Screw Scouts - build Warriors

[lilnev]

First build should be a scout. It's done 3 turns sooner, and moves faster (ignoring terrain, including those stupid river crossings). So it will net you about one more hut on average. Totally worth it. Plus you get to start on your second build 3 turns earlier.

After that, though, I don't think I'd build any more. I tried scout-scout once when I had land in three directions and it seemed the AIs were all far away. Even in that situation it may or may not have been worth it. I didn't like delaying the worker that long.

I think scout-worker-warrior will often be correct.

 

[taltamir]

I think scout-worker-warrior will often be correct.

the best second city spot in the nearest AI city to you... conquer conquer conquer. Settlers are for chumps.

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.

Taking out barbarian camps is AWESOME. The money is very useful, as is the appreciation of city states, and sometimes you get workers from the deal (which the barbarians captured), and it stops barbarians from coming into your land and stealing workers / pillaging improvements.

 

[Show]

What the hell are you talking about, archers and scouts dieing to the AI wow you must be blind or ******ed, it's the worst AI out of any civ game , even on diety they are a total joke , there is no way they could possibly kill your units unless you purposefully leave them open. The AI's take on military tactic is archer in front and melee behind, you don't have to do the same.

 

[tibbles]

What difficulty are you playing where you can steamroll AIs with 3-4 warriors? Especially assuming it'll take a few extra turns to locate their cities with warriors instead of a faster scout?

So far I'm liking the scout > worker > ? (usually warrior) order myself.

 

[Surgeon]

Statements like warriors are ALWAYS better than scouts will always be proven wrong.

Personally i get scouts as speed is everythig in getting as many ruins as possible. So what if i lose a scout if it means i got a tech I would otherwise have not received?

 

[heartCORE]

STOP TELLING ME HOW TO PLAY MY GAME!

scout first btw

 

[delra]

Lol people. I am too lazy to quote everyone so here's a bundle of rebuttals for everyone:

- I am not wasting a policy just to make my scouts able to defend themselves against barbarians. I'd rather have warriors who can fight - and some other policy.
- When my scouts are parked on a hill - defending or healing they can't discover sh it, can they?
- 1 more ruin on average? Lol. I'd rather have a unit which I can upgrade to exp-ed healer Samurai in a few turns and use them to harass some poor bastard AI and generate myself some great generals.
- Techs you can receive from ruins are very basic ones, you won't get nukes, rather trapping which will cost you 3 turns of research otherwise. Again, I'd rather have elite infantry throughout the game.
- There's nothing to do with scouts once map is discovered. There's plenty to do with swordsmen. Think long-term.
- There's more loot to gain from barb villages than from ruins because they keep spawning over and over again.

 

[tibbles]

I dunno if there is a cap like in civ4, but it's basically any 1 random tech you can research. I've received Calendar from a ruin. That was ~10 turns saved.

 

[Suolucidir]

This thread is silly. The warrior won't *always* be better than the scout, but the warrior is always a more predictable investment. If you build a scout and get lucky with a weapons upgrade, then you win the gamble. A ranged unit that ignores terrain is just so much win... so much.

 

[Robovski]

If fortune fails to smile upon my scout and I end up with a fully explored map and a scout, the scout is still useful through it's sight range (helping you place your units) and it's movement capabilities (making a nice raider for workers). But this is after a long period of useful exploration, not only uncovering the map, but meeting the city-states (remember, being first =x2 gold) cashing in ruins and picking off plenty of targets of opportunity (I've killed loads of barbarians with my scouts - all the easier with honor which is just generally useful anyway). Being first is important, and the scout is built faster and moves faster through terrain.

 

[_hero_]

Last game when I was playing China and my scout got twice upgraded to a Cho Ko Nu I was quite pleased to have built it. Far superior to a warrior in that scenario. There is a time and purpose for everything.

 

[delra]

Wasting shields on an odd chance of getting a calendar or the chu-ko-no expoit doesn't convince me at all. That's one game out of twenty meanin 19 times you will end up with a worthless unit.

Maybe if they could upgrade to archers via money allowing for some awesome trait inheritance it'd be worth considering. But since they are a dead-end and since they are pointless 30 turns into the game when all ruins are typically snatched on a busy map - and the map itself is swarming with barbs by then preventing fast-paced exploration.

 

[Martin Alvito]

The warrior won't *always* be better than the scout, but the warrior is always a more predictable investment.

Pretty much says what needs to be said. The Warrior/Archer debate isn't dissimilar, though you have more control over outcomes. The Archer is a predictable source of DPS. The risk/reward situation for a Warrior is unknown until you see the enemy's formation, but if you play defense actively you will almost always get more damage for your Hammer investment.

 

[Show]

Wasting shields on an odd chance of getting a calendar or the chu-ko-no expoit doesn't convince me at all. That's one game out of twenty meanin 19 times you will end up with a worthless unit.

Maybe if they could upgrade to archers via money allowing for some awesome trait inheritance it'd be worth considering. But since they are a dead-end and since they are pointless 30 turns into the game when all ruins are typically snatched on a busy map - and the map itself is swarming with barbs by then preventing fast-paced exploration.

For china, 1 upgrade is already enough to make it worthwhile, an archer that can be upgraded later is worth more than a warrior. And I doubt the chances of an upgrade par game are as low as 1/20.

 

[JudgeDeath]

Seems the arguments change when rebutted.

I build one scout for early exploration. In two games (Prince/King) neither scout was killed. Once he got upgraded to Archer (and then you can upgrade further). Don't forget that you can get bonuses against Barbarians, and not just through Policies, and even without that, fortify in a wood and then take out the remaining barbs next round - they usually attack.

The Scout gets more Gold from City States, more ruins, and is useful in providing a fast moving unit to get flanking attacks and as a means from keeping Barbarians spawning. They're useful way beyond the early game.

 

[Syiss_]

Wasting shields on an odd chance of getting a calendar or the chu-ko-no expoit doesn't convince me at all. That's one game out of twenty meanin 19 times you will end up with a worthless unit.

Maybe if they could upgrade to archers via money allowing for some awesome trait inheritance it'd be worth considering. But since they are a dead-end and since they are pointless 30 turns into the game when all ruins are typically snatched on a busy map - and the map itself is swarming with barbs by then preventing fast-paced exploration.

Scouts aren't just for getting good goody huts. They will meet city states and other AI's much quicker as well. Personally I find it incredibly stupid to have a warrior running around the continent or pangaea having all sorts of trouble with terrain penalties and other AI units getting in his way trying to meet all the city states and civs. City states are free gold, and 15-30 gold early is very nice. Meeting AI's is important so you know where they are (helps predict where they are going to settle), you know who you are up against, and you can start trading with them ASAP (open borders can be sold for 50 gold every 30 turns to any AI who doesn't have a beef with you, and resources can be sold for 300). A scout can take out a barb settlement if its not on a hill or forest (or if the defending barb has been injured already, which is quite often), and a scout upgraded to an archer is IMMENSELY more efficient at taking out barbs and barb camps than a warrior or spearman is, and can do it with little to no risk.

To the guy spamming the thread with "warrior first go conquer everyone" nonsense, please stop. We get it, you like to warmonger, and on lower levels yes, 3 warriors can take out an enemy civ early on. However, warmongering isnt the only way to play the game. Also, on higher difficulty levels, 3-4 warriors wont do the job without using multiple promotions on healing, or the rare instances where the AI has all his units away from the city.

 

[agentkirb]

It's kind of hard to compare the two classes when they both do completely different things.

Scouts vs Warriors
-------------------
destroying barbarian camps: Warriors obviously can more directly deal with Barbarian camps, but with a scout you will certainly find them faster. And in my experience, I've never had a scout die to barb attacks unless I walk right up to one (which would be stupid to do).

exploring: The Scout's one undeniable advantage over the Warrior. Being faster means finding ruins a few turns early, unveiling more of the map, running into new Civs earlier (and trading luxuries), running into new city states, finding natural landmarks. And you probably wont run out of land to explore for awhile, making the scout a viable unit for a long period of time.

combat: Warriors are the better combat unit, but that doesn't mean scouts are completely useless. You can take out enemy archers pretty easily with a scout (and being faster means you have more reach to do so), and they do a fine job at sniping workers as well.

Conclusion: there really isn't a conclusion. No one is saying that Scouts are better units, just that they have a purpose in the game. Personally my first move is to make a scout and then use both it and the warrior to explore. Ok... maybe you cant build a scout and then go out and conquer an early enemy with them, but there is more than one way to win the game.

 

[JanissaryRush]

The purpose of scouts, is to scout. If you want a unit who's main purpose is to get ruins, explorer and find other city states then build one. They are able to do well in combat against barbarians.

If you want one to just check the surrounding areas and then stay to defend and possibly rush then a warrior is the way to go.

On bigger maps scouts would definitely be worth it and you won't be attacked quite as early. On small ones they usually aren't.

 

[esnoeijs]

In my experience the chance of your scout finding a tech upgrade hut is near to 1. It is a very common find, in the 5 games I've started my scout was always able to find at least one tech upgrade.

 

[Blue Oyster]

It seems to me the answer is, "It depends." It depends on the level of difficulty, the size of the map, the player's predilections and style, and the leader you are playing. Each unit, warrior or scout, has its strengths and weaknesses. These are mitigated and magnified by the other factors.