almost never research Hunting unless I have a resource available immediately that requires a Camp. I'd rather tech trade for it and Archery. I also don't want to build too many Scouts since they can only upgrade to Explorers, one of the most useless units in the game.

Here's my two cents:

The advantages of a warrior to a scout:
*not instant bear food
*can upgrade to something useful, like an axeman

Advantages of a scout to a warrior:
*2x faster
*better hut results

Note: a warrior with woodsman 2 gets 2x movement in forest/jungle.

Can a scout grab a worker?

Can a scout grab a worker?
Since Scouts can only defend, I sincerely doubt it. But I've never tried.

Yeah, I forgot that a fortified Warrior in a forest stands a chance of surviving a bear attack, unlike Scouts.

That's probably a good thing they can't grab workers. Think of all the workers outside borders trying to connect cities then POOF! They put on a different colored loincloth and follow the scout home. That would get pretty annoying... but funny in MP.

I find that the initial warrior is okay for poking around the countryside a bit, maybe get some XP off the animals. But after that its main function for me is as a cheap way to get the "Military presence makes us happy" smiley in your capital, provided you aren't neighbors with that lunatic Montezuma.

Like an earlier post said, the AI tend to leave you alone in the early game.

Getting a scout is really better than a warrior to begin with. Animals don't seem to pop up immediately, and because of the 2 movement you can park your scout 9/10 times on hills, forest or best of all forested hills. After one or two wins you can give it the woodsman promotion, which makes it almost invincible for anything except bears and archers up.

The warrior you miss can be chopped within a turn and walk a few squares before the settler is chopped, so your settler is more or less escorted by the warrior.

Especially with the increased bonuses you seem to get from popping huts in the new patch.

After one or two wins you can give it the woodsman promotion
i'm always torn between woodsman, which gives it the best survival chance, or guerilla, which aids your scout on the hilltops, where they do their best scouting. either way, once you have the level II of either, they're pretty animal resistant, and, if you pop an XP hut early enough, the movement bonus from the promotions let you run circles around other scouts.

i don't have a pref. i am okay with either. i place the cards as the fall...

in a normal game vs muliple ai i'd rather have a scout. getting more goody huts which provide the possibility of popping free techs is just far too valuable to pass up imo. plus if you start with hunting, you can research archery early and then never have to build a warrior (upgrading to axes is expensive :( )

this is part of why i like kublai so much. you can go archery-mining-bronze while building a 2nd scout 1st and then it's just archers, workers, and settlers (don't need stonehenge cuzza creative). on lower difficulty levels i don't even bother with archers though cuz axes are so superior, but on monarch i'm finding i need at least 1 archer per city very early to combat barbs.