Scouts=Useless

[lymond]

I use scouts and love them. I value them over warriors because i usually make archers my first military unit. Scouts are cheap. fast and good for tribal huts.

Wolf - Sorry but this is sub-optimal play and will not work on higher levels. You are building units that will serve no purpose later. Warrior can actually defend your new cities and do well fortified against barb archers.

Teching Archery is also not a good play below deity.

 

[babar]

Tribal huts make scouts worthwhile on low levels though I'd imagine.

 

[wolfblue]

Wolf - Sorry but this is sub-optimal play and will not work on higher levels. You are building units that will serve no purpose later. Warrior can actually defend your new cities and do well fortified against barb archers.

I play prince so maybe I cannot give doctorate level advice, but since we are simply explaining how we individually value and use the unit thats my play with them.

generally speaking barbarians never make it into my city crosses because by using scouts to see them at a distance they never make it into close enough to pillage or attack my city. I very rarely lose work time or improved tiles because of barbarians. as soon as i spot them 5 or 6 tiles away from my boarders I dispatch the appropriate unit/s to engage them in the field.

side note. often this tactic is used with the free scout and maybe 1 or 2 built scouts. I dont use 5 or 10 scouts to build the perimeter. usually i have my free warrior/scout a built scout and maybe a tribal warrior/scout before i am able to dedicate a few archers to the rest of the picket.

 

[Ghpstage]

generally speaking barbarians never make it into my city crosses because by using scouts to see them at a distance they never make it into close enough to pillage or attack my city. I very rarely lose work time or improved tiles because of barbarians. as soon as i spot them 5 or 6 tiles away from my boarders I dispatch the appropriate unit/s to engage them in the field.

side note. often this tactic is used with the free scout and maybe 1 or 2 built scouts. I dont use 5 or 10 scouts to build the perimeter. usually i have my free warrior/scout a built scout and maybe a tribal warrior/scout before i am able to dedicate a few archers to the rest of the picket.

Why not do the spawnbusting with Warriors? They cost the same, don't require a tech of questionable value, are far more likely to survive any fights and continue to be useful after barbs stop being a threat.

 

[wolfblue]

because i use the scouts for scouting... then for pickets. they have a purpose in both stages.

warriors are not a bad thing. I just find that scouting with a scout lets me find the places i want to find faster, beat other civs to the tribal huts, figure out where i want to put my first 4 or 5 settlers, find out how close my neighbors are etc. then they can return and picket by the time barbarians start spawning.

 

[lymond]

Well, just take it as advice. You can play the game how you want and have fun with it. Just pointing out that advanced players do not build scouts and they rarely tech archery. Those hammers and beakers can be spent on far better things. It's probably okay on Prince level if you are doing a lot of other things right, but it's not a good play at all was you move up.

Also, the better players here giving advice often play without huts and events so our perspective is a bit different i guess. Even with huts scouts are not a good build though and on higher levels AIs are going to beat you to huts any way as they start with 2 scouts.

Besides using scouts though -other than the initial one - your spawnbusting plan is sound.

 

[obsolete]

I build around 15 to 20 scouts in the early phase of my games right from the start. Settler/Marathon/no barbs/lucky huts=on.

I have been crushing the competition. I also turn all tech off so I can stockpile gold. That way, after I pop enough huts I can often pop compass. This is the killer tech where I now use all the gold I saved to uggrade my 20 scouts to Explorers.

Now I have a strength 4 unit that is impossible to pop a bad hut, and it has a movement of 2 and a strength of 4! Over powered..

Maybe I will write a strategy article on it sometime, as it's hardly ever let me down. I'm also sure it will work on deity because it ALWAYS seems to work in my noble/settler games.

 

[Wizardhawk]

Now this is the kind of thing that qualifies as thread resurrection! From November 2005 to December 2010!

Also, Obsolete I would totally read that article.

 

[ywhtptgtfo]

I build around 15 to 20 scouts in the early phase of my games right from the start. Settler/Marathon/no barbs/lucky huts=on.

I have been crushing the competition. I also turn all tech off so I can stockpile gold. That way, after I pop enough huts I can often pop compass. This is the killer tech where I now use all the gold I saved to uggrade my 20 scouts to Explorers.

Now I have a strength 4 unit that is impossible to pop a bad hut, and it has a movement of 2 and a strength of 4! Over powered..

Maybe I will write a strategy article on it sometime, as it's hardly ever let me down. I'm also sure it will work on deity because it ALWAYS seems to work in my noble/settler games.

An SoD of explorers is ownage. You can also park them on every single BFC tile of enemy cities so that they'd starve to death.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

It's a good tactic playing spain in MP. They look like conquistadors

 

[babar]

I like this kind of thinking. It's worth adding that nothing gets a bonus vs recon units.

 

[yturk39]

I've seen a couple people suggest that after they have sent a scout through AI territory ONCE, there's apparently no need to ever do it again, or even keep the scout in the area.

I mean, OK, sure...you'll see resources your opponent has after the first pass, and once revealing techs become available to you. What about number & allocation of forces? Built infrastructure? Specific tiles being worked? Improvements being made?

Your one, quick pass isn't going to show you all that.

Suppose one of your rivals built the Great Wall, and you had open borders with them: that pathetic, peon, incredibly vulnerable scout of yours suddenly becomes indestructible by those nasty barbarians, provided you stay within that Civ's cultural borders. That, and he's a hell of a lot faster at moving around and seeing things than a sturdier warrior would be.

 

[babar]

Scouts cost maintenance the same as a proper unit. Why not spy on a rival with a unit you can actually use for something else at some point? Granted, scouts move faster than warriors, but it's usually not important to have a constant overview of a rival's territory. What are you doing with all your information about tiles worked, infrastructure and improvements? If you are about to go to war, then definitely scout an enemy's territory (any unit will do), but otherwise, I can't see that it is worth the effort.

 

[strangestranger]

The only scout that is worth something is the one that comes at the start... It's very rarely worth it to build one.
The best scouts, IMO, are spies anyway.

 

[sendos]

The best scouts, IMO, are spies anyway.

Yes, but this thread is talking about the effectiveness of scouts at the start of the game.

To those who suggest that you should use scouts for spawnbusting, I'll give that a try, but I'd prefer getting the Great Wall wonder and be invulnerable to barbarians. One time, a barbarian raider appeared between 2 of my new cities where there was a little bit of fog so I believe this tactic does work even though I haven't tried it. Besides, the barbarian raiders appear at around 1200BC so that's enough time to build a few scouts, workers, archers and settlers.

 

[lymond]

Yes, but this thread is talking about the effectiveness of scouts at the start of the game.

To those who suggest that you should use scouts for spawnbusting, I'll give that a try, but I'd prefer getting the Great Wall wonder and be invulnerable to barbarians. One time, a barbarian raider appeared between 2 of my new cities where there was a little bit of fog so I believe this tactic does work even though I haven't tried it. Besides, the barbarian raiders appear at around 1200BC so that's enough time to build a few scouts, workers, archers and settlers.

The folks telling you to build scouts are newer players giving bad advice. Also, teching archery is not the way to go unless on deity. Warriors are more than capable of spawnbusting your area on IMM and below. Great Wall is fine but it's not always feasible to build it. Scouts are an egregious waste of hammers. don't do it

 

[obsolete]

The folks telling you to build scouts are newer players giving bad advice.

Pffffft. Yah right Lymond... like really.

I have a 98% winning ratio on noble and I ALWAYS get my army of scouts early. In fact, the reason why Firaxis doesn't allow you to even upgrade Explorers to anything else, is because explorers already ARE the elite unit in the game. It's already over-powered, and anything else would be like..... totally sooooooo broken it's not even funny!

My first tech I research is ALWAYS hunting. Which is also one of the most over-powered techs, since it leads to such a killer unit.

Also, there is NO Explorer or Scout UUs. Why do you think that is so? Because Firaxis knew damn well they are over-powered already!

 

[sendos]

The folks telling you to build scouts are newer players giving bad advice.

Well, if it has worked for them, I don't see why I can't try it out. Besides, they are cheap.

Also, teching archery is not the way to go unless on deity.

Perhaps I'm teching archery a little early, but I guess I am a bit paranoid with the barbarians and so I prefer to get archers straight away. On my current game, I'm playing on the 4th easiest level.

Warriors are more than capable of spawnbusting your area on IMM and below. Great Wall is fine but it's not always feasible to build it. Scouts are an egregious waste of hammers. don't do it

I guess it all depends on the faction and the situation that you are in during the very early stages of the game. I don't recruit warriors because I'm always thinking about the barbarians and that their axemen will slaughter them. Sure I could rush and get the ability to recruit axemen and upgrade my warriors but I fear that I might be too late.

(Off topic) Perhaps I need a better plan. Currently, my plan is to build a settler, a worker and then an archer whilst in a new city, I build an archer, then a worke or settler. Once the year is about 2000BC I start building walls. PM me if you think you have a better plan. I don't want to drag this thread off topic.

P.S. I just love the way this game is structured, there are a lot of choices: you can use scouts or you can choose to hate them, which is why I am in need of advice due to my indecisiveness about the early stages of the game.

 

[lymond]

Pffffft. Yah right Lymond... like really.

I have a 98% winning ratio on noble and I ALWAYS get my army of scouts early. In fact, the reason why Firaxis doesn't allow you to even upgrade Explorers to anything else, is because explorers already ARE the elite unit in the game. It's already over-powered, and anything else would be like..... totally sooooooo broken it's not even funny!

My first tech I research is ALWAYS hunting. Which is also one of the most over-powered techs, since it leads to such a killer unit.

Also, there is NO Explorer or Scout UUs. Why do you think that is so? Because Firaxis knew damn well they are over-powered already!

no arguing with that, obs....scouts FTW!

 

[lymond]

@sendos - walls! oh my! You are obviously very new to the game. I recommend posting a learner-shadow game from the start over on the S&T forum for advice. Lot's of folks will help you out and it's the best way to learn. Yes, there are a lot of different ways to play the game and different options, but building scouts isn't one of them. You either choose to hate scouts or you choose to suck.

by the way, build a worker first....