Scouts and Explorers becoming Diplomatic Units

[ElliotS]

If we're going to replace/change trailblazer here what I'd like:
Trailblazer I: +1 Movement, 25% to withdraw on melee attack
Trailblazer II: +1 Movement, 25% to withdraw on melee attack
Trailblazer III: Ignore ZoC, Use Enemy roads, Pillage for free, 50% to withdraw on attack

Survivalist I: +25% CS on defense, Heals +5 HP outside friendly lands
Survivalist II: +25% CS on defense, Heals +5 HP outside friendly lands
Survivalist III: Heals every turn, +25% CS on defense, Pillage for free, 50% chance to dodge ranged attacks.

Scouting I (Requires Trailblazer or Survivalist 2): +1 Visibility Range
Scouting II: +1 Visibility Range
Scouting III: +10% defense to all friendly units within sight range.

Reconnaissance (old): Gains XP from revealing Tiles, up to 100 XP.
Reconnaissance (New proposed): Gains XP from revealing tiles, ending the turn in enemy lands and pillaging tiles. No max.

Unit changes:
Scout:

1. Penalty to attacking non-barbarians, -33%.
   
2. +1 movement at military theory, +1 sight at composite bow tech, +3 CS at bronze working, iron working and steel working. (They'll never attack well, but they can actually defend this way. This also keeps them useful without being OP at any point, or requiring more units. Explorer doesn't get these bonuses, but could be looked at if it's weak.)
   
3. Ability to move through other people's territory at trade. (Disguised as merchants, now they can't be trapped. AKA the bane of exploring, and another nail in the current scout's coffin.)

Explorer:

1. CS from 15 to 18.
2. Movement from 3 to 4.
3. Sight +1 base
4. Ability to move though other people's territory without open borders until constabularies tech. (Preferably only in cities with Constabularies built, but not sure if possible.)

Zeppelin:

1. +1 movement
2. Can move after attacking. (Not sure if they can, but they should. Still much weaker than cavalry in direct combat.)
   
3. No damage for ending turn on mountain.

Paratroopers and beyond are already good, so no changes.


-----------------------

The changes here are meant to allow 2 different roles for scouts: 1 that flits around the back-lines and pillages their stuff and 1 that stays with your units, can tank a bit on the front-line, and can provide plenty of sight and be a medic.

The Reconnaissance changes would allow scouts to be rewarded for what they do and actually hit higher levels. (They shouldn't be attacking.)

The lack of penalty for attacking barbs is there to preserve the current game balance super early game. I think it's very good.

Thoughts?

 

[ElliotS]

If you want a solution to the scout going obsolete, there isn't one, scouting only has one use outside of revealing tiles, and that's spotting units, either by keeping scouts near an AIs border and see when they start moving them towards you or spot for an artillery unit firing from behind a mountain. Both those purposes could just as easy be filled by normal units, which you're pretty much bound to keep around anyways because getting attacked when you're not prepared kills you.

I think my post outlines a good solution that I would use, and they would be the best units for the job. Also no other unit can cross a mountain range like a zeppelin.

I've said replace 'ignore terrain cost' with +1 movement, how is that not a suggestion?

I'd rather replace trailblazer than remove the ignore terrain costs. The ability to ignore terrain costs is the most important part to me.

Alright since recon is often irrelevant for the player,

I 100% disagree. Unless you're going to save-scum every time you're sneak attacked I think being able to spot incoming units and other such things is insanely useful. The problem is that scouts can't do it well right now, and I aim to fix that.

 

[crdvis16]

Alright since recon is often irrelevant for the player, how about adding a 'sabotage' element. Some submarine invisibility like element (proposed by tu, but I think an exact copy could turn out badly) along with extra damage to siege units. Get some extra sight and it should provide access to siege trains. Alternative to invisibility would be ignoring the need for hills to see past enemy lines, thus keeping them relevant without anything that may break how some view frontlines. I don't see why a unit sitting in enemy territory should be totally inept.

Am I the only one who would actually like to have a Zeppelin around that has a huge sight radius moving with my army? There have been lots of times that I've tried to use mounted units as forward scouts when invading enemy territory and end up getting those mounted units killed because I move them too far and expose them. This is especially the case in jungle/hill/river terrain where I move 1 hex too far only to reveal like 3 enemy units that are all too happy to pounce on my lancer or whatever. A zeppelin with huge sight radius, especially if it can see over hills/jungle/forest without penalty, could be extremely valuable in this regard (and somewhat realistic I think?).

 

[ElliotS]

Am I the only one who would actually like to have a Zeppelin around that has a huge sight radius moving with my army? There have been lots of times that I've tried to use mounted units as forward scouts when invading enemy territory and end up getting those mounted units killed because I move them too far and expose them. This is especially the case in jungle/hill/river terrain where I move 1 hex too far only to reveal like 3 enemy units that are all too happy to pounce on my lancer or whatever. A zeppelin with huge sight radius, especially if it can see over hills/jungle/forest without penalty, could be extremely valuable in this regard (and somewhat realistic I think?).

They currently have +1 sight base, and can get more with scouting.

 

[ashendashin]

I 100% disagree. Unless you're going to save-scum every time you're sneak attacked I think being able to spot incoming units and other such things is insanely useful. The problem is that scouts can't do it well right now, and I aim to fix that.

Recon on a dedicated unit can be irrelevant*
Some mounted units running around is often enough to figure things out for a large portion of the game. I like the suggestions you've made, and I think being able to easily move deep into enemy territory and survive would be great, but it might remain lacking if we don't add a clear use besides keeping sight. Your suggestions definitely need something for scouts to be able to fill a role consistently. One thing I forgot to add to my post was being able to move past enemy units as if in peace time. That would be the most fitting alternative to invisibility.

For zeppelins having loads of sight, I think we'll finally have those if we upgrade to them. The problem I have is actually keeping them around.

 

[CrazyG]

A strawpoll is completely unnecessary, because this is not an argument about which line is more fun, this is a situation where one option is clearly wrong as it can't be supported by reality at all. This is not in fact a clash of gameplay versus realism, because there's no gameplay benefit to this either.

-points them gameplay benefits to trailblazer
"in fact... there's no gameplay benefits to this"
..............................................

I am reconsidering my position because of what Tu and ashendashin said. Making extra sight available earlier and making the unit sturdier could make it a decent support unit. Extra sight would really help AI based on my limited understanding.

I think EliotS has a pretty good framework there. I like that it doesn't change too much. IDK if scouting III is necessary, and I would like to see scouting become a tier 2 promotion so I can get it online faster. This would mean I can deploy scouts or explorers from armories with that +1 sight

 

[ElliotS]

I think EliotS has a pretty good framework there. I like that it doesn't change too much. IDK if scouting III is necessary, and I would like to see scouting become a tier 2 promotion so I can get it online faster. This would mean I can deploy scouts or explorers from armories with that +1 sight

Good idea. I only had scouting 3 because it currently exists, but I agree that it seems tact-ed on.

but it might remain lacking if we don't add a clear use besides keeping sight.

Pillaging their back-lines during war can be really effective all game. It provides unhappiness (which can net you a combat bonus) tons of gold, disrupts their plans and provides other smaller tactical benefits.

I might like to see a general change to increase unhappiness from pillaged tiles, which could buff this aspect too.
-----

Trailblazer I: +1 Movement, 25% to withdraw on melee attack
Trailblazer II: +1 Movement, 25% to withdraw on melee attack
Trailblazer III: Ignore ZoC, Use Enemy roads, Pillage for free, 50% to withdraw on attack

Survivalist I: +25% CS on defense, Heals +5 HP outside friendly lands
Survivalist II: +25% CS on defense, Heals +5 HP outside friendly lands
Survivalist III: Heals every turn, +25% CS on defense, Pillage for free, 50% chance to dodge ranged attacks.

Scouting I (Requires Trailblazer or Survivalist 1): +1 Visibility Range
Scouting II: +1 Visibility Range
Scouting III: Removed

Reconnaissance (old): Gains XP from revealing Tiles, up to 100 XP.
Reconnaissance (New proposed): Gains XP from revealing tiles, ending the turn in enemy lands and pillaging tiles. No max.

Unit changes:
Scout:

1. Penalty to attacking non-barbarians, -33%.
   
2. +1 movement at military theory, +1 sight at composite bow tech, +3 CS at bronze working, iron working and steel working. (They'll never attack well, but they can actually defend this way. This also keeps them useful without being OP at any point, or requiring more units. Explorer doesn't get these bonuses, but could be looked at if it's weak.)
   
3. Ability to move through other people's territory at trade. (Disguised as merchants, now they can't be trapped. AKA the bane of exploring, and another nail in the current scout's coffin.)

Explorer:

1. CS from 15 to 18.
2. Movement from 3 to 4.
3. Sight +1 base
4. Ability to move though other people's territory without open borders until constabularies tech. (Preferably only in cities with Constabularies built, but not sure if possible.)

Zeppelin:

1. +1 movement
2. Can move after attacking. (Not sure if they can, but they should. Still much weaker than cavalry in direct combat.)
   
3. No damage for ending turn on mountain.

Paratroopers and beyond are already good, so no changes.

 

[Drakul]

Why not give them a unique promotion that makes them give +15 influence with a city state ? Or if that is too weak make special diplomatic promotion lines for scout units ?

 

[tu_79]

Thanks for the support, ashendashin.

Imo, recon is not the best it can be because we can't use the unit designed for it properly. If we could send a scout fearlessly into enemy territory to discover what we're going to face, even with 4 sight range it would excel in reconnaissance. If we could leave a scout in the middle of nowhere watching for any flanking surprise attack, the extra turns of reaction we gain would pay for.

This is the main change I'd like to see.

Then, the secondary role. I like both trespassing and hiding. Trespassing lets scouts to be useful at revealing the map when closed borders take on the way. Some may like it or not, but it's an enhancement on the revealing map role. Hiding is more fight oriented. Instead of being tough, you just hide and wait. If anything comes this way other than an enemy scout it suffers damage and loses movement. This is more difficult to design since it's completely different of what we're used to. But it's working with submarines, so the code is there.

Finally the movement rationale. I would not fight too hard for a change on this, but certainly I think that the changes to movement proposed are better than the current one.

ElliotS last proposal seems to fill the boxes. Only thing I would add is better sailing for explorers.

 

[ashendashin]

Pillaging their back-lines during war can be really effective all game. It provides unhappiness (which can net you a combat bonus) tons of gold, disrupts their plans and provides other smaller tactical benefits.

I might like to see a general change to increase unhappiness from pillaged tiles, which could buff this aspect too.

It's useful, but not a clear benefit to the immediate frontline unless the unhappiness is adjusted (still wouldn't be enough IMO). I'm still advocating for disrupting frontlines, and scouts also seem a prime candidate for that. There's not all that much for exploiting vulnerable units right now that doesn't get obliterated.

 

[tu_79]

Good idea. I only had scouting 3 because it currently exists, but I agree that it seems tact-ed on.



Pillaging their back-lines during war can be really effective all game. It provides unhappiness (which can net you a combat bonus) tons of gold, disrupts their plans and provides other smaller tactical benefits.

I might like to see a general change to increase unhappiness from pillaged tiles, which could buff this aspect too.
-----

Trailblazer I: +1 Movement, 25% to withdraw on melee attack
Trailblazer II: +1 Movement, 25% to withdraw on melee attack
Trailblazer III: Ignore ZoC, Use Enemy roads, Pillage for free, 50% to withdraw on attack

Survivalist I: +25% CS on defense, Heals +5 HP outside friendly lands
Survivalist II: +25% CS on defense, Heals +5 HP outside friendly lands
Survivalist III: Heals every turn, +25% CS on defense, Pillage for free, 50% chance to dodge ranged attacks.

Scouting I (Requires Trailblazer or Survivalist 1): +1 Visibility Range
Scouting II: +1 Visibility Range
Scouting III: Removed

Reconnaissance (old): Gains XP from revealing Tiles, up to 100 XP.
Reconnaissance (New proposed): Gains XP from revealing tiles, ending the turn in enemy lands and pillaging tiles. No max.

Unit changes:
Scout:

1. Penalty to attacking non-barbarians, -33%.
   
2. +1 movement at military theory, +1 sight at composite bow tech, +3 CS at bronze working, iron working and steel working. (They'll never attack well, but they can actually defend this way. This also keeps them useful without being OP at any point, or requiring more units. Explorer doesn't get these bonuses, but could be looked at if it's weak.)
   
3. Ability to move through other people's territory at trade. (Disguised as merchants, now they can't be trapped. AKA the bane of exploring, and another nail in the current scout's coffin.)

Explorer:

1. CS from 15 to 18.
2. Movement from 3 to 4.
3. Sight +1 base
4. Ability to move though other people's territory without open borders until constabularies tech. (Preferably only in cities with Constabularies built, but not sure if possible.)

Zeppelin:

1. +1 movement
2. Can move after attacking. (Not sure if they can, but they should. Still much weaker than cavalry in direct combat.)
   
3. No damage for ending turn on mountain.

Paratroopers and beyond are already good, so no changes.

Seems good. One concern someone raised is that if the unit becomes too strong at defense they are taking a melee role. One way to avoid this is to not allow fortifying, but there could be others.

 

[ElliotS]

Seems good. One concern someone raised is that if the unit becomes too strong at defense they are taking a melee role. One way to avoid this is to not allow fortifying, but there could be others.

I don't see it as an issue. Even if they defend better than melee units, they're crap at attacking so the idea of replacing your melee units with scouts seems super unlikely. (lower CS, no attacking buff promotions and attacking debuff.)

So scouts defend better, but melee units attack MUCH better. That seems fine imo.

I'd probably remove the +25% defense CS on Survivalism III that I suggested though, to be safe.

 

[ashendashin]

I don't see it as an issue. Even if they defend better than melee units, they're crap at attacking so the idea of replacing your melee units with scouts seems super unlikely. (lower CS, no attacking buff promotions and attacking debuff.)

Maybe if we got a sapper it wouldn't feel so weird to entrench scouts outside city walls

I'm leaning on the side of staying away from easy scout defense. I'm sure there's a number of ways to keep them alive without focusing too much on retreat (damage thresholds, mounted units not being able to kill them instantly, 'dig in' like bonuses to exert some control around them. Can't say I'm the best at small bits of balance)

 

[Gazebo]

Why would a strawpoll even be needed this is a clear breach in logic, and you can't offer any decent explanation for it besides 'I like it'.

Yeah adding elephant mechs with lazorcannons to medieval Incas would also be fun, but it would make absolutely no sense, just like this mechanic.

Finally, a replacement for the Slinger.

G

 

[Funak]

Finally, a replacement for the Slinger.

That's what I'm saying. A slinger is just a guy with a sling, a lazor elephant mech is both a mech a lazor and an elephant...

 

[Txurce]

I think scouts work well early game, and need no changes then. In terms of tinkering, I would be okay with letting them enter enemy territory. (I'm also in Funak's realism camp, but don't think it's a big deal.)

I don't care that they become obsolete.

I think explorers are pretty bad. They could be improved as per crdvis16, with Embarkation and increased sight. Zeppelin could aslo have more increased sight.

Later upgrades are obviously fine.

 

[Funak]

I think scouts work well early game, and need no changes then. In terms of tinkering, I would be okay with letting them enter enemy territory. (I'm also in Funak's realism camp, but don't think it's a big deal.)

Absolutely, it's no big deal, but there's absolutely no reason not to fix it.


As far as making defense-focused scouts feel different compared to melee-units. A chance to retreat definitely helps, that makes them worthless for escorting, which imho makes perfect sense, a scout is not a military escort. It also makes them terrible at holding forts and citadels, which also makes sense.
Not allowing them to attack, and by extension not allowing them to capture civilian units or trade-units makes them a lot weaker in military situations as well, like it or not sometimes you want to press in with your melee units and finish off a wounded unit.

 

[Aldebaran1997]

Pillaging their back-lines during war can be really effective all game. It provides unhappiness (which can net you a combat bonus) tons of gold, disrupts their plans and provides other smaller tactical benefits.

I might like to see a general change to increase unhappiness from pillaged tiles, which could buff this aspect too.
-----

Trailblazer I: +1 Movement, 25% to withdraw on melee attack
Trailblazer II: +1 Movement, 25% to withdraw on melee attack
Trailblazer III: Ignore ZoC, Use Enemy roads, Pillage for free, 50% to withdraw on attack

Survivalist I: +25% CS on defense, Heals +5 HP outside friendly lands
Survivalist II: +25% CS on defense, Heals +5 HP outside friendly lands
Survivalist III: Heals every turn, +25% CS on defense, Pillage for free, 50% chance to dodge ranged attacks.

Scouting I (Requires Trailblazer or Survivalist 1): +1 Visibility Range
Scouting II: +1 Visibility Range
Scouting III: Removed

Reconnaissance (old): Gains XP from revealing Tiles, up to 100 XP.
Reconnaissance (New proposed): Gains XP from revealing tiles, ending the turn in enemy lands and pillaging tiles. No max.

Unit changes:
Scout:

1. Penalty to attacking non-barbarians, -33%.
   
2. +1 movement at military theory, +1 sight at composite bow tech, +3 CS at bronze working, iron working and steel working. (They'll never attack well, but they can actually defend this way. This also keeps them useful without being OP at any point, or requiring more units. Explorer doesn't get these bonuses, but could be looked at if it's weak.)
   
3. Ability to move through other people's territory at trade. (Disguised as merchants, now they can't be trapped. AKA the bane of exploring, and another nail in the current scout's coffin.)

Explorer:

1. CS from 15 to 18.
2. Movement from 3 to 4.
3. Sight +1 base
4. Ability to move though other people's territory without open borders until constabularies tech. (Preferably only in cities with Constabularies built, but not sure if possible.)

Zeppelin:

1. +1 movement
2. Can move after attacking. (Not sure if they can, but they should. Still much weaker than cavalry in direct combat.)
   
3. No damage for ending turn on mountain.

Paratroopers and beyond are already good, so no changes.

What a messy promotion tree
I don't like the recent change of ranged-siege promotion change but this can be much worse than that. I'm sorry I just complain with no better suggestion, but I can't find any point on those changes...

 

[Funak]

Trailblazer I: +1 Movement, 25% to withdraw on melee attack
Trailblazer II: +1 Movement, 25% to withdraw on melee attack
Trailblazer III: Ignore ZoC, Use Enemy roads, Pillage for free, 50% to withdraw on attack

Survivalist I: +25% CS on defense, Heals +5 HP outside friendly lands
Survivalist II: +25% CS on defense, Heals +5 HP outside friendly lands
Survivalist III: Heals every turn, +25% CS on defense, Pillage for free, 50% chance to dodge ranged attacks.

Scouting I (Requires Trailblazer or Survivalist 1): +1 Visibility Range
Scouting II: +1 Visibility Range
Scouting III: Removed

Reconnaissance (old): Gains XP from revealing Tiles, up to 100 XP.
Reconnaissance (New proposed): Gains XP from revealing tiles, ending the turn in enemy lands and pillaging tiles. No max.

Really not sure if I like slapping both extra movement and chance to withdraw on the same promotion, it just looks like the go-to for pretty much all situations.
A trailblazer 3 unit could pillage 4 or 5 tiles per turn 7 if they're on a road, with pretty much no counterplay available.
+1 movement is borderline too strong to stick on a unit, and on top of that have withdraw chance and the same promotion available twice, especially if the 'ignores terrain cost' promotion is still kept.

I'm also not sure chance to avoid ranged attacks actually exists, why not just go with Cover instead of RNG.

Having one line focus on mobility and one line focus on bulkiness does make sense however, i just don't think you quite got a balance right, Trailblazer just feels like the go-to choice every time here. You win out on early scouting and once war breaks out you have basically unkillable units plopping around the enemy territory breaking improvements and leveling up really fast.


Other than this I feel like one could add a few new scout-promotions to emphasize the combat-role, maybe improved pillaging, maybe something that makes the scout slightly hurt units that ends its turn next(like a mini-citadel) to it or just weakens attacks of units next to it. Maybe have one that weakens cities in meleerange as well (like a mini-siegetower).

As far as Reconn goes, I'm not sure about giving exp both for pillaging and for standing in enemy lands, feels like one of them would be enough.

 

[CrazyG]

A flat +1 movement is a pretty powerful promotion I don't think it needs anything added to it. I do like having +1 movement available here (trailblazer 1 is fairly close to just having +1 movement at all times) but having 2 more promotions for 2 movement is a lot.

As for giving scouts a buff within the tech tree, I think its worth considering but I think just 1 buff, something like 3 CS at mathematics. Buffing the CS 3 different times and offering other extras seems really excessive. Scouting units aren't that weak (other than right before explorers) they don't need that many buffs; Explorers are often a better combat weapon than Pikemen, they defend much better with survivalism and are much faster. Giving them 4 more CS than they currently would be pretty excessive