Scout or Warrior?

[bryanw1995]

a scout-archer upgrade is extremely powerful anytime, though it's even better if you've managed to get a scout promo or two first. +50% defense with scout movement for an archer or, later, infantry unit is just obscene. and +1 sight/+1 movement????

 

[sharper_knives]

a scout-archer upgrade is extremely powerful anytime, though it's even better if you've managed to get a scout promo or two first. +50% defense with scout movement for an archer or, later, infantry unit is just obscene. and +1 sight/+1 movement????

This

It always irritates me when it upgrades on a ruin before I get the scout promotions I want

 

[iggymnrr]

A scout let's you build a worker earlier. There's also a TMIT "Let's Play" where he used the scout for a long time to fend of barbs near his capitol.

 

[juckie]

In the end, it's a simple analytical problem.

The differences are:
1) Hammer cost
2) Movement
3) Combat
4) Upgrade path
"5) Civilization specs"

1; Got a rush to build something else? Scout if so.
2; Lots of rivers, forests and other rough terrain? Scout if so.
3; Do you want to rush an opponent? Warrior if so. (Note: sometimes an extra scout for flanking/last hit/worker steal is good to)
4; Want to make it a swordsman? Or try to luck-out on a goody hut?
5; Songhai for barb gold, or unique units, like a Jaguar Warrior, or even preparing for a Legion, to not use a worker for road building, are all good options.

 

[Fluxx]

worker first is still a very viable alternative given the right circumstances

 

[biohazard72]

Usually Scout if I have no 2F1H tiles, Warrior if I do. Slight bias to the Warrior if playing no ruins (no chance of useless Spear upgrade), and to the Scout with ruins (Archer upgrade is nice, possibly get more ruins with a Scout).

Very small decision in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Fabien]

I always build a scout first, mainly because I was to bored to figure out what would be the best build given a relative start position (not that you really know that much due to vision, but on some maps you know what to expect). I alwys thought I should try a worker first (unless you lack any initial resources) but never did, since improving tiles is not that important, but I might be pretty wrong .

I usually follow up with a worker and a warrior.

 

[kulipking]

I always build one scout first to discover those ruins, but find the scout normally gets killed by barbs once exploration gets well under way. Scouts are also limited in that you will always need to send in a warrior to clear the barbs once they are discovered.

Warriors then are the way to go, at least then you can fight the barbs and build up exp. They cost more but they last longer IMO.

 

[MaximumPain]

Cases:

1. I suspect I am on a relatively small island (4-5 city locations maximum).
NO warrior or scout. Worker first.

2. Terrain is mostly flat (not forest, not jungle, not marsh, not mountainous), and I am NOT quick expanding (settler before worker).
Warrior first.

3. Else
Scout first.

This ^^^^

Plus if there's no ruins then Im more likely to make a warrior.
If there's no ruins i almost never build a scout unless I know Im on a huge land mass.

 

[Pazyryk]

When playing large map, building 2 scouts at start can (but is not guarantied to) provide a very large payoff. You can beat the AI players to a lot of goody huts, even very close to their cities. If things go well, you might pick up several techs, get 2 policies, a lot of cash and end up with 2 very good all-terrain archers. On the other hand, it might not pay off that much if you aren't on a large land mass. (I usually decide whether to build the 2nd scout based on land layout as discovered by my initial warrior.)

 

[Beld]

I like raging barbarians on King and Immortal and you need a warrior to protect the worker (I'd say even vanilla Immortal and above requires a warrior to stay back and protect home base).

So I USUALLY (it always depends, right?) build in this order- Scout>Warrior>Worker then I'll go Settler if there's just a SWEET spot nearby, or Monument if not. Then it's on to Settler (usually) or Library for the NC if I've got marble.

The Scout Archer (I'm sure it's been mentioned somewhere above) is just awesome, and that unit usually survives and gets upgraded throughout the whole game.

When I was playing all regular settings on prince and king, the second warrior wasn't really necessary for some time, but I still always build a scout first. (edit: also, your scout archer is fun to take exploring once you can embark. He can still easily take out the barb spears and archers you're likely to meet on an isolated island. Do note though, that unless you are Askia there's a good chance you'll get popped by a trireme unless you bring one of your own.)

Also, it's probably a bug? But since barbs don't heal, it's easy to take out camps with a scout. Just sit him next to the barbs and they'll attack, but won't kill him. Move him away to a forest 3 tiles away, heal, and come back to collect your cash. Scouts are way more powerful than in Civ4 imo.

 

[Borris]

I have generally been going warrior, worker, settler in most games. I like having two warriors at the start wandering around together for two reasons:

1) Much less likely to accidentally lose a unit (tipping the odds to being 2 of my units against 1 barb - or even just levelling the odds of 2 of my units vs 2 barbs).

2) The damage taken is distributed across 2 units, which means it is less turns before my unit(s) are fully healed and wandering around again. I've read many discussions here (just emerging from lurker mode in fact! and this timing issue does not seem to get much discussion.

There, 2% and unlurked

 

[AfterShafter]

Neither. I get a worker first while researching archery, then build an archer.

 

[Civsassin]

I have generally been going warrior, worker, settler in most games. I like having two warriors at the start wandering around together for two reasons:

1) Much less likely to accidentally lose a unit (tipping the odds to being 2 of my units against 1 barb - or even just levelling the odds of 2 of my units vs 2 barbs).

2) The damage taken is distributed across 2 units, which means it is less turns before my unit(s) are fully healed and wandering around again. I've read many discussions here (just emerging from lurker mode in fact! and this timing issue does not seem to get much discussion.

There, 2% and unlurked

I agree with the two warriors wandering around. They make it much easier to take out barbarians. However, I prefer to build a scout first. The build is very quick, and I get quick insight into what's around me. I control it manually with the warrior for the first few turns to scout my immediate surroundings and put it on auto explore after that. A worker is usually my third or fourth build depending on circumstances.

 

[LuCypher73]

I used to build scouts but when I moved up to emperor I happen to start near the AI and when I realized they start with 2 warriors anyhow I kinda accepted I probably wouldnt be poppin too many huts. On average I consider 3 a fine start and often dont worry about it past that so I can concentrate locally.

Scout archer rules though and if I play as america I usually build a scout as well

exception being if im near tundra i may do scout cause he can ransack several huts up there before ai gets over that way usually, otherwise I pop the majority of huts with my starting warrior and by the time my scouts built several civs have already come trompin thru my damn rose gardens

 

[Nares]

Scouts are very cool when they get upgraded to Archers

Level 3 Scouts with Scouting I/II upgraded to an Archer then a Longbow is ridiculous.

 

[_hero_]

It's entirely dependent on map, civ, and strategy. Assuming I'm doing continents or Pangea, or something similar, I usually want one or the other. If I am Germany or Songhai, I ALWAYS do warrior since barbs kills are the bread and butter of those civs. If I am Spain, I ALWAYS do a scout. If my starting has 2F1H I usually do a warrior. The gold gain from extra barb kills can often pay for a much earlier rush of some sort or a city state ally. Plus, having two warriors with good experience already is great for a swordsman rush. If you get screwed and have no iron this backfires, but extra units are still extra units.

If I am planning on using a slingshot strategy of some sort, I'll either do a worker or monument and forgo the extra unit. monument for some social policy dependent strategy like and Honor buffed war or a wonder rush with Aristocracy. Worker if my resources are great and I want to ICS/Rex.

I'm not as big a fan of scout archers as many of the above posters. Archers suck vs cities since the last patch, and usually end up with some worthless upgrades once they become riflemen. They can be huge, but they can also be insignificant, doing 1 damage to a city that's healing 2-4 HP per turn as opposed to an extra warrior upgraded to sword/longsword doing 6 damage and taking 2, then healing back next to a medic. 12 damage every 3 turns vs 3 damage every 3 turns. You do the math.

 

[sharkles]

Warrior 100% of the time.
Built scouts in my first game and never did it again. No reason to. I don't care what anyone else says.
I haven't read a single post and I won't be back.
Warrior. Warrior all the way.

 

[Civsassin]

It's entirely dependent on map, civ, and strategy. Assuming I'm doing continents or Pangea, or something similar, I usually want one or the other. If I am Germany or Songhai, I ALWAYS do warrior since barbs kills are the bread and butter of those civs. If I am Spain, I ALWAYS do a scout. If my starting has 2F1H I usually do a warrior. The gold gain from extra barb kills can often pay for a much earlier rush of some sort or a city state ally. Plus, having two warriors with good experience already is great for a swordsman rush. If you get screwed and have no iron this backfires, but extra units are still extra units.

Great comment - I should have made it myslef.

I usually take the same stance, but in this case for some unknown reason, I didn't. 99% of my decisions are purely situational. I have been starting with a scout because in my last few games, I've been playing a continents or pangea map.

This is why I like the Civilization series of games; there is no one size fits all.

 

[Michl2602]

Additionally to the landshape it depends on the card I play. On huge cards (I almost always play) and especially on the huge "world" card, scout is superior without any question.
In most cases he lives long enough to explore a whole continent and so you can chose the state states to ally also for strategic reasons (not to speak, that it helps to find the other civs for trading).
If your main opp happens to be on the other end of the world, just give some units to your allies in place and let them do the job. That way you get lots of money for peace without doing any fighting yourself (ok, so far I'm only playing at warlord, so that could be different at the higher levels).