[BNW] Build orders : warrior vs scout.

[Memoryjar]

Hi folks,

I wonder which build order do you use. Assume I open with monument, I use to build two warriors. This very slow in start position with few hammers and specially in such start position after I move my initial settlers 3 to 5 turns.
Warriors are stronger, scout cheaper.

What is your frequent start ? Do you go all time with it or, specially in jungle or poor hammers start, vary your opening ?

 

[nemesis464]

Scout for me.
Usually it's quite easy to avoid barbarians with workers, so I don't need the warrior.

And the scout is so crucial IMO for finding city states, ruins, other Civs to trade with etc.

 

[Resipsa]

Hi folks,

I wonder which build order do you use. Assume I open with monument, I use to build two warriors. This very slow in start position with few hammers and specially in such start position after I move my initial settlers 3 to 5 turns.
Warriors are stronger, scout cheaper.

What is your frequent start ? Do you go all time with it or, specially in jungle or poor hammers start, vary your opening ?

My opening build doesn't vary depending on your starting dirt because you'll only be working 2 tiles anyway, what does vary is my SP order. If I'm working poor dirt I'll go with liberty unless the poor dirt is tundra then I'll play an honor/holy warriors game.

Tradition: Scout, Scout, Shrine, Granary
Liberty: Scout, Monument, Shrine, Scout
Honor: Scout, Monument, Shrine, Granary(if there are deer)

Edit: I don't build scouts with the Aztecs FYI

 

[Dean.]

I used to spurn scouts indefinitely. But on my last game with I took the advice of people here and built 1 scout for exploration.

With almost all of the continent explored, I sent him to explore a coastal plains tile beside a barbarian camp. My scout got stuck along the coast when the camp spawned a spearman right beside him. I fortified and let them pummel him, figuring it was time for retirement anyways. After a few turns, the barbarians (who were both at full health initially) had wore themselves down and my scout was able to kill them & raid the camp.

 

[ravenmagus]

I almost always get 2 scouts at the start unless I determine quickly I'm on a small island (or playing Aztecs). The early exploration (to see where to expand to) + getting ruins is really important. Scouts build faster, and they can protect your workers just as easy if you want them to - a barbarian pretty much can't kill a scout that is fortified in friendly territory. Also scouts upgraded to archers are amazing, while warriors upgrading to spearmen is kinda mediocre (unless you're Atilla).

I usually go scout - scout - shrine - monument (sometimes getting granary instead and just taking a free monument from Tradition).

 

[budweiser]

I like to get a scout most of the time.

I don't worry about getting pillaged, I worry about killing the camps for quests asap. So for that, an archer is good or a warrior upgraded to spear is good. Two warriors flanking is also good.

 

[joshua43214]

I pretty much always go 2x scouts, then shrine/granary and often a 3rd scout down the line
early scouting is really important and warriors suck at scouting.

 

[teqofc]

Almost always a scout over a warrior. If I need more firepower then it's time to create archers. Warriors are too slow unless it is an Aztec Jaguar or if you are Inca and the map is almost all hills.

Plus scouts with +survivalism and/or +sight are crafty and hard to kill little buggers for reaching across the map.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Scout is far cheaper and is superior to the warrior in the scouting department, however if you are the huns maybe you should build horse Archer, cost much more but is faster and far more usefull in battle then the scout and as your are the huns I think you will go to war soon.

However both early scout and warrior do cost you on other stuff, you could steal worker but the ai don't like that.

One intresting thing would be to know how many units and of what type is needed to tribute CS because that can really bost the early game because if a second warrior could mean you could get tribute but 2 scouts would not then warrior first maybe is better.

 

[Shagrat44]

I have been doing 2-3 scouts first, 3 if on pangea.

I don't see the benefit of the building the warriors, the scout upgrade to archer is great. The 3rd scout if it works out the upside seems huge, just have to make sure AI doesn't squeeze you out of your prime city locations

 

[kb27787]

I fail to see why people would build warriors instead of archers/spearmen (if you want to create a fortified line spearmen are better and can be upgraded to pikes without any fuss about iron). Always scouts...
Although it's not the end of the world if you build warriors (I build jags with Aztecs) but it depends a lot on your terrain; warriors can be very clumsy around rough terrain.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

I fail to see why people would build warriors instead of archers/spearmen (if you want to create a fortified line spearmen are better and can be upgraded to pikes without any fuss about iron). Always scouts...
Although it's not the end of the world if you build warriors (I build jags with Aztecs) but it depends a lot on your terrain; warriors can be very clumsy around rough terrain.

You need tech to build Archers or spermen which you sometimes get pretty late also the Chariot Archer should get a mention here, it cost the same a sperman yes it cost a horse but its mobility is nothing to joke about and it hit nearly as hard as the Composit Bowman.

 

[ravenmagus]

You need tech to build Archers or spermen which you sometimes get pretty late also the Chariot Archer should get a mention here, it cost the same a sperman yes it cost a horse but its mobility is nothing to joke about and it hit nearly as hard as the Composit Bowman.

Chariot Archers are honestly pretty good. The only trouble with them is they upgrade to Knights, and any range promotions (accuracy/barrage) they get before upgrading are rendered useless since Knights can't use them.

Civs who have a chariot archer UA that doesn't need horses (Egypt) or has a ranged knight UA to upgrade them to (Arabia/Mongols) make pretty awesome use of chariot archers. Otherwise... ehh.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Chariot Archers are honestly pretty good. The only trouble with them is they upgrade to Knights, and any range promotions (accuracy/barrage) they get before upgrading are rendered useless since Knights can't use them.

Civs who have a chariot archer UA that doesn't need horses (Egypt) or has a ranged knight UA to upgrade them to (Arabia/Mongols) make pretty awesome use of chariot archers. Otherwise... ehh.

I don't really care to much about promotions if I build a unit I don't know if it will still be alive to uppgrading and I don't do xp farming like some other players like to do.
But I don't get why they just can't make Chariot Archers promotion translate to the appropriate melee promotion then uppgrading.

 

[KmDubya]

Chariot Archers are honestly pretty good. The only trouble with them is they upgrade to Knights, and any range promotions (accuracy/barrage) they get before upgrading are rendered useless since Knights can't use them.

Civs who have a chariot archer UA that doesn't need horses (Egypt) or has a ranged knight UA to upgrade them to (Arabia/Mongols) make pretty awesome use of chariot archers. Otherwise... ehh.

Actually this has been fixed.

Next time you get a chariot archer with a few promotions, upgrade them to a knight. The art work for the promotion stays the same but when you mouse over it, it reads that it affects attacks. When you go to attack with the unit look at the combat preview, it shows the increased attack strength. Another perk is that you can still take the melee promotions and end up with +90% attack.

 

[Haersh]

I also go scout - scout - shrine - granary. However, I use my scouts a bit differently. Now I just OCC until I get National College, usually by turn 60ish. While researching philo, I hard build / buy 2 settlers and just wait there. However, I use 1 scout and 1 warrior to keep a watch on the civs near me to ensure that they dont settle on the land I plan to settle. If I see a settle move towards me, i just DOW and nab that settler.

 

[ravenmagus]

Actually this has been fixed.

Next time you get a chariot archer with a few promotions, upgrade them to a knight. The art work for the promotion stays the same but when you mouse over it, it reads that it affects attacks. When you go to attack with the unit look at the combat preview, it shows the increased attack strength. Another perk is that you can still take the melee promotions and end up with +90% attack.

Has it? That's pretty awesome.

I assume the same thing happens when Keshiks upgrade to cavalry, too; that's good to know.

...Maybe it's time to make the ultimate melee unit: Get all the upgrades as a Chariot Archer, then upgrade and get 'em all again! Logistics Blitz cavalry sounds awesome.

 

[Memoryjar]

Thanks for your advises.

 

[chazzycat]

I fail to see why people would build warriors instead of archers/spearmen (if you want to create a fortified line spearmen are better and can be upgraded to pikes without any fuss about iron). Always scouts...
Although it's not the end of the world if you build warriors (I build jags with Aztecs) but it depends a lot on your terrain; warriors can be very clumsy around rough terrain.

warriors are better at clearing barb camp for CS quests. if there is a lot of open terrain it's not that bad, especially on continents. If it's pangea though, I'll build 2 scouts every time. In pangea, you gotta take advantage of meeting all the CS/AI early and scouts are clearly the best, since you are bound to run into rough terrain.

 

[Erelich]

Warriors are pretty bad at clearing out camps. They take a lot of damage attacking fortified barbarians so you have to stop to heal. If I wanna clear out some barb camps then I'd rather just build a couple of Archers. I never build Warriors, too slow compared to Scouts and their slightly higher combat strength doesn't really make up for it.