Early game food source...

[Azoth]

Scouts get better results from Tribal Villages. Also, hunting for food only works within 5 tiles of one of your cities so there really isn't much advantage to giving that ability to exploration units. Overall I don't want to make early exploration any easier than it already is so I'd prefer to weaken Warriors somehow than to boost Scouts.

Ah, yes, I forgot about better results from Tribal Villages. Still, I think the real problem is the new +50% vs. Animals bonus. My one big fear when building Scouts is that they will die to a Bear two turns after leaving my borders, and so all my precious early game hammers will go to waste. With that new animal bonus, Warriors seem to be a much sturdier option; they may be slow, but they will survive. (Not to mention: Warriors have much better odds against barbarian Warriors and Archers, and they upgrade into much more useful units, as compared to Scouts; further, they can defend cities when they return home and they can actually attack other units in the field.)

In short, I think the animal bonus has to go. I suppose it could also be weakened to +50% vs. Animals when attacking, which would be just as useful for hunting, but less so for exploring.

 

[Xyth]

In short, I think the animal bonus has to go. I suppose it could also be weakened to +50% vs. Animals when attacking, which would be just as useful for hunting, but less so for exploring.

Unfortunately the XML handles animals differently from other unit types and I cannot separate attack and defence against them. If the animal bonus is removed we'd also have to lower the strength of the stronger animals or hunting wouldn't be all that effective. Free food is a nice bonus, but not if you're losing many warriors (and thus hammers) to get it.

What if Scouts had no upkeep costs but Warriors did?

 

[Azoth]

Unfortunately the XML handles animals differently from other unit types and I cannot separate attack and defence against them. If the animal bonus is removed we'd also have to lower the strength of the stronger animals or hunting wouldn't be all that effective. Free food is a nice bonus, but not if you're losing many warriors (and thus hammers) to get it.

You're right about that. In that case, I see no other option but to raise the bonus to +200% vs. Animals for Scouts, to put them on par with Warriors.
(In fact, that change would still leave Scouts weaker than Warriors on defensive terrain.
On a forested hill, a scout would have 1 + 250% = 3.5 against animals. A Warrior would have 2 + 100% = 4.)

What if Scouts had no upkeep costs but Warriors did?

I'm not sure it would make any difference, to be honest. Upkeep costs in the early game are negligible.
By the time armies are large enough to warrant upkeep, Scouts are worthless: whatever wilderness remains is plagued by Barbarian Archers, or worse.

There are other options for bonuses, of course.
What if Scouts could cross borders without Open Borders? They would still be niche units: useful only if you spawned next to an uncooperative AI.
What if Scouts had extra visibility: a free Sentry promotion? Then we would need another bonus for the Enterprising Trait.

 

[Simon_Jester]

Both of those would make early-game exploration very easy, which Xyth is hoping to avoid.