scouts versus warriors

[bobbobinson]

Hi to all,
i'm a relatively average player - currently comfortable around the 'noble' level and was wondering what weight do you all put on selecting nations that start with scouts rather than warriers. do scouts offer enough of an advantage (particularly on noble and upwards) to warrent selecting a civ which starts with one, or you not particularly bothered.

i always feel like i should be racing around ASAP to pop as many huts with a settler as if my (civ's) life depended on it?

 

[CHEESE!]

It always depended in my view- on Marathon, I think Scouts would be best. It takes ~30 turns for a worker on Marathon, so it's hard to steal without seriously losing out on gold/techs/maps. For Normal or Epic, Warrior to steal teh workers. On marathon, you also gain much more gold from goodie huts.

 

[King of Town]

I like scouts more but I wouldn't pick a civ based on that alone. The early game bonus doesn't change the outcome of the game that much.

 

[budweiser]

The huts dont matter that much. What matters is learning the lay of the land in time for you to make strategic choices about how you will play the game. Your scouts will go farther faster if you start with one. Following the coast will also improve your lifespan.

I dont think it's worth it to research hunting and then make a scout if you dont already have one. Once you get writing, which should come fairly early, you can make open borders with your neighbors and walk freely in thier lands. By then, you capitol and maybe your second city will be able to make a scout in 2 or 3 turns.

 

[ShannonCT]

It always depended in my view- on Marathon, I think Scouts would be best. It takes ~30 turns for a worker on Marathon, so it's hard to steal without seriously losing out on gold/techs/maps. For Normal or Epic, Warrior to steal teh workers. On marathon, you also gain much more gold from goodie huts.

But Marathon is usually the only speed where you can steal a worker and get him home faster than you can build one (on Emperor and up).

 

[Learningciv]

I prefer warriors simply due to the power of worker stealing as well as the advantage of them living longer (on average). Defensive bonuses are additive so a forest scout has 2.5 defensive strength verse an animal compared to the 3 of a warrior. A longer living explorer unit leads to a better idea of the map around you.

If I was playing noble like the OP I would actually rather a scout due to the power of huts at that level and the slow speed of the AI to build workers compared to your speed. Also more huts will be up for grabs as the AI won't start with a bunch of scouts.

 

[Monsterzuma]

Warriors can function as happiness guards, so when you build them early on and they survive, you can get an economic benefit out of them later. Scouts also get less out of the defensive terrain modifiers considering their base strength is lower, meaning they are significantly less likely to survive the average barbarian attack. And like others have mentioned, warriors can steal workers. Everything taken in consideration, I never build scouts. Warriors pwn them.

 

[Hereditary Rule]

The map settings I use [namely Huge Size Maps] make scouts much more valuable.

There is more land to scout, and also many more huts to pop.

On higher difficulty levels, the barbs get a hidden combat bonus against your units, which means popping even 1 hostile warrior from a hut, let alone 2, will spell the end of your warrior scouting. [Scouts never pop hostiles] The odds of popping hostiles also increases on higher difficulty levels.

In my current game I popped 6-7 huts for over 500 gold before finally losing the scout to a barb. That gold is funding many long years of deficit research.

Scouts are more of a gamble - sometimes they die early and you'd wish you'd had a warrior. If you can keep them alive with careful moves, they are a pretty safe gamble IMO, with the potential to yield you big gains in gold, techs, and knowledge of the map.

However, I agree with many that on Standard Size maps, which it seems most people play, they are less useful overall.

 

[nbcman]

I normally wont build scouts but I like starting with one. I play smaller maps so there is not that much land to explore. I prefer to build warriors for scouting because they are more likely to survive plus if they gain enough xp they can be upgraded to an axe/spearman. I usually disband scouts after all territory is explored and if I don't need them for fogbusting.

 

[JammerUno]

Scouts get killed far too easy. On higher difficulty levels, barb warriors will show up quite fast, and they'll eat your scout for breakfast. A woodsman2 warrior is almost as effective, and I even manage to get him to W3 every once in a while, for a supermedic later on. You don't need much luck to get him there. They're good for early hut-popping, but the AI beats me to most at emperor.

 

[Ghpstage]

I tend to find scouts die very quickly, although on the plus side they do become better at hut popping as you go up difficulties. As barbs become more common for other units, free techs become more likely for scouts

 

[Crusher1]

Not to mention the knowledge of Scouts means you no longer have the ability to spam cheap garrison warriors for HR which can seriously effect immediate growth and save you valuable hammers.

 

[JonathanStrange]

Scouts are one of my favorite early game units - though I rarely build them many and I wouldn't choose a civ based on whether the civ had scouts to start with.

However, on the maps I play (large & up) scouts are my early game choice for finding those native villages and quickly locating resources and enemies. In that case, scouts earn their title and getting that extra tech, discovering a great city site, identifying an enemy civ all the sooner can in total be the early edge one wants in the beginning.

 

[UWHabs]

Plus I'd rank hunting as one of the worse techs to start with. I'd much rather start with agriculture, mining, fishing, or even the wheel.

*edit to add: plus, my scouts always seem to die early to a lion. Doesn't do me too much good when I lose my starting unit 20 turns into the game.

 

[Earthling]

I never worker steal so that's not part of a warrior's benefit to me (-3 the rest of the game - no thanks). Scouts as a whole are better provided
a) civ doesn't have sucky techs as a whole - I'm just making this up since I don't remember but, say, Hunting + Myst and Agg/Org or something would be weak
b) the map has a reasonable number of huts - not a small map or huts off or something. This is why I do favor huts on MP because civs with scouts really hurt otherwise

If I don't start with hunting though I often never research it for a long time precisely for the ability to build warriors.

 

[troytheface]

Fact- Warrior pops hut- three barbarian warriors spring out and kill him

Fact- Warrior- 1 move

Fact- Scouts can discover astronomy

Fact- Scout- better Medic

In summation, the warrior is a fool and the scout is the superior

 

[Crusher1]

To everyone mentioning huts:

I never play with huts enabled because it feels like cheating when I pop BW, AH, and the Wheel on Immortal - not to mention it adds more imbalance to a game. Seems a bit unfair if 2 people playing the same map, leader, etc (SP) who both start with hunting get different stuff. One guy pops 3 maps and the other guy gets 2 techs and 100 gold. It's not hard to imagine who will achieve the earlier victory condition. I shoot for game balance and no huts is the way to go for me.

Kinda like playing MP when you spawn zero hills with nothing more than a plains cow and everything else is 2F only. Then you see another player have 2 gold, 2 pig, 1 irrigated corn, and 5 hills. Hmmmmmmmm.........and people wonder why CIV MP sucks so badly.

I would really love if there wasn't a random map generator and their were concrete maps which never changed. If you wanted a different style game you would pick a different map. The randomness creates huge imbalance.

2 people with identical skill will have greatly distorted results given different resources and map positions. Then again, for now, I play mostly SP so I will regenerate the map as many times as needed providing me with what I consider an average start - still, I would rather have specific and unchanging maps, like in RTS games - that would be pure heaven. Can you actually imagine playing a balanced game every time instead of relying on some magical form of luck? That would be so incredibly superior to the system in place now........If only

i'm a relatively average player - currently comfortable around the 'noble' level and was wondering what weight do you all put on selecting nations that start with scouts rather than warriers.

Hunting and Mining civilizations work - sure starting with hunting kinda sucks but at least you can tech AGR or AH off the bat. Hunting and Myst can work too because you only need to research 3 total techs to get food and military resources - definitely not my 1st choice, but not completely hopeless. I find civilizations that don't have agriculture or hunting at all to be more problematic because you have to carefully balance your tech order to make things work smoothly.

 

[Jonesy79]

To everyone mentioning huts:

I never play with huts enabled because it feels like cheating when I pop BW, AH, and the Wheel on Immortal - not to mention it adds more imbalance to a game. Seems a bit unfair if 2 people playing the same map, leader, etc (SP) who both start with hunting get different stuff. One guy pops 3 maps and the other guy gets 2 techs and 100 gold. It's not hard to imagine who will achieve the earlier victory condition. I shoot for game balance and no huts is the way to go for me.

Kinda like playing MP when you spawn zero hills with nothing more than a plains cow and everything else is 2F only. Then you see another player have 2 gold, 2 pig, 1 irrigated corn, and 5 hills. Hmmmmmmmm.........and people wonder why CIV MP sucks so badly.

I would really love if there wasn't a random map generator and their were concrete maps which never changed. If you wanted a different style game you would pick a different map. The randomness creates huge imbalance.

2 people with identical skill will have greatly distorted results given different resources and map positions. Then again, for now, I play mostly SP so I will regenerate the map as many times as needed providing me with what I consider an average start - still, I would rather have specific and unchanging maps, like in RTS games - that would be pure heaven. Can you actually imagine playing a balanced game every time instead of relying on some magical form of luck? That would be so incredibly superior to the system in place now........If only

Please, never begin a career in game design, you would make the most dull games imaginable.

 

[Crusher1]

LOL. Yea, your right! World of Warcraft, Brood War, Command and Conquer, Counter Strike, the list literally goes on forever. I'm glad no one is giving them your advice

 

[Earthling]

Sorry, Crusher, I have to agree with him. The first thing you'd have to understand is that the system you propose wouldn't be "balanced" for civ - for instance it's taken years of effort to work with even the much simpler (game tree wise) Brood War. And despite best efforts maps still end up with huge balances to one race or another - that's with 3 races, and 2 resource types. Civ would be fundamentally impossible to balance that way.

WoW - the game would never succeed with the formula you mentioned. They rely on releasing new content all the type - not the same, repetitive maps!

With Civ it would be impossible to keep the diversity of civs and resources and terrain around and do anything close to "concrete" maps - I challenge you to provide your suggestions. Only allow Rome, on maps with no stone/marble, no barbs, everyone starts with corn and iron in the capital? One of the most defining aspects of Civ skill is flexibility

About "cheating" on Immortal - it also feels like cheating when AI build units for near half-cost. I don't care about hurting AI feelings by "cheating" insofar as stuff like huts go - they're not that big. For multiplayer I will say that my ideal system would be modding huts to not give tech - just barbs/gold/maps; because really without huts civs that start with a scout can suck very much, they can get rushed easy and have a weak starting tech.