Scouts and Explorers becoming Diplomatic Units

[Funak]

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

Maybe it should have been?

So how do you feel about experience from ending a turn in hostile lands or experience from pillaging tiles? If the scout can't attack, you need some other way of building experience.

And how do you feel about adding a handful of new scout-only promotions? Sounds reasonable?

 

[Gazebo]

Maybe it should have been?

So how do you feel about experience from ending a turn in hostile lands or experience from pillaging tiles? If the scout can't attack, you need some other way of building experience.

And how do you feel about adding a handful of new scout-only promotions? Sounds reasonable?

Those xp sources benefit the human a bit too much. Could do xp from evading combat though (i.e. withdrawing).
G

 

[Funak]

Those xp sources benefit the human a bit too much. Could do xp from evading combat though (i.e. withdrawing).
G

That still requires them being attacked, which means you can completely avoid giving any experience to the scout at all just by ignoring it.

 

[ElliotS]

Scouting III: Full visibility at all times.

Ooooh. I really like this idea.

Those xp sources benefit the human a bit too much. Could do xp from evading combat though (i.e. withdrawing).
G

Somehow scouts need to get experience that doesn't involve combat. As it is I've never gotten a scout to scouting 3. Ever. I think XP from evading could make sense, but I'd really rather something that rewards them for just... scouting.

Maybe if they gain 1 XP for every enemy unit in their sight at the end of a turn, and 5 XP for pillaging as well. (To reward other roles.)

 

[CrazyG]

Maybe if they gain 1 XP for every enemy unit in their sight at the end of a turn, and 5 XP for pillaging as well. (To reward other roles.)

You can get a lot of units in a scout's sight with extra vision so that sounds pretty OP. 5 for pillaging is a decent idea though

 

[ElliotS]

You can get a lot of units in a scout's sight with extra vision so that sounds pretty OP. 5 for pillaging is a decent idea though

I was thinking about that after typing it. Probably cap it at 5.

 

[HalfEmptyMug]

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

1.) Definitely yes. I find scouts invaluable against barbarians in the early game, and without the ability to attack they'll be helpless against ranged units, barbarian or not. Pocatello's pathfinders will also take a hit under this, making their additional combat strength relatively useless. I find the increase in combat strength by era to be a really interesting solution for making them stronger, although it would be strange for it to only affect scouts.

2.) Yes, 50%-25%, along with % increase to CS on defense, but without the ability to fortify. To me scouts shouldn't be effective at holding land, but rather always on the move. This would allow them to be effective during war without needing to increase their CS significantly. Also, their chance of surviving an attack won't be so polarizing as unscathed or complete defeat.

3.) Yes, completely agree.

4.) I don't mind either way, but I like @ElliotS's proposal to have Trailblazer simply provide more movement. If sticking with the current promotion line, I would like to see the zeppelin have double movement over coasts and/or hills in lieu of their inability to use roads/railroads.

5.) Yes, agree again, but I think their tech level is fine. They'll complement Caravels nicely.

Outside of these, I think allowing scouts and explorers to have the submarine's invisibility promotion would fit their role extremely well, and complement either opinion regarding the first two points. Defense won't be much of an issue as they won't be targeted as often, and they'll be able to infiltrate enemy territory more reliably. AI use may be an issue though.

I'd also love for scouts to be able to pass through territory without open borders, this way I won't have to worry about them being stranded for a few thousand years.

 

[bigcat88]

If u add to scouts an open border promotion, what will u do when 2-3 scouts will go to ur territory,pillage it and go immediately back to another player territory - where ur units can't attack them without open borders?(so scouts will be imba units till civil service tech)
And yes, scouts must not get bonus from defending on land, but they must evade most melee attacks.
If scouts will unable to attack they must have some option to get exp, pillage or moveing throw player territory u are at war.

 

[tu_79]

Maybe if they gain 1 XP for every enemy unit in their sight at the end of a turn, and 5 XP for pillaging as well. (To reward other roles.)

Rather +1XP for every turn with at least one enemy in sight +1XP if said enemy is adjacent.

Outside of these, I think allowing scouts and explorers to have the submarine's invisibility promotion would fit their role extremely well, and complement either opinion regarding the first two points

Invisibility is quite interesting imo. A scout can watch a front line unspotted, not risking his life. He can watch other borders too, just in case any surprise attack is on the go. This would force enemy units trying to do a sneak attack to attach a scout just to know if the attack can proceed. Finding a hiden scout with a unit other than the scout could cost some damage (think of traps), making scouts useful at damaging enemy units. But if scouts can hide, then they shouldn't be so hard to hit. I fear this is seen as a too crazy an idea, though.

If u add to scouts an open border promotion, what will u do when 2-3 scouts will go to ur territory,pillage it and go immediately back to another player territory - where ur units can't attack them without open borders?(so scouts will be imba units till civil service tech)

You can't pillage any territory you are not at war with. So those scouts that came to pillage your lands have to come passing through a neutral territory and flee. That's all the damage they can do. The answer: you have to protect your borders.

 

[randomnub]

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.

Scouts not being able to attack sounds terrible tbh, I don't think I would bother create them as one of the first units if it makes my early game even more prone to barbarian invasions; the AI also does a good job at killing barbarians and even finishing off camps with their own scouts. I feel the change is too imbalanced in favor to the player, who's going to exploit the bait mechanics.

2.) Should scouts have a % chance to avoid melee attacks? Yes, 75%. This prevents scouts from being reliable defenders.
4.) Should scout movement base/promotions remain the same? Yes. The current promotions are useful and functional.

If they can't attack and dodge most incoming attacks, the survivalist line loses all appeal.
I also prefer +1/2 movement over 'moves through forest/snow/desert at double speed' because the latter advantages the human pathing the most, and combined with 'no terrain movement penalities' (that should stay) makes for unrealistic faster speed in jungle than open terrain.

3.) Should scouts start with one extra sight? Yes. This makes scouts immediately useful and they retain this utility until explorers arrive.
5.) Should explorers be able to embark across oceans immediately? Yes. This gives them a niche (and will boost Brazil's units too).

No complaints here, scouts need to be good at their job.

I can't help thinking most of issues come from their upgrade path having such a big gap before explorers though.

 

[tu_79]

Now, here is an idea to keep both 'iconic' movement types without having to mix them. I want to separate two recon types. First one is the explorer type we've seen in 'The lost city of Z', Fawkes. Let me call it 'Mapmaker'. They are very few people, they have little resources and know how to move fast, they map the place and avoid any kind of fighting. The other type is the nowadays recon paratrooper known as 'Pathfinders'. This is a military force that takes a landing, gather intel on the area, identify infrastructures and troop locations, and try to defend the place so the rest of the army can land safely. They don't try to fight, but if need be they will defend. This requires a lot more of equipment.

I think mapmakers can go with 'No terrain cost' movement and pathfinders go with 'Double movement on terrain'. Mapmakers will move faster, and will get evasion promotions. Pathfinders may choose one or more terrain to specialize and learn several defending promotions and be able to pillage. Of course, some promotions can be mixed, but 'No terrain cost' and 'Terrain specialization' should be mutually exclusive.

Scout base: 3 sight, 2 movement. Gain XP by peaceful means. 75% melee evasion (moves before melee attacks). Can't attack.
Explorer base: 3 sight, 3 movement. Gain XP by peaceful means. 50% melee evasion (moves before melee attacks). Can't attack. Can travel ocean.
Zeppelin base: 3 sight, 4 movement. Gain XP by peaceful means. 50% melee evasion (moves before melee attacks). Can't attack. Can fly.
Paratrooper base: 3 sight, 3 movement. 25% melee evasion (moves before melee attacks). Can attack.

Mapmaker
I. +1 movement. Ignore first attack.
II. +1 sight. +25% evasion.
III. +1 movement. March.
IV. ??

Pathfinder (not the unique unit)
I. +1 movement. +25% defense.
II. +5HP in non friendly. +25% defense.
III. +5HP in non friendly. Free pillaging.
IV. ??

Recon I (no requirements): +1 sight
Recon II (Recon I): +1 sight.

Cover I (Pathfinder II, Mapmaker III)
Medic I (Mapmaker II, Pathfinder III)

*Scouts (Mapmaker I): No terrain movement cost.
Sailors (Mapmaker III): Amphibious. +1 sight and movement embarked.

*Forest training (Pathfinder I): Double movement and +10% defense in forest, marsh and jungle.
*Climate training (Pathfinder I): Double movement and +10% defense in desert, snow and tundra.
Mountain training (Pathfinder III): Double movement and +10% defense in hills and mountains. Can pass over mountains.

(*)Though it is possible to pick no terrain cost with any terrain training, it's quite unlikely to choose both. It's more logical to promote a scout or two into mapmakers and the rest into recon units.

 

[ElliotS]

I'm not a fan of this. The more I've thought about it the more I dislike pathfinder/terrain specific stuff. It's less about scouts being able to move faster in forest pissing me off, and more about making them more niche then normal. Also the fact that you currently need to learn forests before desert/snow.

Paratrooper base: 3 sight, 3 movement. 25% melee evasion (moves before melee attacks). Can attack.

Paratrooper needs NO buffs. They're already great.

 

[tu_79]

The more I've thought about it the more I dislike pathfinder/terrain specific stuff. It's less about scouts being able to move faster in forest pissing me off, and more about making them more niche then normal. Also the fact that you currently need to learn forests before desert/snow.

You don't have to take that path, stay in the first tree, or just ignore terrain training. Some people like it and we are going nowhere because of nobody wanting to miss some stuff. If you check my last post, you can see that you don't have to learn forests to move faster on desert. You pick Pathfinder I (+1 movement, +25% defense) and then you can choose: pathfinder II, forest training or climate training. If you go through pathfinder II and III you can learn mountain training without knowing any other terrain if you like.

 

[ElliotS]

You don't have to take that path, stay in the first tree, or just ignore terrain training. Some people like it and we are going nowhere because of nobody wanting to miss some stuff. If you check my last post, you can see that you don't have to learn forests to move faster on desert. You pick Pathfinder I (+1 movement, +25% defense) and then you can choose: pathfinder II, forest training or climate training. If you go through pathfinder II and III you can learn mountain training without knowing any other terrain if you like.

I wouldn't hate it, but it also feels weird to see the "heals every turn" in the tree that doesn't let it heal for more. Maybe it's a good idea, maybe not.

 

[tu_79]

Paratrooper needs NO buffs. They're already great.

Oh, I thought it was a nerf, actually. You are forcing paratroopers to move 25% of times, so they can't hold positions reliabily.

I wouldn't hate it, but it also feels weird to see the "heals every turn" in the tree that doesn't let it heal for more. Maybe it's a good idea, maybe not.

I thought that Mapmakers are always on the move, so march is fitting, while Pathfinders may fortify and resist some hits, thus the extra healing. Both roles heal better, one by not stopping, the other by healing more when waiting. But those are secondary things that can be changed or tweaked. My main point is to not have everything that makes moving faster in one tree and everything that makes you more resilient in the other one, because one promotion path will be too weak and the other too slow.

I don't have hopes, since a complete rework of a tree is unlikely to happen, but I'm showing that both traveling ways can stay and stop acting weird.

 

[kawyua]

melee evasion is really good - Like so good I would want that kind of bonus on every unit.
- nullifying damage and staying healthy is so important with how aggressive ai likes to be.
- It wastes enemy moves! That is so good.
- melee evasion on a melee allows them to be good bait into a flanked spot or next to a citidal

Putting melee evasion on a melee that can survive attack should be done with trepidation.
Especially considering that any kind of forced movement is easily abused with a player and difficult to handle for the ai.

I kind of want to avoid this ability.

 

[Funak]

melee evasion is really good - Like so good I would want that kind of bonus on every unit.
- nullifying damage and staying healthy is so important with how aggressive ai likes to be.
- It wastes enemy moves! That is so good.
- melee evasion on a melee allows them to be good bait into a flanked spot or next to a citidal

Putting melee evasion on a melee that can survive attack should be done with trepidation.
Especially considering that any kind of forced movement is easily abused with a player and difficult to handle for the ai.

I kind of want to avoid this ability.

I really like it as well, but most people seems to only see the downside of it, RNG, inability to hold down forts or properly escort units.

 

[kawyua]

I really like it as well, but most people seems to only see the downside of it, RNG, inability to hold down forts or properly escort units.

Yeah, the whole point of getting melee evasion is to have a better attack on the ai afterwards. it definitely is a waste of an ability for escorting or being alone with. Maybe that is counter intuitive for what a scout should be for

The whole comparison to forts is kind of missing the point of the power of melee evasion. If anyone has the time and resources to have a fort in place - they probably could have someone other than a scout there. The power of a melee evasion scout comes from the fact that it can be done anywhere, anytime. Sure rng might not be great, but its an rng that can be accounted for.

The question would be if the scout is too cost efficient for the utility it gives, and 75% melee evasion might be too strong for the cost of the scout now. Its not an ability to completely throw out the table, but I think its worthwhile to not think of the numbers so high for now or else they will replace units in the frontline

Oh man completely ignoring the first attack of anything would make me field scouts everywhere. Is that possible to code lol

 

[Gazebo]

There's a lot of over-complication. The units are not so horribly out of touch that they need entirely new promotion/stat/development lines. Just some tweaks. Let's reel it in and be light with our touch.

G

 

[ashendashin]

There's a lot of over-complication. The units are not so horribly out of touch that they need entirely new promotion/stat/development lines. Just some tweaks. Let's reel it in and be light with our touch.

G

Well the only full agreement so far is that the scout lacks real use beyond exploring. I think full sight for scouting 3, replacing the double terrain with movement, and earlier evasion would be the best start for a simple recon role to try out.