Scout promotions

[CrazyG]

So far we haven't managed to make 2 separate scout promotion lines work, I doubt we can make 3.

So the question becomes, is TB I worth delaying higher-end promotions elsewhere for the scout? That's what we'll need to see.

Given that most players already take TB I, and its getting a massive buff, this is an extremely obvious yes, isn't it?

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

Well, I think it's because we've been focusing too much on pathfinders and not enough on the whole scouting line up to the paratroopers. In the process we've been trying to make pathfinders' promotion lines two equally viable lines that would do similar things (exploration) in (slightly) different ways, which is very hard to do. Instead we'd be better off making sure that we have distinctly different types of functions/units coming from the scouting units, so that there would be clear alternatives instead of two "different, yet same" alternatives.

 

[Gazebo]

So far we haven't managed to make 2 separate scout promotion lines work, I doubt we can make 3.

Given that most players already take TB I, and its getting a massive buff, this is an extremely obvious yes, isn't it?

Sorry, it was a typo, ' is TB II worth delaying higher-end promotions elsewhere for the scout?' is what I meant. TB I being a no-brainer for early game scouts is, IMO, fine - there's really no way around the necessity for the double-movement promotions, and they're not strong enough on their own as a 2/2 pair (as we've seen).

Edit: you could remove them for a flat +1 movement on the promotion, but that's not any less mandatory early game. And the code for movement is built on integers, so double movement is the smallest realistic 'bump' you can do.

G

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

I also wanted to say that I'd be in favour of any rework of scouting promotions that would give us incentive to build scouts/explorers/zeppelins even once we've explored most of the world.

 

[Stalker0]

It's a no-go because it's not possible code-wise or for some other reason?

None of the current proposals currently, imo, gives the player any incentive to build scout units after the first or second pathfinder until paratroopers come online, but the one I mentioned, with better medics (than medics of any other class of units) and special "skirmish" melee units, would give a player incentive to build such scouts, explorers & zeppelins.

That’s because that’s simply what the scout is. The reason scouts aren’t built more isn’t the promotions, it’s because they just aren’t needed. I build 2 recon until late game. And they do their job and they fill their niche...but they don’t need to do more.

Boosting the promotions is good to make the scout better, but it’s not suddenly going to be something it’s not.

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

Well, then we need to decide what's the role of the scout-line of units. Are they meant for purely exploration? If so, what's the purpose in them having medic promotions? What's the point of them being able to be built as paratroopers&x-coms with oodles of promotions from the ancient era onwards?

If so, I'd be much in favour of renaming the scout-line to "auxiliary"-line, and having three (or two, if three isn't possible AI/code-wise) distinct&possible roles -> explorers, skirmish units/pillagers & very strong medics. Because otherwise we're using up the whole line up to paratroopers simply to have one or two units built. That seems very wasteful and a missed opportunity to use the line for ancillary unit purposes.

 

[Gazebo]

Well, then we need to decide what's the role of the scout-line of units. Are they meant for purely exploration? If so, what's the purpose in them having medic promotions? What's the point of them being able to be built as paratroopers&x-coms with oodles of promotions from the ancient era onwards?

If so, I'd be much in favour of renaming the scout-line to "auxiliary"-line, and having three (or two, if three isn't possible AI/code-wise) distinct&possible roles -> explorers, skirmish units/pillagers & very strong medics. Because otherwise we're using up the whole line up to paratroopers simply to have one or two units built. That seems very wasteful and a missed opportunity to use the line for ancillary unit purposes.

Not gonna happen at this point. Map types like Terra increase the utility of scouts, but anything beyond that is outside of the platform of civ.

G

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

Ok.

 

[Legen]

Well, then we need to decide what's the role of the scout-line of units. Are they meant for purely exploration? If so, what's the purpose in them having medic promotions? What's the point of them being able to be built as paratroopers&x-coms with oodles of promotions from the ancient era onwards?

If so, I'd be much in favour of renaming the scout-line to "auxiliary"-line, and having three (or two, if three isn't possible AI/code-wise) distinct&possible roles -> explorers, skirmish units/pillagers & very strong medics. Because otherwise we're using up the whole line up to paratroopers simply to have one or two units built. That seems very wasteful and a missed opportunity to use the line for ancillary unit purposes.

They are recon units, they're meant to grant vision better than the other units can. And the best case I've seen of that is with highly-promoted Zeppelins stationed on a mountain: they provide an extreme field of vision, unhindered by hills. If anything, I think recon units could benefit a lot from having an innate ability to stay on mountains with increased base vision radius, from my experience with zeppelins.

Bandeirantes work as an explorer that you want to field due to the huge amount of yields you get from exploration, which is what the Treasure Hunters partially tries to do on the recon line. But the reason I think recon units see limited use anyway is that they combine limited combat abilities with small vision gains compared to mounted units.

 

[CrazyG]

Sorry, it was a typo, ' is TB II worth delaying higher-end promotions elsewhere for the scout?' is what I meant. TB I being a no-brainer for early game scouts is, IMO, fine - there's really no way around the necessity for the double-movement promotions, and they're not strong enough on their own as a 2/2 pair (as we've seen).

Its apparent that faster movement in desert and snow isn't worth a standalone promotion. However desert move, snow move, ignore ZoC, and 10% CS? I would certainly give that a lot of consideration.

I usually took TB 1 before, but not always. I think that 90% went to 100% with this change.

 

[ElliotS]

Wasn't part of the issue that people would often skip Trailblazer I completely because it lacked combat bonuses?

No. Even in my original post talking about how bad TB is, I pointed out that going TB 1 is very common, it's just going further that's not.

 

[Gazebo]

Its apparent that faster movement in desert and snow isn't worth a standalone promotion. However desert move, snow move, ignore ZoC, and 10% CS? I would certainly give that a lot of consideration.

I usually took TB 1 before, but not always. I think that 90% went to 100% with this change.

That's probably fair.

 

[tu_79]

That's probably fair.

You might be right. Only the starting pathfinder is going to take trailblazing without thinking it twice. After that, it comes to whether there are still enough unchartered lands to justify a second fast pathfinder that cannot escort.

 

[pineappledan]

2 issues I have:

• TB I is very powerful. So powerful that it is clearly the best lvl 2 promotion option. This means there is actually a right and wrong answer for what your first promotion is going to be. Survivalism I. Giving players a choice where 1 option is so much better than the other is setting noobs up to fail. Beginners will wrongly assume that these promotion lines have been play-tested and determined to be roughly equivalent buffs.
• Other promotion lines have the really good stuff at the back, forcing you to ignore strong leaf promotions (medic, cover, charge, etc.) to invest in stem promotions for a really big reward at the end (logistics, range, drill, march). Trailblazer's new progression puts all the best stuff at the beginning, so it is inconsistent with how we have been trained to deal with promotions until now.

 

[CrabHelmet]

I'll be honest: I've just never liked double movement in Forest/Snow/etc. at all. Why can any unit move faster through rough terrain than open? I'd always wanted it to be just a straight +1 Movement.

 

[Stalker0]

I'll be honest: I've just never liked double movement in Forest/Snow/etc. at all. Why can any unit move faster through rough terrain than open? I'd always wanted it to be just a straight +1 Movement.

This dead horse has been beaten so much we are now breaking the bones of a skeleton.

 

[ElliotS]

Honestly I think TB 1 and 2 are good, but TB 3 is pretty weak and scouting could use some buffs. I really think 3 should get +15 HP from kill or pillage, stacking Maybe some buffs to Scouting 2 and maybe 1. XP for spotting units maybe?

 

[Stalker0]

Honestly I think TB 1 and 2 are good, but TB 3 is pretty weak and scouting could use some buffs. I really think 3 should get +15 HP from kill or pillage, stacking Maybe some buffs to Scouting 2 and maybe 1. XP for spotting units maybe?

TBIII looks pretty good for paratroopers. I don't see it as an early promotion which is fine. I go TBII, then can pick up medic, scouting, survival.....plenty of options. Then late game I can pick up TBIII when it becomes more useful. I will try it out in my current game when I get to that point to see if it holds up

 

[ElliotS]

TBIII looks pretty good for paratroopers. I don't see it as an early promotion which is fine. I go TBII, then can pick up medic, scouting, survival.....plenty of options. Then late game I can pick up TBIII when it becomes more useful. I will try it out in my current game when I get to that point to see if it holds up

With the nerfs to medic it might be better than those, so TB 1, maybe TB 2, Survivalism 1-3, TB 3?

 

[CrabHelmet]

This dead horse has been beaten so much we are now breaking the bones of a skeleton.

:'(