Scouts worthwhile to build?

[E66man]

Most of the posts on here (including mine) revolve around how poor the multi-player is, so I thought I'd actually discuss some strategy...

How viable do people find it to build Scouts? The common argument for them in single-player is that you find 'more' Ruins and meet more City States first. For me this doesn't quite cut the mustard since realizing these benefits will be very unpredictable, and even less likely to happen on the smaller map sizes I expect to encounter in a multi-player game. Also, finding things with a Scout seldom gives any indication that I couldn't have just made the same discoveries with a Warrior (unless you also happen to see a rival player's unit standing nearby).

So since the benefits are going to vary wildly from game to game, and I can't use a Scout to do other useful things like attack a city, or upgrade it to a meatier combat unit later, it doesn't seem worthwhile to me to spend my valuable early production on it.

 

[Snapp]

While the results may vary on the exact benefits from game to game there is always a definite benefit.

You will ALWAYS discover city states faster than otherwise with a scout, you will ALWAYS reveal more terrain faster with a scout.

Most of the time you will discover more ruins, most of the time you will discover more "undiscovered city states". There is an even a pretty decent chance your scout will be upgraded to an archer (this is huge, the amount of investment to get early archers is quite large).

In addition in Multiplayer knowing how close you are to the other human players is going to affect your build order, determining the location of the other human players as quickly as possible is a must.

The only time I would not go scout first is if Ruins were turned off, or if I was going for a warrior rush strategy.

 

[E66man]

You will ALWAYS discover city states faster than otherwise with a scout, you will ALWAYS reveal more terrain faster with a scout.

The only time I would not go scout first is if Ruins were turned off, or if I was going for a warrior rush strategy.

I think *always* is a bit strong. If the Scout doesn't have the +1 visibility promotion and the terrain has enough plains/grassland that the movement bonus doesn't kick in that often, then the Warrior can accomplish the same.

I'm not sure if it is clear-cut that 'faster' is even a priority if the odds are going to favor that I am still the *first* to make the same number of discoveries using the Warrior. But my main point is not to suggest that you can think of many reasons why a Scout may have helped you. The point is that given the Scout's benefits are somewhat luck-dependent and the advantages you get from them quickly die off, that it may not be worth it when your other option is less luck-dependent and has longer lasting effects (i.e., I've produced a unit I can upgrade though the entire game).

I don't think anybody will argue that getting turned into an Archer with your first Ruin pop is awesome, but a well-developed strategy has to discount these kinds of random events.

I'm also curious, when would a game *not* turn into a Warrior-rush strategy? Even if I don't plan to attack my own neighbor right away, it seems foolhardy to not prepare some Warriors to watch for the chance that they might be the ones who attack. What are you building that will save you from having 4-5 Warriors attack one of your cities if you don't have your own army to match?

 

[Tabarnak]

If barbs are on, scout can die quickly if a camp pop another brute before you can make a single move. this usually happens after turn 12. If ruins are enabled and city states as well, scout is the way to go.

The problem is if you upgrade to archer very early, you can't steal a worker from a city states, making this unit LESS useful in early stages.

Attacking camps with him is a waste of turns. Another barb may take the place of the died one and you just lost many turns of map discovery.

My strategy with a scout is to dodge everything and hope to not get an upgrade from a ruins, if CS are enabled.

 

[E66man]

The problem is if you upgrade to archer very early, you can't steal a worker from a city states, making this unit LESS useful in early stages.

I'm not sure why this would be the case, since you can always make peace with the City State in the same turn you declare war. The hitch would be if the City State has a military unit out and attacks you in the instant you capture their Worker, but this hasn't been my experience.

 

[Tabarnak]

I was awared of that. But only non ranged units can capture worker. In this case, an archer is useless.

 

[E66man]

I was awared of that. But only non ranged units can capture worker. In this case, an archer is useless.

Not so, you just have to activate 'Move' to force the Archer to move onto the Worker instead of doing the default ranged attack. Same process as using ranged units to take cities.

 

[Tabarnak]

Well tks for the info.

The first time i tried i right clicked only. After that i made no other tries and never read something about this...i guess its just nice to have an archer after all....

 

[Moineau]

Scouts can be interesting to give you an advantage based on the number of units. Indeed as you know, each unit get +15% if there is an other of your unit next to it. Then as scouts are cheaper than warriors, you can use them to benefit of these 15% really fast.

Scouts can be really good harassers too, stealing worker accross rivers, forest etc..

It looks like that number count more than quality in MP. Scout, as cheaper, are a good unit in that sense.

 

[Snapp]

I think *always* is a bit strong. If the Scout doesn't have the +1 visibility promotion and the terrain has enough plains/grassland that the movement bonus doesn't kick in that often, then the Warrior can accomplish the same.

I'm not sure if it is clear-cut that 'faster' is even a priority if the odds are going to favor that I am still the *first* to make the same number of discoveries using the Warrior. But my main point is not to suggest that you can think of many reasons why a Scout may have helped you. The point is that given the Scout's benefits are somewhat luck-dependent and the advantages you get from them quickly die off, that it may not be worth it when your other option is less luck-dependent and has longer lasting effects (i.e., I've produced a unit I can upgrade though the entire game).

I don't think anybody will argue that getting turned into an Archer with your first Ruin pop is awesome, but a well-developed strategy has to discount these kinds of random events.

I'm also curious, when would a game *not* turn into a Warrior-rush strategy? Even if I don't plan to attack my own neighbor right away, it seems foolhardy to not prepare some Warriors to watch for the chance that they might be the ones who attack. What are you building that will save you from having 4-5 Warriors attack one of your cities if you don't have your own army to match?

No really "always" is correct. If the movement kicks in at all ever then it was faster, even on Great plains it will kick in once in a while. So it is always faster at revealing the map.

Does this give a large benefit, maybe not, but there are a lot of "luck" related things that you can get from a scout that some of them are guaranteed to happen within in each game. You may not always get an archer upgrade, you may not always get first encounter city states, you may not always get extra ruins, but within each game your scout will always give you at least one of those benefits.

Most importantly, in the games that you do get these benefits you are much better off, and in games were they don't happen, it really didn't hurt you much. Its 5 turns to build a scout.

Re: Warrior rush. It really depends on the map and settings and my plan for the game. I might build a scout and then 1 warrior, and if I still haven't seen any other players then you are probably safe to hold off on warriors and get some tech, maybe go horseman or expand a bit. Maybe you find a natural choke point (thin land on continents, mountains, the center on 4 corners map, etc...) well then you can position a unit in that area and you will have very early warning about an approaching army and then again, you can get away with building less unit since you will be able to swap to unit production if anyone approaches. Again it depends hugely on the map, the settings, if with AI or not and so on, but there a lot of times where you can get away with not building 4-5 warriors right away.

 

[Snapp]

If barbs are on, scout can die quickly if a camp pop another brute before you can make a single move. this usually happens after turn 12. If ruins are enabled and city states as well, scout is the way to go.

Don't move your scout right beside a barb camp and this will never happen. Always move scouts 1 tile at a time, do not send them on long journeys, do not even click 2 tiles away.

 

[E66man]

No really "always" is correct.

It's correct in terms of what you are saying now, yes: indisputably the Scout will reveal tiles faster.

Your original statement however was

You will ALWAYS discover city states faster than otherwise with a scout, you will ALWAYS reveal more terrain faster with a scout.

Speed at revealing tiles I don't care about per se. What I care about is making important discoveries: where are my nearest neighbors, barb camps, ruins, etc.

Since by definition the Scout beats the Warrior at tiles revealed/time, it is then true that the mathematical probability for making discoveries favors the Scout. However, since again by definition this is only 'probable' and not 'certain', the question I'm posing is how many people find this probability tempting enough that they pick the Scout over the longer-term benefits of having made the Warrior. On smaller map types where the total number of discoveries is lower, I'm far from convinced that the Scout is going to find a significantly higher percentage of them than the Warrior. On a duel map with 2 players and 4 City States, given even distributions I think the number of games where the Scout finds 3 first are going to be few. It strikes me a little like playing the lottery: a person might realize that their odds of winning are by definition higher than for the people who never play, but buying the ticket doesn't make them a winner. Likewise, no matter how many Scouts you buy, you can never be positive you still wouldn't have made the same amount of discoveries first via a Warrior, unless you happen to see another player's unit standing by right there.

 

[Tabarnak]

Don't move your scout right beside a barb camp and this will never happen. Always move scouts 1 tile at a time, do not send them on long journeys, do not even click 2 tiles away.

Yes....big lags (someone is quitting...high ping players,etc) are your worst ennemy for moving 1 tile at a time. Move it right at beginning of turn to ensure this correctly.

 

[Snapp]

It's correct in terms of what you are saying now, yes: indisputably the Scout will reveal tiles faster.

Your original statement however was
Speed at revealing tiles I don't care about per se. What I care about is making important discoveries: where are my nearest neighbors, barb camps, ruins, etc.

Since by definition the Scout beats the Warrior at tiles revealed/time, it is then true that the mathematical probability for making discoveries favors the Scout. However, since again by definition this is only 'probable' and not 'certain', the question I'm posing is how many people find this probability tempting enough that they pick the Scout over the longer-term benefits of having made the Warrior. On smaller map types where the total number of discoveries is lower, I'm far from convinced that the Scout is going to find a significantly higher percentage of them than the Warrior. On a duel map with 2 players and 4 City States, given even distributions I think the number of games where the Scout finds 3 first are going to be few. It strikes me a little like playing the lottery: a person might realize that their odds of winning are by definition higher than for the people who never play, but buying the ticket doesn't make them a winner. Likewise, no matter how many Scouts you buy, you can never be positive you still wouldn't have made the same amount of discoveries first via a Warrior, unless you happen to see another player's unit standing by right there.

Well its not exactly something that can be quantified, and it seems no matter how many potential gains you can acquire with faster movement unless they are 100% you will consider them a gamble and not worth it.

IMO, the accumulation of the benefits adds up to a always positive imo.

Also, you'd be surprised how often the scouts additional movement triggers, its not just hills and forests, most of the time the big benefit is for crossing rivers. Even on the great plains maps there are tons of these. Ive been doing the gauntlet egypt on great plains and the scout still gets huge benefits there.

Lets also not forget that the scout is cheaper than the warrior so a 1 to 1 comparision isnt accurate. It also has other uses, it can steal workers and it can win combat when attacking against warriors on flat ground, you can also kill enemy archer units.

If someone offered you a slightly weaker warrior that wasn't inhibited by rough terrain would you take it? Because that is basically what the scout is.

 

[E66man]

Ive been doing the gauntlet egypt on great plains and the scout still gets huge benefits there.

Lets also not forget that the scout is cheaper than the warrior so a 1 to 1 comparision isnt accurate. It also has other uses, it can steal workers and it can win combat when attacking against warriors on flat ground, you can also kill enemy archer units.

If someone offered you a slightly weaker warrior that wasn't inhibited by rough terrain would you take it? Because that is basically what the scout is.

According to the patch notes, every unit is going to have a full upgrade line, so in that light I may find Scouts more worthwhile if I can upgrade them into Swords or Archers. If it turns out that the upgrade line is Archer, then I might even see myself buying 2 early game to get bodies in the field and then doing immediate upgrades... since I am very fond of Archers with no terrain penalties.

However I don't value the terrain thing highly enough that I would take a reduced-strength Warrior to pick up that ability, since my main view is that keeping up your combat power if faced with a competitive human opponent nearly trumps any other concerns. If you get crushed because your enemy had more combat power than you did, nothing else you're attempting to do will have a chance to work.

I'm not sure what gauntlet Egypt is... is that a single player challenge?

 

[Snapp]

Gauntlet is a SP CivFanatics thing, second post down on the homepage.

Current settings are Egypt, King difficulty, Great Plains, must win by conquest.

 

[Tabarnak]

Scouts can be interesting to give you an advantage based on the number of units. Indeed as you know, each unit get +15% if there is an other of your unit next to it. Then as scouts are cheaper than warriors, you can use them to benefit of these 15% really fast.

Scouts can be really good harassers too, stealing worker accross rivers, forest etc..

It looks like that number count more than quality in MP. Scout, as cheaper, are a good unit in that sense.

15% more? You need 2 policies from honor? By that point you can build more powerful units. But i agree for worker steal through rivers, etc. And advantage based on the number of units, what to do with all of them? I mean a single warrior can kill many of them without a need of insta-heal.

If you need more than 3 scouts to kill a single warrior, i dont know what advantage you can really get with so many scouts, except the fact you can explore and get ruins very fast, but with a lack of development because you dont build settlers and/or workers instead.

Can you develop more about your statement?

 

[LordTC]

The 15% Flanking bonus is easier to take advantage of when you have scouts because your scouts can jump through awkward terrain to flank. So it may actually be beneficial to have say 3 warriors and 2 scouts instead of 4 warriors in a combat situation. In all honesty I think there are big issues with simul turns for trying to flank with weak units though!

 

[Tabarnak]

Ok...i miss read the statement. English not my first language, i tought he talked about the adjacent bonus from friendly units and not when units surround ennemy units.

Well now that make sense. But this doesnt seem a bit risky? High production capital may afford it....and you need to find other player fast enough. I guess 1vs1 duel map and no barbs may give the best results. But i might be wrong.

 

[c0rwyn]

how about if you don't have barbs nor ancient ruins enabled?
I personally still like it: gives you the edge by finding the other human player first and also finding the city state generally first (but not all the time)