Scouts and Explorers becoming Diplomatic Units

[ElliotS]

Okay, I've taken a lot of what's said into account. Lots of nerfs to my proposal.

-------
Trailblazer I: +1 Movement
Trailblazer II: +1 Movement
Trailblazer III: Ignore ZoC, Use Enemy roads, Pillage for free

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, +50% defense to 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 sight at composite bow tech, +4 CS at 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. Sight +1 base
2. 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.

 

[Enginseer]

1. +1 sight at composite bow tech, +4 CS at 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.)

Well, there is that table Unit_EraCombatStrength that I've always wanted to try out...

 

[tu_79]

Okay, I've taken a lot of what's said into account. Lots of nerfs to my proposal.

-------
Trailblazer I: +1 Movement
Trailblazer II: +1 Movement
Trailblazer III: Ignore ZoC, Use Enemy roads, Pillage for free

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, +50% defense to 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 sight at composite bow tech, +4 CS at 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. Sight +1 base
2. 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.

I cannot agree with this bulky scout as is. Are you keeping base CS 6, or make it 8 so they end up being the same after the -33% vs non-barbs? With the free promotions giving extra CS, this is 14-16CS in the time of skirmishers; add two trailblazing promotions and this unit defends at 21-24CS, that would heal 10HP. Now find a forested hill (+30% defense) and fortify (+50% defense?). Incredible defense of 32-36CS. This is a design for a tank unit, capable of holding ground against a knight.

My take.

Base scout:
CS 8, attack -33%CS vs non-barbs
Movement 2
No terrain cost
Can't fortify
Reconnaissance: XP on revealing and enemy territory

Free promotions for scout:
Sailing: Embark
Construction: Recon (+1 sight)
Iron working: +4 CS (lost on upgrade)
Stell working: +4 CS (lost on upgrade)

Base explorer:
CS 20 (?), attack -33%CS vs non-barbs
Movement 3
Sight 3
No terrain cost
Can't fortify
Reconnaissance
Embarked sight +1
(The explorer is the same as the middle age scout, with better sight at sea and slightly more CS)

Base zeppelin:
RCS (?), CS (?), attack -33%CS vs non-barbs
Movement 4
Sight 3
Fly
Can't fortify
Reconnaissance

Promotions:
Trailblazing I: +1 movement
Trailblazing II: +1 movement
Trailblazing III: Ignores ZoC, use roads

Survivalism I: Heal extra 5 HP, 25% escape vs melee.
Survivalism II: Heal extra 5 HP, 25% escape vs melee.
Survivalism III: Heal every turn, 25% escape vs melee and ranged.
* Escape means that the unit moves before being hit.

Recon I (Trailblazing I,Survivalism II): +1 sight
Recon II (Recon I): +1 sight
Cover I (Survivalism I, Trailblazing II): +25% ranged defense.
Cover II (Cover I): +25% ranged defense.
Trespass (Trailblazing II): Ignore closed borders.
Hide (Survivalism II): + 25% escape vs melee and ranged while in ROUGH.

 

[Funak]

I cannot agree with this bulky scout as is. Are you keeping base CS 6, or make it 8 so they end up being the same after the -33% vs non-barbs? With the free promotions giving extra CS, this is 14-16CS in the time of skirmishers; add two trailblazing promotions and this unit defends at 21-24CS, that would heal 10HP. Now find a forested hill (+30% defense) and fortify (+50% defense?). Incredible defense of 32-36CS. This is a design for a tank unit, capable of holding ground against a knight.

My take.

Base scout:
CS 8, attack -33%CS vs non-barbs
Movement 2
No terrain cost
Can't fortify
Reconnaissance: XP on revealing and enemy territory

Free promotions for scout:
Sailing: Embark
Construction: Recon (+1 sight)
Iron working: +4 CS (lost on upgrade)
Stell working: +4 CS (lost on upgrade)

Base explorer:
CS 20 (?), attack -33%CS vs non-barbs
Movement 3
Sight 3
No terrain cost
Can't fortify
Reconnaissance
Embarked sight +1
(The explorer is the same as the middle age scout, with better sight at sea and slightly more CS)

Base zeppelin:
RCS (?), CS (?), attack -33%CS vs non-barbs
Movement 4
Sight 3
Fly
Can't fortify
Reconnaissance

Promotions:
Trailblazing I: +1 movement
Trailblazing II: +1 movement
Trailblazing III: Ignores ZoC, use roads

Survivalism I: Heal extra 5 HP, 25% escape vs melee.
Survivalism II: Heal extra 5 HP, 25% escape vs melee.
Survivalism III: Heal every turn, 25% escape vs melee and ranged.
* Escape means that the unit moves before being hit.

Recon I (Trailblazing I,Survivalism II): +1 sight
Recon II (Recon I): +1 sight
Cover I (Survivalism I, Trailblazing II): +25% ranged defense.
Cover II (Cover I): +25% ranged defense.
Trespass (Trailblazing II): Ignore closed borders.
Hide (Survivalism II): + 25% escape vs melee and ranged while in ROUGH.

I really don't think keeping the scout relevant throughout the game without adding at least two more scout units is possible, we're just going to have to accept that. Gaining free strength at some random techs just means they're either going to be way too powerful for their cost or you're going to have to tune the strength so they keep not being relevant.
That being said I still don't like the ideas of scouts attacking, and I don't think -33% CS when attacking is deterrent enough, they are still going to run into archers or catapults if they get the chance. Also not really a fan of them attacking barbs at full strength, that's kinda overlapping with warriors. They should definitely be able to help with clearing barbs, but I don't think they should be clearing barbs by themselves.


Scout:
CS: 8
Cannot attack
2 movement
Promotion: 'ignores terrain cost'
Promotion: 'reconnaissance'
Promotion: 'scout' - 25% chance to evade melee attacks, nearby barbarians suffer -50% CS.
(This should help keep the AI's scouts alive with their crazy auto-exploring, it also allows for a warrior+scout to take out a barb camp fairly easily, which makes sense, scouts are valuable in combat even if they don't attack)

Survivalism 1: 25% defense +5 heal
Survivalism 2: 25% defense +5 heal (there should really be something more fun to do here, having two identical promotions after each other isn't fun)
Survivalism 3: march, 25% defense versus archers, 25% chance to evade melee (probably needs something more, this feels slightly underwhelming)

Trailblazing 1: +1 Movement
Trailblazing 2: +1 Sight
Trailblazing 3: Ignores ZoC, use enemy roads (Yeah I'm lost here, this just feels extremely underwhelming as well)

Recon 1: +1 sight
Recon 2: +1 Movement

MPromotion: Ability to traverse mountains + something else.

Advanced Embarkation 1: Extra embarked vision, extra embarked movement, extra embarked defense
Advanced Embarkation 2: Extra embarked movement, extra embarked defense, cost to embark/disembark reduced to 1 (denmark ability) (might have to skip AE1, and just go straight for the cheaper embark/disembark, not sure if it eats to many promotions for such a niche ability)

Plunder: Free pillage, extra yields from pillaging, extra healing from pillaging.

Harassment: Enemy units ending their turn next to this unit takes 5 damage, +25% defense.

ARPromotion: Adjacent enemy units suffer -25% RCS

ACPromotion: Adjacent cities suffer -25% RCS and cannot heal


If we bump up the scout-line base-cs-numbers (and we probably should) then lowering all the defense-bonus promotions to 15 or 20% is probably necessary.

I threw in some concept for scoutish promotions that I could think of.

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

I too would prefer introducing additional scout-esque units into the technology tree. To avoid having to go back to upgrade, perhaps make it so they can upgrade anywhere on the map or in any city-state where the influence is more than 0 or in any AI's territory with which you have open borders or a DoF.

 

[CrazyG]

Seems like a lot of overbuffing to me. I was thinking scouts could get +3 CS from some classical era tech like mathematics (I have no logical reason for math, but just liked its position in the center of the tree)

And just that buff, they don't need to be buffed that many times and you want to make sure their CS does not ever pass up spearmen or pikemen

Base explorer:
CS 20 (?), attack -33%CS vs non-barbs
Movement 3
Sight 3
No terrain cost
Can't fortify
Reconnaissance
Embarked sight +1
(The explorer is the same as the middle age scout, with better sight at sea and slightly more CS)

So Explorers have the same CS as longswords, and 5 more than pikemen? That seems pretty excessive to me, honestly I think the explorer as a unit does its job well enough. Its not something I build every game but when I need him he does his job. 14 CS is enough to take hits when he needs to, the main issue is the long gap until zeppelins so I would probably just buff his CS at some Renaissance tech

 

[tu_79]

I really don't think keeping the scout relevant throughout the game without adding at least two more scout units is possible, we're just going to have to accept that. Gaining free strength at some random techs just means they're either going to be way too powerful for their cost or you're going to have to tune the strength so they keep not being relevant.

Really?
A scout that gets Embark for free at Sailing is much better than an in-between unit, in my opinion. You don't need to claim it back to teach it embark or to upgrade into a better unit, it just can continue with its exploring. If your neighbours are close, fast-tech to trade so scouts can disguise, if you are in an island or prefer sailing, your scouts can embark and usually get past several foreign cities. Without making them return.
Are they more frail? In Classical scouts would have taken some promotions, allowing them to survive longer even without the extra strength. Not having to come back means that scouts will level up faster.

Seems like a lot of overbuffing to me. I was thinking scouts could get +3 CS from some classical era tech like mathematics (I have no logical reason for math, but just liked its position in the center of the tree)

And just that buff, they don't need to be buffed that many times and you want to make sure their CS does not ever pass up spearmen or pikemen

So Explorers have the same CS as longswords, and 5 more than pikemen? That seems pretty excessive to me, honestly I think the explorer as a unit does its job well enough. Its not something I build every game but when I need him he does his job. 14 CS is enough to take hits when he needs to, the main issue is the long gap until zeppelins so I would probably just buff his CS at some Renaissance tech

20 CS (??) means probably too much strength ;P
A high CS is not so bad for a unit that 1. Can't fortify 2. Has a serious penalty for attacking and 3. Will move if attacked. It could be lower, though.

 

[Funak]

Really?
A scout that gets Embark for free at Sailing is much better than an in-between unit, in my opinion. You don't need to claim it back to teach it embark or to upgrade into a better unit, it just can continue with its exploring. If your neighbours are close, fast-tech to trade so scouts can disguise, if you are in an island or prefer sailing, your scouts can embark and usually get past several foreign cities. Without making them return.
Are they more frail? In Classical scouts would have taken some promotions, allowing them to survive longer even without the extra strength. Not having to come back means that scouts will level up faster.

Why would a scout get free embark at sailing? You already have embark by then, don't you? And why would you need another unit just to give it embarkation, you're not really making much sense here.

If you think needing a return-trip to your territory to gain embarkation then maybe you should suggest having that return-trip removed from all units? I mean I personally don't see a good reason why you would need to visit friendly lands for that, and if it is a limit in coding, then that limit probably applies to your suggestion just the same way.

I'm personally really opposed to scouts randomly gaining the ability to go into other civs territory, just does not feel like a good idea, and it makes mapping other civs territory way too easy. Having it as a Tier 5 promotion feels like a possibility, but just giving it to them at a tier 2 tech feels way too easy.

As far as traders exploring territory, I've suggested this before, and I'll do it again, caravans and cargo-ships should definitely have a chance to discover other cities connected to the city they're trading with (and the receiving civ should definitely discover the city that sent the trade-route to him). A system like this would mean you'd eventually map out the location of all their cities, but not really the terrain around them, which feels more reasonable than just scouting everything out.

 

[tu_79]

Well, let's discuss issues separately.

1. Movement. What kind of movement do you like best?
1.A Current.
1.B No terrain costs + 1 movement + 1 movement
1.C Terrain cost + Double movement on terrain type

2. Defense. How will survive the scout?
2.A High strength.
2.B Defense bonus promotions
2.C Evasion bonus promotions (forced to move)

3. Attack. How do you want to kill things?
3.A Melee, with a bonus vs barbs
3.B Ranged @1.
3.C Don't attack, just support.

4. Exploration. How to reveal new lands?
4.A Current
4.B All units get Embark when tech allows.
4.C Only scouts get Embark when tech allows.
4.D Trespassing closed borders.

5. Recon. How is this role best performed?
5.A Huge sight
5.B Huge speed
5.C High endurance

6. Extra role. What can do a scout when not scouting?
6.A Nothing
6.B Pillaging
6.C Supporting units
6.D Escorting civils

 

[Funak]

Well, let's discuss issues separately.

1. Movement. What kind of movement do you like best?
1.A Current.
1.B No terrain costs + 1 movement + 1 movement
1.C Terrain cost + Double movement on terrain type

2. Defense. How will survive the scout?
2.A High strength.
2.B Defense bonus promotions
2.C Evasion bonus promotions (forced to move)

3. Attack. How do you want to kill things?
3.A Melee, with a bonus vs barbs
3.B Ranged @1.
3.C Don't attack, just support.

4. Exploration. How to reveal new lands?
4.A Current
4.B All units get Embark when tech allows.
4.C Only scouts get Embark when tech allows.
4.D Trespassing closed borders.

5. Recon. How is this role best performed?
5.A Huge sight
5.B Huge speed
5.C High endurance

6. Extra role. What can do a scout when not scouting?
6.A Nothing
6.B Pillaging
6.C Supporting units
6.D Escorting civils

1. Personally prefer C, easier to design promotions that way, like Trailblazer can essentially stay the same way.
B. is fine I guess.

2. Honestly, a healthy mix. Scouts should definitely have an evasion chance, because they're not supposed to be super bulky, but that chance should be at most 50% otherwise they become too unreliable.
I think the CS needs to be fairly decent, because they are supposed to not just fall over, but there also needs to be a fairly large difference between speccing the scout for mobility and speccing it for bulkiness.

3.C definitely, B would be a close second, I just don't see scouts meleeing things.

4. Ehm, B?

5. Technically, A is the absolute strongest for revealing tiles, if that's what you're asking.
I don't think you necessarily need to limit the scout to only that however.

6. B probably. Along with a dose of C, but they don't necessarily need to have specific support-promotions to perform C, just flanking and providing ZoC while not really being worth directly engaging should make effective support.

 

[tu_79]

1. Personally prefer C, easier to design promotions that way, like Trailblazer can essentially stay the same way.
B. is fine I guess.

2. Honestly, a healthy mix. Scouts should definitely have an evasion chance, because they're not supposed to be super bulky, but that chance should be at most 50% otherwise they become too unreliable.
I think the CS needs to be fairly decent, because they are supposed to not just fall over, but there also needs to be a fairly large difference between speccing the scout for mobility and speccing it for bulkiness.

3.C definitely, B would be a close second, I just don't see scouts meleeing things.

4. Ehm, B?

5. Technically, A is the absolute strongest for revealing tiles, if that's what you're asking.
I don't think you necessarily need to limit the scout to only that however.

6. B probably. Along with a dose of C, but they don't necessarily need to have specific support-promotions to perform C, just flanking and providing ZoC while not really being worth directly engaging should make effective support.

It seems we have same preferences. When I suggest something I try to include other people preferences, so let's hear them.

EDIT. To be more specific.
1.C I think this makes the motion more logical, but I like 1.B too.
2.C To me, evasion is key. We could give more strength or defense bonuses to make scouts not die in one shot, but evasion (with forced movement) is the first thing that prevents them from being hit and turning into tank units.
3.C If scouts have other means to get experience, no fight is needed for them, and it makes no sense that a bunch of fast people is able to fight whole military units. But I'm not opposed to scouts doing damage either.
4.B If posible, this is a major annoyance. Feels too artificial if that is a mean to slow exploration. If not posible, the free promotion on sailing is not so late if you started in an isolated island and beelined sailing, but it could be on fishing as well. I like 4.D too, trespassing sounds cool and is an unique thing that no other unit can do. I don't see how it can be overpowered if scouts aren't allowed to attack.
5.A This is the safest option. Extra speed is annoying cause it requires the player to micromanage. Extra strength lets the scout enter recklessly into enemy territory. They should be resilient, but not immortal.
6.C Yes, you are probably using them for flanking support and ZoC, being a fast unit. Any extra support ability could do (right now is Medic, Diversion could be another). It combines the support from ranged units with support from skirmishers. I kind of dislike them used for pillaging, it doesn't make much sense in my book, by I won't fight for it.

 

[ElliotS]

I cannot agree with this bulky scout as is. Are you keeping base CS 6, or make it 8 so they end up being the same after the -33% vs non-barbs? With the free promotions giving extra CS, this is 14-16CS in the time of skirmishers; add two trailblazing promotions and this unit defends at 21-24CS, that would heal 10HP. Now find a forested hill (+30% defense) and fortify (+50% defense?). Incredible defense of 32-36CS. This is a design for a tank unit, capable of holding ground against a knight.

I've NEVER suggested to increase their base CS. This is a strawman argument and completely untrue. Scouts have base 5 CS, not 6. You're either confused or intentionally misrepresenting my argument.

That said a scout would have 9 CS when swordsmen roll around and 13 CS when longswordsmen roll around. Their tank promotions will allow them to defend about as well as a spearman or pikeman. That seems fine.

Also remember that both scouts and spearmen get defensive bonuses from terrain and fortifying, so that's not a scout advantage. They will NOT be too tanky to kill, just tanky enough to avoid being insta-gibbed.

I really don't think keeping the scout relevant throughout the game without adding at least two more scout units is possible, we're just going to have to accept that.

That's your opinion. This is written in a very condescending manner and i disagree 100%.

Gaining free strength at some random techs just means they're either going to be way too powerful for their cost or you're going to have to tune the strength so they keep not being relevant.

I don't think 9 CS when swordsmen show up and 13 CS when longswordsmen show up is OP. Do you?

That being said I still don't like the ideas of scouts attacking, and I don't think -33% CS when attacking is deterrent enough, they are still going to run into archers or catapults if they get the chance.

Basic scouts and basic archers both have 5 CS so with the -33% on attacking scouts would lose the fight. Upgraded scouts have 9 CS to composite bowmen's 8, but will still lose the fight because of the attack debuff. Basic scouts will also lose a fight to a catapult, but when upgraded will do some damage. (6CS vs 4, maybe less if the catapult is promoted.)

You seem to love claiming things without doing the math. The attacking debuff means scouts can't attack any unit other than 'paults for a victory, and even then they can't 1-shot it.

Also not really a fan of them attacking barbs at full strength, that's kinda overlapping with warriors.

They currently attack barbs at full strength...

They should definitely be able to help with clearing barbs, but I don't think they should be clearing barbs by themselves.

They currently can't clear barbs by themselves, and my proposal focuses on not changing anything that early. Once again this is a strawman argument.

Seems like a lot of overbuffing to me. I was thinking scouts could get +3 CS from some classical era tech like mathematics

That would leave them at 8 CS vs swordsmen, and the same against longswordsmen. That's just not enough, as you can see how an 8 CS unit fairs against longswordsmen yourself with composite bowmen.

You made some good points so I really did the math an nerfed my proposal accordingly, but this is too little and just won't hold up.

 

[Aldebaran1997]

I again find no point about necessity of scouts surviving against longswordsmen. Same reason with ranged vs. melee. Why do they have to? Does it make scout usable?

Well, let's discuss issues separately.

1. Movement. What kind of movement do you like best?
1.A Current.
1.B No terrain costs + 1 movement + 1 movement
1.C Terrain cost + Double movement on terrain type

2. Defense. How will survive the scout?
2.A High strength.
2.B Defense bonus promotions
2.C Evasion bonus promotions (forced to move)

3. Attack. How do you want to kill things?
3.A Melee, with a bonus vs barbs
3.B Ranged @1.
3.C Don't attack, just support.

4. Exploration. How to reveal new lands?
4.A Current
4.B All units get Embark when tech allows.
4.C Only scouts get Embark when tech allows.
4.D Trespassing closed borders.

5. Recon. How is this role best performed?
5.A Huge sight
5.B Huge speed
5.C High endurance

6. Extra role. What can do a scout when not scouting?
6.A Nothing
6.B Pillaging
6.C Supporting units
6.D Escorting civils

1.C //B is also fine.
2.B //Recons usually make their nest to survive against threats. Seems realistic to me.
3.C //Do not make recons great again, plz...
4.B //D is doable with other mod and you can pick and mix it with VP if you want. So I think B is best.
5.A //I'm confidently sure that recons exist because of intel.
6.A or C //I still think mini-diplo is good but it seems that others are not, so IDK, maybe A.

 

[ElliotS]

Well, let's discuss issues separately.

1. Movement. What kind of movement do you like best?
1.A Current.
1.B No terrain costs + 1 movement + 1 movement
1.C Terrain cost + Double movement on terrain type

2. Defense. How will survive the scout?
2.A High strength.
2.B Defense bonus promotions
2.C Evasion bonus promotions (forced to move)

3. Attack. How do you want to kill things?
3.A Melee, with a bonus vs barbs
3.B Ranged @1.
3.C Don't attack, just support.

4. Exploration. How to reveal new lands?
4.A Current
4.B All units get Embark when tech allows.
4.C Only scouts get Embark when tech allows.
4.D Trespassing closed borders.

5. Recon. How is this role best performed?
5.A Huge sight
5.B Huge speed
5.C High endurance

6. Extra role. What can do a scout when not scouting?
6.A Nothing
6.B Pillaging
6.C Supporting units
6.D Escorting civils

1- A or B
2- B or C
3- You misrepresented my suggestion. They don't get a bonus on attacking anything. They're actually suggested to be worse at attacking early units than they are now. B could also work.
4- B and D are best imo. I think the current method of needing to return for embark is anti-fun.
5- A smaller combination of the three. It's almost like I'm advocating for balance.
6- B imo, though it would be while scouting.

 

[CrazyG]

1. Movement. What kind of movement do you like best?
1.A Current.
1.B No terrain costs + 1 movement + 1 movement
1.C Terrain cost + Double movement on terrain type

2. Defense. How will survive the scout?
2.A High strength.
2.B Defense bonus promotions
2.C Evasion bonus promotions (forced to move)

3. Attack. How do you want to kill things?
3.A Melee, with a bonus vs barbs
3.B Ranged @1.
3.C Don't attack, just support.

4. Exploration. How to reveal new lands?
4.A Current
4.B All units get Embark when tech allows.
4.C Only scouts get Embark when tech allows.
4.D Trespassing closed borders.

5. Recon. How is this role best performed?
5.A Huge sight
5.B Huge speed
5.C High endurance

6. Extra role. What can do a scout when not scouting?
6.A Nothing
6.B Pillaging
6.C Supporting units
6.D Escorting civils

1- B
2- B and C, but it needs a little more of A. The reality is throwing massive % modifiers at a unit with 5 CS just doesn't work (without breaking later units like paratroopers)
3- I think scouts should be able to just attack normally. The bonus/penalty vs non barbs or barbs seems needlesly complex to me
4- B/C I think you are suggesting scouts get embark without returning to friendly territory. It seems like a reasonable idea to me
5- B with A and C as promotions
6- C/D- scouts need to be strong enough not to be OHKO'd by a contemporary unit, especially if fortified and not flanked

 

[tu_79]

Meanwhile, I'd like to consider another distribution. We separate into more survability and more exploring capabilities, but who doesn't want both things? And another weird thing is: why do we need to know how to travel fast in a forest before being able to move fast on a desert?

No free terrain cost.
Get XP by revealing and staying in enemy territory.

Navy:
I. Double movement in tundra/snow and forest. Amphibious.
II. 50% evasion. Heal extra 5 HP.
III. Heal extra 10HP in coast and fresh water.
IV. Free pillaging. Ignores ZoC.

Army:
I. Double movement on hills and deserts. Can pass over mountains.
II. +30% defense. Heal extra 5 HP.
III. Double movement in jungles. +1 movement.
IV. March. Use enemy roads.

Recon (Navy I, Army II): +1 sight
Recon II (Recon I): +1 sight
Medic (Army I, Navy II): As usual.
Medic II (Medic I): As usual.
Sailors (Navy II): +1 sight +1 movement +25% defense embarked.
Rogues (Army II): +1 movement + 25% defense in enemy territory.

Before commenting, this is not a solid proposal. It's just another way to see it. Instead of being good at surviving or being a good explorer, you can do both things with different styles in different terrains.

 

[ElliotS]

I'm going to veto anything that takes away the "Ignores terrain cost" feature. It's too iconic.

I do think it's an interesting idea, but I'm not in favor of it. One problem is that you would only choose one branch for all your scouts depending on your starting location. Start near snow or forest? Navy. Start near Desert? Army.

 

[Funak]

I've NEVER suggested to increase their base CS. This is a strawman argument and completely untrue. Scouts have base 5 CS, not 6. You're either confused or intentionally misrepresenting my argument.

That said a scout would have 9 CS when swordsmen roll around and 13 CS when longswordsmen roll around. Their tank promotions will allow them to defend about as well as a spearman or pikeman. That seems fine.

Also remember that both scouts and spearmen get defensive bonuses from terrain and fortifying, so that's not a scout advantage. They will NOT be too tanky to kill, just tanky enough to avoid being insta-gibbed.



That's your opinion. This is written in a very condescending manner and i disagree 100%.



I don't think 9 CS when swordsmen show up and 13 CS when longswordsmen show up is OP. Do you?



Basic scouts and basic archers both have 5 CS so with the -33% on attacking scouts would lose the fight. Upgraded scouts have 9 CS to composite bowmen's 8, but will still lose the fight because of the attack debuff. Basic scouts will also lose a fight to a catapult, but when upgraded will do some damage. (6CS vs 4, maybe less if the catapult is promoted.)

You seem to love claiming things without doing the math. The attacking debuff means scouts can't attack any unit other than 'paults for a victory, and even then they can't 1-shot it.



They currently attack barbs at full strength...



They currently can't clear barbs by themselves, and my proposal focuses on not changing anything that early. Once again this is a strawman argument.



That would leave them at 8 CS vs swordsmen, and the same against longswordsmen. That's just not enough, as you can see how an 8 CS unit fairs against longswordsmen yourself with composite bowmen.

You made some good points so I really did the math an nerfed my proposal accordingly, but this is too little and just won't hold up.

I don't understand why you're commenting on my post as if I'm commenting on yours, I've clearly quoted TU, and made it very clear that I'm referring to his suggestion not yours. And everything I said matches up perfectly with his point.

I'm going to veto anything that takes away the "Ignores terrain cost" feature. It's too iconic.

Did I miss something, or where did you gain the power to veto things...?

 

[tu_79]

I'm going to veto anything that takes away the "Ignores terrain cost" feature. It's too iconic.

I do think it's an interesting idea, but I'm not in favor of it. One problem is that you would only choose one branch for all your scouts depending on your starting location. Start near snow or forest? Navy. Start near Desert? Army.

First, I must apologize because I misunderstood your proposition for scouts melee attack.


I know it's not right, as you see it's too easy to choose a tree depending on starting land. What I wanted to focus is that we might separate trees into roles, each role being able to move faster and defend, each one with its own style.

 

[ElliotS]

I don't understand why you're commenting on my post as if I'm commenting on yours, I've clearly quoted TU, and made it very clear that I'm referring to his suggestion not yours. And everything I said matches up perfectly with his point.

Read that part of my post again... That was literally under a quote from Tu.

Did I miss something, or where did you gain the power to veto things...?

I sincerely hope you realize that not everything is literal.