How many scouts do you build?

[slobberinbear]

I am a goody hut addict. I love Civs that start with Hunting just so that I can get out multiple Scouts. However, there is an upper limit due to available land space to explore, fatality rate once barbarian units appear, and the need to build other things. In about 30-50% of my games, I will also end up popping a hut for ... another Scout!

If I'm on a land-based map, I will generally build two extra scouts to go with my starting scout, and will possibly build a fourth if I experience heavy attrition but have not explored most of the continent.

This is also true for Warriors in games with non-Hunting civs ... but I will generally explore with only two warriors total on land-based maps, since they have a better survival rate. Also, with warriors I'm exploring more for map-related purposes than to grab huts, since the results aren't as good.

 

[Bleys]

As you go up in levels, you will find that the AIs start with so many "exploring" units that you will not get nearly as many huts, scouts or no scouts.

I do understand why Hunting is a preferred starting tech among the Emp+ crowd though.

Personally, I dont ever build scouts, I build warriors, and not to get huts, but to fogbust, escort settlers, and become garrison units in new cities. Scouts dont count as garrisons, so they are useless to me past 1000 BC or so. I would rather put the hammers in Warriors, Workers or Settlers. After all, cities make the best fogbusters.

 

[Ibian]

Warriors live longer, but also explore slower. Usually i make 2 of whatever i have and another later, but i probably should just make 3 right off the bat. 2 to map out the coast, and a third to explore the land.

If i start with warriors, i need them to escort settlers anyway so there is no meaningful loss there. And if i start with scouts, it wont suck as much to meet a bear.

 

[Kesshi]

I do understand why Hunting is a preferred starting tech among the Emp+ crowd though.

Bleys,

That's due to the need for early archery.

 

[slobberinbear]

As you go up in levels, you will find that the AIs start with so many "exploring" units that you will not get nearly as many huts, scouts or no scouts.

I do understand why Hunting is a preferred starting tech among the Emp+ crowd though.

Personally, I dont ever build scouts, I build warriors, and not to get huts, but to fogbust, escort settlers, and become garrison units in new cities. Scouts dont count as garrisons, so they are useless to me past 1000 BC or so. I would rather put the hammers in Warriors, Workers or Settlers. After all, cities make the best fogbusters.

I play at Monarch. On Hemispheres, Continents, and Big & Little maps, I can usually get 8-12 huts if I go scout-heavy. The variation is primarily from map type, location, and whether the nearby AIs start with scouts. I don't know exactly what the odds are, but I'd say I end up with:

1 free unit hut (warrior or scout)
3-6 free gold huts
1-3 free tech huts
1-2 bonus XP huts
1-3 map reveal huts

Of these, the gold and tech huts are the best, though they're only about half of the huts or so. The free warrior can sometimes be handy, too, and the map reveal often saves time on exploration and points to more huts.

I guess my point is that I find building two scouts worth their hammer cost because of the faster exploration and the gold and tech huts. Of course, this also presumes that I have nothing better to build in my city, though most of the civs that start with Hunting don't have another starting tech that allows them to start with an early worker or workboat.

 

[AnitaGaribaldi]

I build scouts only if I'm playing at Settler. Free workers and settlers are so cool. I play this level just for HoF.

 

[bestbrian]

I try to keep at least one scout active and exploring until barbs show up; after that there's no point. I play with tribal villages turned off; I hate huts.

 

[Bleys]

Bleys,

That's due to the need for early archery.

And much better exploration to find the best city sites ASAP. (at least for me, I want that copper so I can skip Archery if possible)

I know its not all about huts, whenever I play at Emp, if I get more than 2 huts (and I am not isolated) I feel like its a bonus.

 

[Ibian]

Changing my vote. Screw scouts, 2-3 warriors explore plenty fast on their own and dont get eaten by lions and double as free garrison after exploring.

 

[brianb1974]

It's totally level-dependent. On higher levels, the AI starts with so many scouts that you're lucky if you get more than 1, maybe 2 with your initial unit. By the time the first built unit gets online, there may be nothing to look for.

Moreover, on higher levels, the AI starts with a worker. A warrior can take that worker. A scount can't. So I always build a warrior first, and I don't really like civs that start with hunting.

 

[johnny_rico]

I play the same settings as slobberinbear

If I start with hunting, I will usually build a scout or two. Unless my other tech is fishing and there is seafood abound, then I build boats while teching towards mining/BW to start whipping asap.

I have always thought hunting is a great tech regardless of difficulty. Starting with a scout is nice, it's on the road to archery, it provides immediate improvement of resources (two of which add an additional happiness), and if you go mining/bw and have copper, you can build spears to protect your axes.

But for the discussion at hand, while goody huts are nice I like the scout more for identifying as much of the geography as possible for city placement. However, it is also important to get your scouts back when the barbs start showing up and get them in coastal cities so you can be quick to board them to galleys to start exploring the coast and possible islands. It took me a while to get this simple discipline but once you do it can be a godsend. I've popped many an island hut for 60+ gold at that crucial time when expansion is starting to crush your research slider. If you're slow to get those scouts back to the coast, odds are you'll lose of that free sweet cash to the AI.

 

[johnny_rico]

It's totally level-dependent. On higher levels, the AI starts with so many scouts that you're lucky if you get more than 1, maybe 2 with your initial unit. By the time the first built unit gets online, there may be nothing to look for.

Moreover, on higher levels, the AI starts with a worker. A warrior can take that worker. A scount can't. So I always build a warrior first, and I don't really like civs that start with hunting.

I'd like to see this broken down. If the AI doesn't start with hunting, I don't think they get free scout(s) either.

On monarch, I think the AI starts with 1 settler, 1 worker, and 2 archers (because they start with archery, but I didn't think that also meant they start with hunting).

 

[brianb1974]

I am positive the AI gets 2 scouts on immortal. I've had a couple starts where I was hugged right up against an AI and saw him on turn 1--I saw the settler before he had a city. And he had 2 scouts.

 

[tycoonist]

i play at emperor/immortal and hunting is the worst starting tech IMO

 

[Daedal]

Scouts would be useful if they acted like 2 move spies without the ability to do spy missions. So they could avoid getting killed by enemy units and they could enter closed borders without provoking war. As it stands they're a nice freebie for some civs, but otherwise a useless waste of hammers.

 

[Cleverbeans]

I just scout with my initial warrior and escorted settlers.

 

[Rameau's Nephew]

I build them very rarely. The early ones are only useful until barb warriors start showing up. I prefer my early hammers to be invested in something of more lasting value than the chance of finding some extra goodie huts and getting good results from them.

One circumstance when I will occasionally build them: in the Classical-Medieval age, if I need a unit to investigate the terrain of a Civ I have opened borders with. I'll usually use a Chariot or the like, but if I don't have an extra military unit handy, a Scout is cheap, gets 2 moves, and doesn't require horses.

 

[Polobo]

If I start with hunting and a three hammer tile (or a two-hammer capital) I will stagnate while putting out a single scout. By the time I do that and see what my first scout encounters I can decide to put out a third or move on to better things. Terrain plays a big part (if I'm in the dead middle of a continent I'll often put out a third, otherwise 2 seems to work well). It also depends on what the other tech I start with is (i.e., should I start a worker now or wait a few turns until I get him something to do).

 

[Rameau's Nephew]

A note: Map size is probably a big factor here. Extra scouts early on are probably most valuable on larger maps, or maps with a low number of civs relative to its land area. I prefer to play Standard maps with medium or high sea levels, but I can see how extra Scouts early on would be much more useful on maps with significantly more land to uncover.

 

[Bleys]

i play at emperor/immortal and hunting is the worst starting tech IMO

I used to think that as well, until that recent thread, where many Emp+ players chose Hunting.

A note: Map size is probably a big factor here. Extra scouts early on are probably most valuable on larger maps, or maps with a low number of civs relative to its land area. I prefer to play Standard maps with medium or high sea levels, but I can see how extra Scouts early on would be much more useful on maps with significantly more land to uncover.

I also think game-speed plays a role. On Marathon, a single warrior can uncover huge amounts of terrain by himself while you tech and build things. On Normal, however, where you are 10 turns from your worker, if you have a warrior and dont send him the "ideal" direction, there is a chance you could miss the best locations for your 1st settler. I notice this whenever I play madscientists RPCs, vs other RPCs at Normal (my preferred speed is Epic).