Scouts and Explorers becoming Diplomatic Units

[Funak]

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

I didn't crop your message at all, but the point still stands, you're talking about a 5cs scout when I'm commenting on tu's 8cs scout.

 

[ElliotS]

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?

A melee unit that can be one-shot by Longswordsmen and Knights is useless at that time. Making them survive for at least 1 hit isn't necessarily enough to make them useful, but it's important.

 

[ElliotS]

I didn't crop your message at all, but the point still stands, you're talking about a 5cs scout when I'm commenting on tu's 8cs scout.

The part you quoted is literally in response to Tu. I think you meant to quote:

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.

Which is fair. I thought you were referencing me rather than Tu. Consider using quotes in situations like that. It's the writer's job to assure people understand what they're saying.

Also an 8 CS unit with a 33% attack debuff would stalemate or take more damage than they inflict to basic archers, so you're still wrong in the math department. (Especially since the archers can attack without taking damage, meaning they would always be able to 1v1 the scouts.)

 

[Gazebo]

This is all getting a bit crazy. Let's step back a bit. Here's my take:

1.) Should scouts be able to attack or not. My vote is no, they should not. This allows us to give them a higher CS without risking their utility.
2.) Should scouts have a % chance to avoid melee attacks? Yes, 75%. This prevents scouts from being reliable defenders.
3.) Should scouts start with one extra sight? Yes. This makes scouts immediately useful and they retain this utility until explorers arrive.
4.) Should scout movement base/promotions remain the same? Yes. The current promotions are useful and functional.
5.) Should explorers be able to embark across oceans immediately? Yes. This gives them a niche (and will boost Brazil's units too).

So, Scouts will become hardier (increase CS to 12) but much more skittish, and will be the best 'scouts' until explorers arrive. Explorers will be able to sail across oceans earlier (if we move them back a tech). Zeppelins can fly over anything. Paratroopers/XCOM can drop in and get behind-enemy-lines bonuses.

This seems balanced to me.

G

 

[ashendashin]

Nothing here since ElliotS nerf would make me want to build a scout. Too much focus on their base stats will get nowhere good. Making them unable to attack without some defensive aid to other units will limit their use even more. The worst part is that the lack of models makes them stand out even more from regular units, which I think is detrimental to this discussion.

Scouts should be a frustrating thing to have behind your lines, depending on what their promotions are. Skirmishers fill the role of quick harassment or full on flanks with melee support. There's nothing that can bypass the front or avoid the deathtrap after opportunistic kills unless it can run behind friendly lines. I think something should be added to the end of movement and sight lines to give them clear roles in war. If possible, moving past enemy units as if in peace would do well in the movement line (bypass getting around and harass siege trains). Some sort of invisibility might work if that's not possible. The end on sight lines should get the ability to see past all tiles without the need for hills.

If we focus on what they are now and simply make the base unit better, then they'll almost never be used for war unless they get constant tech buffs (don't really like this approach). The only time I really use them is with zeppelins since hovering is pretty great on its own.

 

[CrazyG]

Are you giving scouts the 75% chance to withdraw as a unit feature or as a promotion? 12 CS is a lot, scouts will untouchable early on. With promotions they defend better than spearmen and some UUs

Part of the appeal of a warrior instead of a scout is later on I can promote him for just 70 gold, giving me a decent combat unit, or I can gift him to a CS. Scouts usually get deleted, and it feels bad to delete a 4 promoted unit. It would make sense to me that rather than completely remake the scout, we just address one of the above. Let us gift him to CS or create a unit between scout and explorer.

Also a side request, scouts have the "no bad ruins promotion", which blocks stuff like border growth and experience. Could this also block map ruins? If I spend resources on a scout I don't want a map.

 

[ashendashin]

4.) Should scout movement base/promotions remain the same? Yes. The current promotions are useful and functional.

Useful and functional for exploring. I wouldn't say the same for war. Only way to move around quickly after forest chopping is through enemy roads (heavily used) or weird forest zigzags.

 

[Txurce]

This is all getting a bit crazy..

You think?

Your proposal is so uncomplicated it seems... naked, or something. Overall it looks good to me. I particularly like Scouts not fighting (it's really an exploit) and explorers getting embarkation.

I think your work here is done.

 

[Funak]

The part you quoted is literally in response to Tu. I think you meant to quote:

I did quote your entire message (you have to click the quote to see it)

Which is fair. I thought you were referencing me rather than Tu. Consider using quotes in situations like that. It's the writer's job to assure people understand what they're saying.

Also an 8 CS unit with a 33% attack debuff would stalemate or take more damage than they inflict to basic archers, so you're still wrong in the math department. (Especially since the archers can attack without taking damage, meaning they would always be able to 1v1 the scouts.)

I did use quotes, I quoted tu's message, and discussed tu's message.

Doesn't matter if it's a stalemate or not, you would still send your cheap scouts into his expensive catapults. Even if you just drop the catapult down to 20% before your scout gets killed you've still slowed down down his push completely.
So, no I did not make any wrong math because I did not use any math at all.

 

[Funak]

This is all getting a bit crazy. Let's step back a bit. Here's my take:

1.) Should scouts be able to attack or not. My vote is no, they should not. This allows us to give them a higher CS without risking their utility.
2.) Should scouts have a % chance to avoid melee attacks? Yes, 75%. This prevents scouts from being reliable defenders.
3.) Should scouts start with one extra sight? Yes. This makes scouts immediately useful and they retain this utility until explorers arrive.
4.) Should scout movement base/promotions remain the same? Yes. The current promotions are useful and functional.
5.) Should explorers be able to embark across oceans immediately? Yes. This gives them a niche (and will boost Brazil's units too).

So, Scouts will become hardier (increase CS to 12) but much more skittish, and will be the best 'scouts' until explorers arrive. Explorers will be able to sail across oceans earlier (if we move them back a tech). Zeppelins can fly over anything. Paratroopers/XCOM can drop in and get behind-enemy-lines bonuses.

This seems balanced to me.

G

I think 75% is slightly too crazy, 50% seems more reasonable (by the way what's the reduced avoidance chance versus mounted units? I know there is one but I don't think I remember reading what it was). I mean I agree completely that you should not be able to use them as reliable defenders, but a 50/50 seems reasonable enough for that goal.

Do you actually agree with the whole 'no terrain cost' + trailblazer giving scouts faster movement in rough terrain compared to non rough terrain? It just seems like such a breach of reality.
Besides, promotions can't really stay the same as it would land survivalism 3 at 125% chance to evade combat, and that seems slightly silly.

 

[ElliotS]

This is all getting a bit crazy. Let's step back a bit. Here's my take:

1.) Should scouts be able to attack or not. My vote is no, they should not. This allows us to give them a higher CS without risking their utility.
2.) Should scouts have a % chance to avoid melee attacks? Yes, 75%. This prevents scouts from being reliable defenders.
3.) Should scouts start with one extra sight? Yes. This makes scouts immediately useful and they retain this utility until explorers arrive.
4.) Should scout movement base/promotions remain the same? Yes. The current promotions are useful and functional.
5.) Should explorers be able to embark across oceans immediately? Yes. This gives them a niche (and will boost Brazil's units too).

So, Scouts will become hardier (increase CS to 12) but much more skittish, and will be the best 'scouts' until explorers arrive. Explorers will be able to sail across oceans earlier (if we move them back a tech). Zeppelins can fly over anything. Paratroopers/XCOM can drop in and get behind-enemy-lines bonuses.

This seems balanced to me.

G

This would make scouts insane defenders until steel, and probably after. Completely broken IMO.

You NEED to scale the combat strength over time. There's just no good solutions other than that or a new unit. (And needing to constantly return scouts to upgrade is a terrible idea imo.)

I like 3 and 5.

I also feel like scouts should be able to move through closed borders. It's too easy to get trapped, and it limits them a lot.

I did use quotes, I quoted tu's message, and discussed tu's message.

You know what, I just went back and realized my mistake. My bad.

Doesn't matter if it's a stalemate or not, you would still send your cheap scouts into his expensive catapults. Even if you just drop the catapult down to 20% before your scout gets killed you've still slowed down down his push completely.

No, you'd get about 40 damage it. Test it yourself, do the math or w/e.

So, no I did not make any wrong math because I did not use any math at all.

Obviously.

 

[tu_79]

Do you actually agree with the whole 'no terrain cost' + trailblazer giving scouts faster movement in rough terrain compared to non rough terrain? It just seems like such a breach of reality.

We've got an iconoclastic problem. Some think No terrain cost is iconic, some think current trailblazing promotions are even more iconic. Both things too iconic! And the thing that it's making movement weird is both things combined!

Ok, G. You had your word. I won't say I don't like it because as many other things we have to test it before. It really seems more scouty than currently. My doubt is: does the chance to avoid melee implies that the scout will move after being hit, before or neither?

Perhaps if the scout is more resilient, he can live until we can open borders with our neighbours and gain some sailing skills. I didn't ask for explorers to be able to cross oceans, but it's certainly positive. Now we can chase those last goody huts way before being able to settle those lands.

We can leave the discussion for enhancing promotions once we are used to the new style, so we discuss more properly.

 

[Funak]

We've got an iconoclastic problem. Some think No terrain cost is iconic, some think current trailblazing promotions are even more iconic. Both things too iconic! And the thing that it's making movement weird is both things combined!

Ok, G. You had your word. I won't say I don't like it because as many other things we have to test it before. It really seems more scouty than currently. My doubt is: does the chance to avoid melee implies that the scout will move after being hit, before or neither?

Perhaps if the scout is more resilient, he can live until we can open borders with our neighbours and gain some sailing skills. I didn't ask for explorers to be able to cross oceans, but it's certainly positive. Now we can chase those last goody huts way before being able to settle those lands.

We can leave the discussion for enhancing promotions once we are used to the new style, so we discuss more properly.

Don't get me wrong, I really really like the current trailblazer promotions, but I just hate how they interact with the 'no terrain cost' thing. I'd personally prefer getting rid of the terrain cost thing, because that allows you to keep trailblazer as it currently is, and it allows you to have other movement based promotions, like an ability to cross rivers, and probably more defense next to rivers and such.

 

[ElliotS]

As seen in my proposal I prefer the "no terrain cost" thing over trailblazer.

 

[tu_79]

Well, let's congratule for some change is coming forth!

It could be that we even may use more than one scout.

 

[LukaSlovenia29]

Gazebo, how will the changes impact the cost (hammers) of scouts?

 

[Gazebo]

To be clear my post was not law, it was my take on the scout. I'm not shutting down discussion.

 

[ElliotS]

Okay, to focus discussion down everyone who has a proposal please submit one, and I'll throw up a strawpoll when I get back from board game night.

If someone has suggested something very close to what you want, hold on and vote for it, then suggest changes later.

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.

Medic and any other promotions they currently get unchanged.

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.

 

[FoxOfWar]

I pretty much agree on Gazebo's take, with one caveat: remove the exp cap from reconnaissance. I often end up playing bigger maps, and it annoys me to no end when the scout can't gain levels after the cap. Especially given some of the suggested changes (making Scout essentially a non-combat unit war-wise), I think it would be safe to allow them gain further xp if there is additional territory to be revealed. It's not like high-leveled scout would be the most dangerous thing around, it would mostly be a "fun" thing having a scout still around in Industrial that "discovered the world for you". (In theory you could get pretty silly-good archer unit this way, but good luck actually making good of it - much less a gameplan - unless you're Shoshone.)

That said, I am not opposed to ElliotS's changes either.

Really, most anything is improvement to the current "make 1 scout, dance around until it dies to barbarians, don't explore until few eras later". Granted, I am too lazy to manually scout, so take my opinion with a grain of salt.

 

[ashendashin]

My edits to ElliotS promotions:

Trailblazer I-III: First proposal with chance to withdraw from melee attack.
Trailblazer IV: Can move past enemy units as if in peace time.

Survivalist I-II: I don't like defensive scouts, but there's few alternatives for a sentry role. I'd say expanded ZOC, but apparently the AI doesn't handle that well.
Survivalist III: 50% chance to dodge ranged attacks, as was proposed before. (That's an insane defensive role you're pushing there)

Scouting III: Full visibility at all times.