Scouts...

rsab

Warlord
Joined
Sep 20, 2014
Messages
189
In my games I hardly ever (or never) spend time to build up scouts. I always consider warriors much better option since they're stronger, can face barbarians, and they can feed my cities when killing animals in a close city radius.

Somebody thinks differently? I would like to see if there are good reasons for going for Scouts. Or maybe the warrior-scout decision should be balanced doing some changes.

Also, I'm used to play in the hardest difficult levels. There the AI always starts with warrior + scout? Because AI always has one or a couple of scouts.
 
I think scouts have battle bonus against animals and better result from villages, plus movements 2.
Explorers (4 strength) have even more better results from villages.
Dint cause bad looks from other empire defend forces when valking near their borders? That can lead to negative diplomatic points? Dunno.
But for economical purpose if they survive long i just scrap them or send them do die.
 
I don't build scouts usually, but I'm pretty sure they can go on caravels (which can come in handy), along with the early game village benefits that dretnoth pointed out
 
I don't build scouts usually, but I'm pretty sure they can go on caravels (which can come in handy), along with the early game village benefits that dretnoth pointed out

Yes. Maybe it's the map setup I choice for my games, I'm used to add 4-6 civs more than the suggested for the map size, so when caravels take place on the game there usually remain very few unexplored terrains. I agree that if I choice a setup with vast empty terrain that would give more significance to build scouts.
 
Top Bottom