Here's a hint: Don't build scouts early on, build a Warrior. Why? Warrior can defend himself and can clear Barb camps for extra gold and safety while Scouts are likely to die fast. Then when you get Iron, you can send your Warriors back home and turn them into badass experienced Swordsmen if need be - while Scouts can't be upgraded and even if you keep them alive are wasted experience points. Warriors don't explore that fast so you might be late for some ruins - but there's no assurance of being faster to ruins with Scouts either - and even if you lose the race you still will win prizes in cash and experience.
Screw Scouts - build Warriors
- Thread starter delra
- Start date
Martin Alvito
Real men play SMAC
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2010
- Messages
- 2,332
Not so much. The thing about a Scout is that it can clear rough terrain without movement penalties. You will consistently get more huts with a Scout than a Warrior, as it deploys faster and can get to places a Warrior cannot reach.
Unfortunately, it's a serious military liability unless you manage to hit an upgrade hut that transforms it into a fast-travel Archer.
Unfortunately, it's a serious military liability unless you manage to hit an upgrade hut that transforms it into a fast-travel Archer.
scouts are totally worthless... I agree, build warriors instead.
Also, instead of a scout and a settler you can build 3 warriors... along with your initial warrior thats 4 warriors. Just enough to conquer an early game city... start conquering RIGHT AWAY. Plus you can use said warriors to STEAL workers from neighbors.
Archers also suck btw. build more warriors... horse mounted units are good early on for their speed, but are weaker... they should be used for stealing workers and scouting and the like.
Majority of army is:
warriors, upgrade to Swordsman, upgrade to longswordsman, upgrade to infantry, upgrade to mechanized infantry.
If you conquer conquer conquer right away (by building 3 warriors as soon as the game starts and never stopping), you will be way ahead technologically (until very late in the game where you get university, your research is population dependent, grab cities)... anyways, you should be 1 or two tech levels ahead of the enemy with the above list. Meaning you can steamroll through them and conquer the world.
Also, instead of a scout and a settler you can build 3 warriors... along with your initial warrior thats 4 warriors. Just enough to conquer an early game city... start conquering RIGHT AWAY. Plus you can use said warriors to STEAL workers from neighbors.
Archers also suck btw. build more warriors... horse mounted units are good early on for their speed, but are weaker... they should be used for stealing workers and scouting and the like.
Majority of army is:
warriors, upgrade to Swordsman, upgrade to longswordsman, upgrade to infantry, upgrade to mechanized infantry.
If you conquer conquer conquer right away (by building 3 warriors as soon as the game starts and never stopping), you will be way ahead technologically (until very late in the game where you get university, your research is population dependent, grab cities)... anyways, you should be 1 or two tech levels ahead of the enemy with the above list. Meaning you can steamroll through them and conquer the world.
Ahriman
Tyrant
Except, a scout can explore much faster, and will net you more ancient ruins with high probability, and has the possibility of upgrading into an archer, which is massively more useful than an early spearman.
It is very hard to have an efficient exploration pattern with a warrior that will never get held up by rough terrain or rivers.
A scout can be kept alive without too much difficulty, and can still destroy a barbarian warrior on open terrain. And a scout with the upgraded sight promotion remains useful for a long time as a spotter, letting you optimize your unit placement knowing exactly where the AI will and will not be able to reach.
*edit*
To those above: a scout will be at least as effective at stealing a worker, and archers do not at all suck. They let you get kills without taking damage (or while taking minimal damage). 2 warriors + archer is waaaay more effective than 3 warriors (or 2 warriors and a spearman).
And a scout is only 25 hammers.
It is very hard to have an efficient exploration pattern with a warrior that will never get held up by rough terrain or rivers.
A scout can be kept alive without too much difficulty, and can still destroy a barbarian warrior on open terrain. And a scout with the upgraded sight promotion remains useful for a long time as a spotter, letting you optimize your unit placement knowing exactly where the AI will and will not be able to reach.
*edit*
To those above: a scout will be at least as effective at stealing a worker, and archers do not at all suck. They let you get kills without taking damage (or while taking minimal damage). 2 warriors + archer is waaaay more effective than 3 warriors (or 2 warriors and a spearman).
And a scout is only 25 hammers.
ThorRex
Chieftain
I am having some luck with using one scout for ruins and meeting city states. They are cheaper to build. Warriors can then close on the camps. I never built scouts in civ 4. I am trying one scout as the first build now.
An archer is much more expensive than a warrior. 70 hammers vs 40. An archer does the same damage without getting hit back, but is instantly killed if attacked... While a mixed archer + warrior attack where placement matters would have been ideal, it is far superior to get your 1.75 warriors per archer instead. Since they do the same amount of damage (str 6 warrior, ranged attack 6 archer), any damage they take is quickly healed by pressing H.
Spiceweasel
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2007
- Messages
- 150
I disagree. Scouts are much better in civ5 than civ4. I wouldn't build an army out of them entirely, but they certainly have their uses.
The ability to ignore all terrain is handy. They aren't hard to keep alive if you're careful about avoiding clear land. Their promotions make them more useful for what they do (healing, vision). With the right techs, they can cross water on their own and explore other landmasses.
And given the importance of natural wonders and luxury resource trades, exploring the world thoroughly is more important than in past Civ games.
Also, some goody huts can turn your scout into a combat unit who retains his movement perk. It was really handy to have a commando unit like that in my last game.
The ability to ignore all terrain is handy. They aren't hard to keep alive if you're careful about avoiding clear land. Their promotions make them more useful for what they do (healing, vision). With the right techs, they can cross water on their own and explore other landmasses.
And given the importance of natural wonders and luxury resource trades, exploring the world thoroughly is more important than in past Civ games.
Also, some goody huts can turn your scout into a combat unit who retains his movement perk. It was really handy to have a commando unit like that in my last game.
Ahriman
Tyrant
Not when it comes from a 25 hammer scout being upgraded for free from a city ruins it isnt'.
So, protect it. Duh.
Maintenance costs, limited space, healing takes time. Better to fortify the warriors, make the enemy come at you and destroy them with ranged fire while taking minimal damage, then on to the next target.
Also, if you attack an enemy unit on rough ground, you take a ton of damage, and if you attack it on open ground, you risk being destroyed on the next turn if there is another unit nearby.
Whereas with ranged fire, you never have to expose yourself.
Healing takes *many* turns when outside friendly borders.
^This.
And if anything, I've actually been impressed with scouts in battle. They actually survive and even win some of the time.
every single one of those, with the exception of "ignore all terrain", is also available to a warrior...
And if you MANUALLY explore with your warrior you can cover good ground by simply avoiding rough terrain when you explore.
Waste of an upgrade.
Sounds like the strategy of someone who uses inferior forces... It is better to go out there because you conquer FASTER... conquering faster = depriving the enemy of the benefit earlier, and reaping the rewards faster... conquer fast enough and your science production is much higher (early on science = population). Which means you develop superior techs... then you can fight the enemy's warriors and archers with swordsman, and later with longswordsman... if you are doing awesaomely enough I have even sweeped through ranks of warriors and crossbowmen with mechanized infantry due to a large enough science gap.
Thats why you bring enough to conquer the city you are besieging... A heavily wounded warrior is withdrawn to your own territory to heal, but pretty soon you have enough to conquer in a turn or two and heal on your newly conquered city.
Warrior has 10 health. Healing is:
+1 basic
+1 from being in territory
+1 from being on city
+1 from healer upgrade.
With sufficient fighting my fighters typically have healing upgrade (as well as +25% against cities upgrade, and 1 to 3 ranks EACH of shock and drill).
it is so effective that I don't even bother using great generals, I immediately burn them for golden ages to produce more warriors, more buildings, more money, and eventually tech up faster (much faster).
You have strange ways of defining value, then. A warrior getting upgraded to a spearman isn't nearly as valuable as a scout getting upgraded to an archer.
I think your hatred of every unit besides the warrior is coloring your reasoning a bit
SomethingWitty
Prince
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2005
- Messages
- 533
Build scouts. Then, when they uncover that ruin that gives you enough culture for a policy, take honor so they can defend themselves.
You have strange ways of defining value, then. A warrior getting upgraded to a spearman isn't nearly as valuable as a scout getting upgraded to an archer.
I think your hatred of every unit besides the warrior is coloring your reasoning a bit
I don't HATE those... warrior is the shittiest of the VIABLE units... the viable frontline units are warrior, swordsman, longswordsman, infanty, and mechanized infantry.
With viable support units being the various horse riders.
While spearmen are generally not worth building, they ARE doing more damage than warrior OR archer per one attack. As both archers and warriors are STR6 and they are tech 7...
I used to originally have mixed armies of warriors and archers but I simply stopped.. I HAD to as I got to higher difficulty levels.
If anything, I am biased TOWARDS archers, I like the idea of having archers very VERY much... I WANT an army of archers killing the enemy from afar. But I have overcome my bias and have impartially determined that they are totally not worth it.
I absolutely build a warrior over a scout every game. The reason being that I turn off ancient ruins, so scouts are nigh useless. I am not a fan of having a rifleman in the BC's. I will gladly turn ancient ruins back on once they fix the weapons upgrade bug.
Kaleidoscope182
Chieftain
- Joined
- May 1, 2008
- Messages
- 6
Then warrior > spearman is better ? lmao
Ahriman
Tyrant
Warrior can't get +1 sight range at level 2.
Warriors can't transform into an archer.
And warriors don't get ignore terrain.
Yes, other than that, warriors are better... but "other than higher strength", scouts are better.
Wha...?
Archers that can ignore terrain restrictions are *awesome*.
You mean, the strategy of someone who understands opportunity costs (building 3 warriors takes a long time), and likes efficiency (archers are very efficient, because you dont' have to risk losing units, and you dont' have to spend time healing).
But you *don't* conquer faster when you have to spend a long time healing.
Healer upgrade requires ~level 4, and sacrifices a combat promotion.
Territory/city work only in a few places, don't help you at all out in the wild.
But taking the healing promotion for the scout isn't really worth it.
If you turn off ruins, then I agree that a scout probably isn't worth it.
you are right about that one.
But the claim was that scouts can also traverse water "with the right upgrades" (warriors can to, its the exact same upgrade), and that they can "heal" with the right upgrades, warriors can too...
Hilarious! the only cheaper unit is the scout.
Even funnier! Archers are much more expensive, and because of that you risk MORE. You are much more likely to lose units with an inferior force. And its better to waste a few turns healing in a freshly conquered city then it is to waste time not conquering cities (and losing units)
Healer is far superior to Drill 3 or Shock 3. In either case you cannot take the GOOD upgrade of bonus vs city, you are stuck with upgrades only vs units... which are not a threat to you anyways.
What the heck is your warrior doing in the wild? it should be conquering cities alongside your other warriors, then healing in their (now your) territory
You can choose to believe in this. But I tried it both ways and I conquered much faster without archers.
sleepingbear
Warlord
- Joined
- Aug 18, 2008
- Messages
- 104
Scouts die fast against barbs? Not if you use them smart. I generally get at least one scout up to level 3 (+1 move; +1 sight) I find them every helpful to keep behind lines in a battle. When I have a front with several units attacking/being attack it is nice to have a small, fast attacker to finish of an enemy unit that may be in a spot I don't want them.
I'm curious what everyone's doing that leads to their Scouts getting killed by Brutes. Since you can ignore terrain penalties, you can easily run over to the nearest wooded hill, park there, and let the Brutes smash themselves against your now-higher strength. If you can draw them into flatland, even better; even with no other modifiers, you're attacking at equal strengths (6*.66=4).
You can't take encampments with any frequency (maybe one or two a game), but I'm glad to spend the 25 hammers to find the best second/third city spots and beat up a few Brutes.
You can't take encampments with any frequency (maybe one or two a game), but I'm glad to spend the 25 hammers to find the best second/third city spots and beat up a few Brutes.
